Lords Sitting of 27 October 1975

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

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN
The Right Honourable Sir Charles Ritchie Russell, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Russell of Killowen, of Killowen in the County of Down—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wilberforce and the Lord Cross of Chelsea.

NORTH LONDON POLYTECHNIC PROCEEDINGS
2.47 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: 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 the proceedings at the Polytechnic of North London, as recorded
2
in the recently published book Rape of Reason, have been brought to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and, if not, why not.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the Attorney General has referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions an allegation of misuse of public funds by the Students' Union of the North London Polytechnic, and a police investigation is in progress. In this context, the investigating officer has been made aware of the publication of the book Rape of Reason.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is certainly satisfactory so far as it goes. But may I ask whether there are any general legal means of preventing the virtual takeover of our seats of learning by small groups of alleged Marxists employing what amount to tactics of organised terrorism and general thuggery?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, in the light of the investigation which is now proceeding, I do not think that it is appropriate to make any further comment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we on these Benches also share the view which has just been expressed, and will he agree that those who use force to silence the voice of reason are the enemies alike of democracy and this nation?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have taken note of what the noble Lord has said.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the newspaper reports, that this same kind of trouble is now also prevalent in the South Bank Polytechnic are true?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have seen the same Press reports, but that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the number of institutions of higher education where there has been any takeover, or any threat of takeover, is a minute percentage of the total number of institutions?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that is a rather wider point than the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, are there not two quite separate questions here? The first deals with the proper use of funds which are in the hands of the students' union, and obviously one can make no comment about that so long as it is under investigation. The other relates to allegations contained in this book of criminal damage, unlawful detention and general disorder, which seems to be quite separate from the question of funds. May I ask whether it is contemplated that these matters should also be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and, if not, why not?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have endeavoured to point out that the police officer who is conducting this investigation has had this book drawn specifically to his attention.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at this stage we should wait until the investigation has taken place, before seeking to make further observations on the merits or demerits of the case?
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that actions of this kind by small minorities, if they turn out to be true, can be infectious, and that it is important to look at this matter more generally?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that the investigator is investigating matters other than the misuse of funds?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords. I pointed out that a specific allegation of the misuse of public funds has been drawn to the attention of the investigating officer, and so has the book.
The Earl of ONSLOW:My Lords, is it not alleged in the book that students climbed on to the roof of the building, tore pieces away from the roof, put a loud hailer through it and shouted things down through the loud hailer? In The Times there was a report of what they shouted, but I would hesitate to repeat it in this House. Is this not something that the Director of Public Prosecutions should urgently look into?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, any specific allegation of a criminal character will be looked into. I appeal to anyone who has such information to draw it to the attention of the police.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it would be wise if his right honourable friend the Secretary of State could have a word with the chairman of the Inner London Education Authority, who might represent to the chairman of the Court of Governors the need for firm action in this matter, and for not sweeping affairs under the carpet?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said.

DIEGO GARCIA
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: 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 justification can be given for increasing tensions in the Indian Ocean by leasing Diego Garcia to the United States of America and why the British public have been kept in ignorance of both the manner and extent of this transaction.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Diego Garcia has not been leased to the United States Government. The status of the island and the scope of the communications facility there are clearly defined in the British India Ocean Territory Agreement in 1966 and the Diego Garcia Agreement of 1972, both of which were published at the time.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, that being so, there is an even stronger obligation on our own Government to make sure that détente is a reality in the Indian Ocean? Could my noble friend tell me whether, before the local inhabitants were forcibly removed from the island in 1971, any British or Anglo-American approach was made to the Soviet Union, making proposals that would lead to a lessening of each of their defensive preparations in the Indian Ocean?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS:My Lords, without notice, I cannot recall what diplomatic approaches at these levels were made in the years preceding 1965, but I quite agree that this is an important point. On the first point, the need for détente in the Indian Ocean, we strongly support the Australian proposal that a first and very big step for the creation of a free zone in this ocean would be if the two super-Powers were to agree to a diminution of their presence in the area. We think this is the best way to go about it. I repeat, we strongly support the Australian initiative on this matter.
My Lords, as to the second point raised by my noble friend, I must repeat that the inhabitants of Diego Garcia and the other islands involved were not forcibly removed. They left, a few of them reluctantly; but the very great majority of them saw that their future lay outside Diego Garcia and the islands. I agree with my noble friend that the very generous donation which we made soon after their movement to other islands should by now have been put to more effective use. Therefore, we very greatly welcome the invitation to us from the Mauritian Government to follow up our generous donation with an equally generous provision of expertise, in order
6
to devise an acceptable scheme of settlement for these islanders.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister accept that there must be many people on both sides of the House who think that in the present circumstances the American presence, or, indeed, the British presence, in the Indian Ocean does not lead to tension, but rather to reassurance?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there must be many people who have that opinion. There must be many people who know—it is a matter of public knowledge—that there are substantial naval installations, including nuclear storage facilities, in various parts of the littoral of this ocean; but I will not follow that point at the moment. We are all anxious that there should be effective détente; but détente, like disarmament, cannot be a one-sided affair.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I take it from the reply of my noble friend the Minister that if some of the inhabitants had chosen to remain on the island, they would still have been allowed to do so?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, I am afraid not. The purpose of setting up the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965, with the agreement of the Seychelles and the Mauritius Government, was to create a facility for general Anglo-American defence. Consequently, it was understood at the time and, indeed, it was public knowlege at the time, that there would need to be removal and rehabilitation of the islanders. A great many of them saw their immediate and long-term future in such a movement. The nub of the question we are discussing is that a resettlement scheme has not yet been effectively devised. I am quite sure that then, as now, the overwhelming majority of the islanders would prefer a more settled, a more assured, economic existence outside those rather impoverished islands.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I say that I have no more desire than, I think, any other Member of this House, to see Soviet domination of the Indian Ocean. But would my noble friend the Minister agree that a

7
little more diplomacy, a little more consultation with the general public about what is going on, would be helpful? Is it not rather playing with words to say that the local inhabitants were not forced to leave the island, and then to say that none of the local inhabitants was allowed to remain?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do my best. My noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge perhaps has a better command of the English language than I. But looking at the facts objectively, this is a collection of islands which for many years has not had anything like a settled community life, let alone an assured economic existence for the hundreds of people who have migrated there, for the most part as contract labour. It is no new fact in the history of these islands that they should be practically depopulated from time to time. I repeat that the real purpose of the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to see that these unfortunate people are given proper rehabilitation. The money is there, and now the expertise from Britain is available. I entirely accept the assurance of my noble friend that, of course, in the broad interests of humanity, she is in favour of détente, and not in favour of one super-Power or another.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the exchange we had on this subject last week and the interest now shown, and also the disturbing statements made in Washington since our last discussion, may I ask whether, in the new Session, Her Majesty's Government will facilitate an early debate on this issue, which cannot be discussed by Questions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS:My Lords, of course it is for the House to indicate whether it wants an extended debate on a subject which, I think, has been fairly exhaustively examined in the last few weeks. I have a copy of the report which the American Administration has made available to Congress. Quite frankly, I cannot see that that report bears the construction placed upon it in certain publications in this country, or in certain ejaculations made by certain American senators.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what his information is
8
with regard to the possible establishment of a Soviet base on the island of Socotra?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not without notice, my Lords; and I am not sure even then.

WINDSCREENS AND LAMINATED GLASS
3 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 any discussions have taken place between the responsible Government Department and motor car manufacturers to provide laminated glass in order to reduce the effect of accidents.
Lord MELCHETT:My Lords, motor car manufacturers in Great Britain are required by law to provide safety glass in windscreens but they are free to use either laminated or toughened glass to do so. They are kept informed of Government intentions and of progress in relevant inter-Governmental negotiations by means of regular consultations between the Department of the Environment, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and representatives of the glass industry.
Lord SHIN WELL:My Lords, is my noble friend aware that research has demonstrated that the use of laminated glass in preference to other materials minimises the effect of accidents? Will he also take note of the fact that the EEC countries, with the sole exception of the United Kingdom, endorse the use of laminated glass and can he explain why there is this exception? Can he also say whether the motor car manufacturers. having been consulted about the use of laminated glass in preference to other materials, have declined to endorse the use of it because of the expense involved?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, to take the second and third questions first, I think my noble friend has obtained his information from a television programme. If I may say so, it was an unfortunate source to choose, because he is wrong on both counts. It is not true to say that

9
the United Kingdom is the only member of the EEC who stood out against the Directive. In fact, the majority of the Member countries of the EEC shared our view that the Directive should not be adopted. Secondly, my noble friend said that the motor car manufacturers are against the adoption of laminated glass for windscreens. That is not true either. As for the question of research, my advice is that at the moment the results we have are inconclusive. One of the problems is, of course, that very few cars in this country have laminated glass windscreens, and therefore it is difficult to get a representative sample in any statistical examination of the injuries caused in accidents.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, as it seems that all the points I have made are untrue, in the opinion of my noble friend, can he say whether the research that is now being conducted will take a long time, and whether it will be at the discretion of the motor car manufacturers and not at the discretion of the Government?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, research is conducted by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, and has absolutely no connection with motor car manufacturers. My understanding is that the manufacturers have no strong views either way about the introduction of laminated windscreens. I have spoken to my right honourable friend about this subject, and I understand that he intends to ask the Department to look into the research which is being conducted in other countries where the use of laminated windscreens is widespread.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that there are two types of laminated glass. The one that is used in this country is the thin laminated glass, and this is the one that has been investigated by the Road Research Laboratory relative to toughened glass. Will he also agree that the laminated glass used in America, which has been suggested for Europe, is twice the thickness of the laminated glass used in this country and that there is no doubt at all, on all the evidence available, that it is far superior to toughened glass and ought to be used in the interests of safety?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am glad that somebody has asked me that question. In fact, there are four types of laminated glass. There are 15 thousandths or 30 thousandths, which are the two types normally used in this country, and an intermediate stage, 20 thousandths, which I understand the Italians use, as well as a new British version called 10/20. It is because of the development of this latter version of laminated glass, which I understand at the moment has distinct possibilities, that my right honourable friend is asking for this investigation and research to be carried out. The problem is that if one is to make it a legal requirement that all cars shall have a certain sort of windscreen and say that drivers will be committing a criminal offence if they do not have it, we ought to have very clear evidence that injuries will be reduced. But as we have seen in regard to seat belts, opinions differ.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been formed this year in this country an association of the vast majority of people concerned in the glass industry, called the Safety Glazing Association, known as the SGA, of which I have the honour to be the honorary president? We are hoping and endeavouring to provide a code setting out the right material to use in the right place and at the right time, and I ask the Minister whether he is aware that we hope our expert advice, coming as it does from all the major manufacturers and distributors, will be sought on this problem, because we have advice to give.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord upon his important appointment and I look forward with eager anticipation to any advice he can give me.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, on a point of information may I ask the Minister this? Like my noble friend Lord Shinwell, I imagine, I, too, saw that television programme. Does the Minister know whether any correction was given to the broadcasting company, if they broadcast all this wrong information—because, as I understand it, this is normally done on the ensuing day—and is he aware that it must have disturbed a great many people?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not know whether a correction was given, but I will certainly look into that point. I imagine that if Government Departments were to issue corrections every time facts were misrepresented, we should do nothing else.
The Earl of DENBIGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether injuries to occupants of motor vehicles who go through windscreens made of laminated glass are far more severe than when safety glass is used? Secondly, if laminated glass were to be introduced, would he also introduce the compulsory use of seat belts?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it is certainly the case that all injuries caused by windscreens would be lessened if people wore seat belts, just as all injuries in accidents would be reduced if people were to wear seat belts. There is no doubt that wearing seat belts is the most important thing anybody can do. But my information is that, in general, the occupant does not go through a laminated glass windscreen the glass bulges and stops the person going through it. It is when toughened glass is used that the occupants are likely to be thrown through the windscreen. But I imagine that if anybody hit a laminated windscreen hard enough to go through it, then he would receive serious injuries.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would be kind enough to withdraw any reflection on my conduct in having looked at a television programme?

ENERGY AND RAW MATERIALS CONFERENCE
3.8 p.m.
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 what conclusions were reached at the Paris preparatory meeting for the proposed Summit conference on energy and raw materials.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the preparatory meeting reached agreement on arrangements for a
12
Ministerial level Conference on International Co-operation, to take place in Paris from 16th December. I am arranging for a copy of the final declaration adopted by the preparatory meeting to be placed in the Library of this House.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that there was a serious difference of opinion about British representation at the Summit, and whether this may threaten the meeting of the Summit itself? Will Her Majesty's Government consider a proposal to enlarge the representation all round? Even if this meant delay, it would be better than a repetition of the April failure.
Lord GORONWY-R0BERTS: My Lords, I do not think the success of the Summit will be endangered by disagreements at this stage. Apart from representation, this is essentially a procedural issue. We hope and expect that there will be agreement on this point before the December Ministerial meeting, leading to the success of the Summit. As to the specific proposal made by my noble friend, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will be glad to consider it, and indeed any other proposal leading to an agreement with our friends in the Community.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that only 20 days are now available for a decision to be reached between the British Government and the EEC upon this matter? Is it not also the case that at present those differences are very serious, and that if they are allowed to continue the Conference in December may be endangered?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords I think it is a longer period than 20 days. The Ministerial Conference will he held on the 16th December, which means that between now and then we shall of course be talking to our friends and partners in the Community, seeking a Community mandate which, in turn, will have proper regard for British interests.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what vital British interests would be secured or protected by separate representation which could not equally well be secured and safeguarded if we

13
were not separately represented at this conference?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, without attempting to engage in, not a mini-debate but an elongated debate, on the large question which the noble Lord has raised, may I say that there are, of course, British interests involved here. We have a two-fold objective, as the Foreign Secretary explained in another place; that is, to see that British interests, particularly perhaps in regard to energy, are properly put forward and protected, and also to ensure the success of the conference. We hope and expect that this two-fold objective will be achieved. Between now and the Ministerial meeting on 16th December there will, of course, be discussions leading, as we expect, to agreement.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, if there really are serious differences between the people who are to take part in this conference, it would perhaps be better that it should be put off or that it should wait until agreement has been reached?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords; I think we should persist with this Summit. It is a very valuable suggestion from the French President that not only the rest of the Community but very many countries in the developing world have welcomed. We will do our best to make it a success. However, I take the point implicit in the suggestion by the noble Baroness; namely, that it would be helpful to get a European mandate on these matters within which national considerations are properly protected. We are naturally concerned about our position on oil. All countries seem to have a problem of (shall we say?) liquidity; if it is not oil perhaps it is wine.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to see me rise in my place in order to point out that Questions have been going on for 26 minutes?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not in the British interest to keep oil prices high, as we have borrowed so much money on North Sea oil? If, by chance, the OPEC cartel collapsed and oil prices went down—as perhaps they should do in a slump—North Sea oil would be valueless.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if the noble Earl means that we should prudently gear our price system to our amortisation policy, the answer is, yes, of course.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is very widespread sympathy with the attitude of the Government towards this matter of securing separate representation from this country, which, after all, is in conformity with pledges given by the Foreign Secretary in the course of the Referendum campaign, and which is expressly referred to in the Government White Paper following the renegotiations in Dublin? Is he further aware that it might be highly inimical to British interests if she were not separately represented prior to a common energy policy being achieved?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend is a member of the European Parliament. I do not know whether he had been appointed in time to be present when no less a person than M. Simonet spoke on very similar lines, giving assurances equal to those quoted by my noble friend.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware what evidence is available to any of my noble friends who are pursuing this Question that increasing the number attending the Summit Conference would be a better means of reaching a settlement than the form of representation already agreed for attendance at that Summit Conference?

PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
3.15 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Balogh.
Moved, That the Amendments for the Report stage of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order, vizt:—

Clauses 1 to 17,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 41 to 44,

Clauses 18 to 20,

15

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 21 to 26,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 27 to 40,

Clauses 45 to 50.—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
3.15 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Schedule 4 [Acquisition and appropriation of land]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 59D:
Page 57, line 41, at end insert—
" ( ) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 59D. This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which I moved at the very end of our last Sitting on Friday. I would not normally speak to it at all because the point at issue has already been debated and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. However, on looking further at this matter over the weekend I realised that I had made a drafting error in the Amendment that we debated, No. 59C, in that I had suggested that it ought to be introduced at page 57, line 33, when it should have been introduced at page 57, line 46. I apologise for this mistake, which I think is due to working on these things at the end of a very long day and well into the night. It means that Amendment No. 59D should also be page 57, line 46. I
16
will put down an Amendment on Report to correct this. The point is that both Amendments should apply to paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 and not to paragraph 3(4).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 591:
Page 58, line 16, leave out ("occupier of") and insert ("freeholder, occupier or any other person having a material interest in").
The noble Earl said: This is a simple Amendment, which I hope the Government may consider favourably. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 concerns the service of notice of a compulsory purchase order upon the "occupier" of the property. I am not sure whether only the occupier should be served with the notice. The kind of case which my Amendment is designed to cover includes those who are serving in the Armed Services or the Foreign Office, and are abroad—
Lord MELCHETT: I am finding it terribly difficult to hear the noble Earl because of his position in relation to the microphone.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I will move forward in the hope that I shall be a little clearer. I was saying that this paragraph deals with the compulsory purchase order notice being served upon the occupier, and the purpose of this Amendment is to strike out "occupier" and insert the words "freeholder, ocupier or any other person having a material interest in" the land. I do not think it needs any further explanation. The purpose of this is to cover those who are perhaps serving abroad and who are the freeholders and not the occupiers at that moment. I beg to move.
3.20 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: It may help if I briefly review the history of this provision as it is now in the Bill. The original reserve procedure, as introduced at the Committee stage in another place, contained no special provision for residential occupiers. It was suggested by the Opposition in another place that if an owner-occupier would lose his or her home under the reserve powers, if the compulsory purchase order were approved, then the owner-occupier ought to have special treatment under the reserve powers. The Government accepted this point, and in

17
introducing an Amendment at Report stage in another place went further and extended the treatment to all residential occupiers. In other words, anyone whose home was the subject of a compulsory purchase order under the reserve powers would have special treatment—the right to a public inquiry. But this special treatment was accorded only because it was the person's home.
The noble Earl's Amendment makes a subtle shift from "home" to "house". If it were accepted, anyone with a material interest in a house—the absentee landlord just as much as the occupier—would have a right to a public inquiry. The effect would be that we should have moved right away from the original concept which gave rise to the Amendment in another place, the special position of house-occupiers. Instead, we should now have a right for anyone with an interest in property to have a public inquiry, precisely the situation that the procedure was designed to get away from. Unlike the case of the residential occupier, there is in our view no reason, given the general philosophy of the reserve powers, for special treatment for non-residential house owners.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that explanation. May I put one point to the noble Lord? If an owner-occupier of a house is serving in the Armed Forces and serving abroad for, say, two years, and during that period the property is deemed to be development land, which we are talking about, would I be right in saying that as he has then let his property to what now becomes the occupier he would not receive notice although he is the freeholder, and although he is away for only a short period? That is the purpose of my Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I have explained that the Amendment goes considerably wider than the case of someone serving in the Armed Forces overseas. On that point I should like to take further advice, and possibly I could communicate with the noble Earl before the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful for that undertaking, and happy to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.24 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 59F:
Page 58, line 40, at end insert—
" .Where an owner, lessee, or occupier of land comprised in an order made under this Act has made and not withdrawn an objection to such order, he shall be entitled to legal assistance and representation under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1974 for the purpose of making representations at any public local inquiry held for the purpose of considering such objection."
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this is an Amendment which the Government will feel able to accept. Unlike most of the other Amendments to Schedule 4, this is one which is almost self-explanatory, and its purpose briefly is to give an objector at a public inquiry the right to legal aid. We have heard at different times in the course of the debate the kind of professional advice that someone concerned with this Bill may need, but at least he would require the services of a solicitor, probably a chartered surveyor, and quite probably a barrister. It would be readily apparent to anybody who has listened to these proceedings at all that if one has a knowledgeable barrister by one's side one understands the working of this Act considerably better than if one does not.
I understand that the Council on Tribunals have been looking at this question, and my information—and I should be interested if the Government would confirm it—is that legal aid ought to be available for individuals who have to appear at a public inquiry. Therefore, it seems to me that the organisation which has been set up to look at these kind of questions would support it. I believe that in such a complex Bill as this, by which many people may well be affected, it seems to be a reasonable provision that those who cannot afford to employ professional advice should be enabled to do so by legal aid. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, the effect of this Amendment would be to entitle any owner, lessee or occupier who objects to a compulsory purchase order under the Bill to legal assistance and representation for the purpose of making representations at any inquiry into the order. As the law stands at present, legal advice and

19
preliminary assistance is available to anyone whose income comes within the financial limits of eligibility who wishes to make representations at an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order under the Bill.
He can, therefore, through that machinery (it is called the Green Form Scheme) obtain advice from a solicitor and preliminary help in preparing his case. That important power exists, and one of the benefits of putting down this Amendment is to enable this fact to be more widely known than it is at present. The power to give advice and assistance under the Green Form Scheme is not by any means trivial, and in the case of a compulsory purchase order inquiry it could be very important indeed. It would enable and assist the objector in deciding what evidence was most helpful and most relevant, and in collecting the necessary material, and it would enable him to be fully briefed.
The hearing itself is not a formal court proceeding, and this preliminary legal advice that can be given is, in the circumstances, of considerable benefit. An objector cannot, however, receive full legal aid for representation before an inquiry itself, and this is because there is no provision, and never has been in the Legal Aid Act, making legal aid available for representation at any statutory inquiry.
When the previous Government introduced the Legal Advice and Assistance Scheme by the 1972 Act, which is now repealed and replaced by the consolidating Act of 1974, they made it clear that advice and assistance under the scheme should not extend to full representation before a court, a tribunal, or a statutory inquiry. That is provided for by subsections (2) and (3) of what is now Section 2 of the 1974 Act. Apart from the Lands Tribunal and the Commons Commissioners, legal aid is not available for any statutory tribunal. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee, in their 24th Report published in November of last year, having considered all the tribunals involved, recommended that legal aid should be extended to all statutory tribunals within the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. Your Lordships will know that such tribunals are set up by Statute to adjudicate on specific issues either
20
between individual parties or between an individual and the State. Examples are the industrial tribunals and rent tribunals.
I am strongly in sympathy with my Advisory Committee's recommendation —as indeed I am in sympathy with this Amendment—that legal aid be made available for tribunals. Unfortunately, owing to the present financial circumstances it would not be practicable to implement the recommendation. This, unhappily, is no moment to call for further increases in public expenditure. The opposite course is indeed the appropriate way. In this area of social services, priorities have to be assessed, and there are other needs just as, if not more, serious. On my appointment I became even more aware than I was before of the unmet need for legal services, and therefore commissioned a far-reaching study into the problem as a whole. The work on this is nearly concluded, and I am expecting to receive the results in the near future. I shall then be in a better position to assess priorities.
My present feeling is that it is essential both to maintain the effectiveness of the existing legal aid scheme and to support such developments as law centres, community lawyers and solicitors working in citizens' advice bureaux. So far as possible, the first of these objectives is met by keeping the legal aid income limits of eligibility under review in line with increases in supplementary benefit. On the second, in March of this year we provided £50,000 by way of short-term financial provision for law centres, and we recently announced that a further £100,000 would be provided.
In paragraph 26 of the Report to which I have referred, my advisory committee said that there remained for future examination the large number of domestic and other tribunals which were not subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, like the disciplinary tribunals of the Law Society and the JockeyClub—I am not necessarily equating those two institutions but merely giving them by way of example—and statutory inquiries such as that with which this Amendment is concerned, as defined in Section 19 of the Tribunals of Inquiries Act 1971. They said that as between these they thought that priority should be given to studying the need for advice, assistance and representation before statutory inquiries, and

21
they recommend that the Lord Chancellor should instruct them next to consider this. Such a study will be a far-reaching and difficult one and I am afraid that, in view of the fact that the public money just is not there for further public expenditure in this important field, this is not a moment for me to call on them to embark on that study. I will, of course, study the problem again when I am considering the Report, which I hope to receive shortly, on the unmet need for legal services. As I have said, I fully sympathise with the intention and indeed the spirit of this Amendment, but I am afraid that in the present economic climate it is just not practicable to give effect to it.
The Earl of ONSLOW: In his reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that we were under an acute financial strain and that he could not recommend the extra expenditure of public funds, and I do not think any of my noble friends would disagree with that. Can he tell us how much he estimates would be the cost of free legal aid under this Amendment? If it is but a very small amount then it should be allowed, even though we want public expenditure to be cut back; but if it is a large amount then perhaps it means that there is something rotten with the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl an answer to the first part of that question. However, the advice I have received is that it would not be an inconsiderable amount, but I cannot assist more than that.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: If we cannot afford this small amount of money, I am not quite sure how we can afford the Bill at all. Would the noble and learned Lord say—I did not follow his entire reply, and I will read carefully his remarks in tomorrow's Official Report—how his remarks apply to hardship tribunals, from the point of view of legal aid for them? I do not ask him for an answer to that now. I will raise the matter when we come to Amendment No. 195C, when we are discussing hardship tribunals. By then, when I have read what he said, perhaps he would say again what I do not like.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: What I am about to say the noble Lord will not
22
like either. I am afraid that the same considerations will apply to hardship tribunals as to any proposal at the present time to spend more money on legal aid in fields where at present they do not exist. I wish that we were able to do it, but there are other priorities for public expenditure—hospitals, schools, housing and the rest—and they all have to compete. We have done quite well in the legal aid sphere—we are spending over£30million on it this year—and are making a not inconsiderable contribution as a social service. One simply has to assess the priorities and, in my view, the priorities are so far about right.
Lord FOOT: I have two observations to make on the Lord Chancellor's remarks. First, he rightly drew attention to the fact that anybody can, under the green form procedure, get legal advice on a compulsory purchase order in which he is involved, and he stressed that that was a valuable public service. It is, however, very limited in effect. If on going into a compulsory purchase order inquiry, one is to have the opportunity of presenting one's case in an effective manner, one must be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses and so on, and without legal representation one is fighting the battle with one's hands tied behind one's back. Therefore the green form procedure, while useful, is no answer to the problem.
Secondly, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that it would be quite wrong to give the advantage and benefit of legal aid to objectors purely in the proposed case in this Amendment, of public inquiries into compulsory purchase orders; it would be quite wrong to amend the general law about legal aid as applying to tribunals and public inquiries of all kinds and introduce this advantage in this case only, and not, for example, in an ordinary public inquiry into some planning proposal which, as I understand it, is not included in this Amendment.
Thus, I think it inappropriate that this Amendment should be carried today, although I urge the noble and learned Lord to get on with the job of examining how legal aid is to be made available to people before tribunals of all kinds and, indeed, at public inquiries of all kinds, and in particular how legal aid or something equivalent is to be made available

23
at public inquiries where amenity interests are concerned. This is a matter of very great public importance. I concede that under the present economic constraints this probably cannot be put into effect now, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will, as he has indicated, push forward the inquiries and researches into this matter so that in more prosperous times there can be some equality in the law, whether one is appearing before a court of law, a tribunal or some sort of public inquiry.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not quarrel with a single word the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said. If one thinks of rent tribunals and of the inequality that sometimes exists between a well-represented landlord and a non-represented tenant, that is an example of a field where I would be eagerly anxious to see progress taking place. However, I do not want the impression to be created—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foot, did not seek to create it—that the green form scheme is not particularly useful; it is very useful. Unfortunately, at the moment the majority of matters which are being advised upon under the scheme are in the purely matrimonial sphere; it is "bagging", if that is the right word to use, about 70 per cent. of the funds in this field also. That is I think only because it is more widely known that it is available there, and I therefore hope that this debate will have highlighted the existence of the green form scheme in this sort of inquiry and proceeding.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I am, of course, grateful for the sympathy of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this matter and I agree entirely that this debate has been useful in that it has publicised the green form scheme. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on this subject. My only personal experience of public inquiries has been at those at which I have just observed, but it is perfectly obvious that the person who goes into a public inquiry with a solicitor or barrister to help him is in a far stronger position than the person who has taken the best possible advice he can get, either through a legal advice centre or in any other way before going to the inquiry. So although I
24
think it is useful, that use is limited. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will at least take steps to make the scheme better known at the kind of places to which people are likely to go when they find themselves involved with this Bill; I suggest such places as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and organisations of that kind. No doubt people are very well aware of them, but objectors may not think of going to them immediately.
On the general thesis, however, I am not very happy. As I understood the noble and learned Lord, he has said that we cannot afford to accept the Amendment because it will mean an increase in public expenditure, which, in the Government's order of priorities, does not come first. I believe that that puts us all in a very difficult position, because here we have this legislation which is being pressed through very much at the end of the Session, the financing of which is by no means as secure as the Government would have us believe, and which, in the first instance, will inevitably involve a great deal of public expenditure both on the officials to make it work and on the borrowing requirement to purchase the land. At the same time, the Government are not prepared to put into their priorities any expenditure to help the individuals who may be affected. As the noble and learned Lord will know, the net result of not accepting the Amendment is that the rich man will be all right, because he will be able to pay for the help which is required, and that the poorer person will not be able to afford to pay for that help and will be the one who will suffer. I should have thought that, on any understanding, that would be very unfair.
I cannot accept the argument that my Amendment does not cover all tribunals, because I should have thought that they were right outside the scope of the Bill, and although I believe that one, could put forward a perfectly good argument as to why legal aid should apply at rent tribunals, the lands tribunal and any other tribunal, I did not feel that this was within the scope of the Bill and I do not believe that that is a valid argument against my Amendment. I believe that to wait for a future study, even if the noble and learned Lord is not able to put it into effect, would allow us to see what might

25
happen. It will be about a year before the Bill comes into operation, and we shall probably not hear of any sad cases for about another year after that, so a great deal of hardship may be caused before anything can be done about it. Therefore, unless I hear something much more convincing than that the reason for not doing this is simply the Government's order of priorities, I do not feel that I can accept that as an argument. We on this side of the Committee feel that this is a priority of Government expenditure for those individuals who will suffer, and we believe there are other things which could well be put lower down the scale of priorities.
Lord LEE of NEWTON:Can my noble and learned friend say in what degree this House is entitled to persist in an Amendment which, according to him, would undoubtedly increase public expenditure? I know that there has been great contention on this point in years gone by, but perhaps my noble and learned friend could enlighten us on the point?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I took the assurance of seeking a nod from the learned authority at the Table, and I do not believe that there is any objection to the House proceeding with consideration of this point or to noble Lords expressing an opinion about it. I do not believe that we are quite as shackled as that. But it would not have any practical effect at this stage, though if it had the blessing of another place that would be another matter. However, I am not quite sure from the muted words of the noble Baroness what is her intention in this matter, and I wait with interest to know whether she intends to recommend an increase in public expenditure.
Lord SHINWELL: It seems to me that a strong case has been made out for accepting the Amendment or the principle involved. Indeed, my noble and learned friend himself presented the strongest argument in its support; namely, that when representations have to be made at a public inquiry those who can use the power of the purse can be legally represented, whereas the others cannot be so represented. My noble and learned friend himself presented that point of view, and I believe it would be generally agreed
26
that it is an anomaly which ought to be corrected.
Since he was unable to reply to questions, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether it is possible to indicate what is the likely expenditure involved in accepting the Amendment? It might be possible to ascertain before Report stage whether the expenditure would be considerable or inconsiderable, and whether it would be a reasonable amount which would not be a drain upon our financial resources to any great degree. If so, it might be possible to come to some conclusion if the Amendment were withdrawn and the matter were revived on Report stage, or even on Third Reading. In that way, it might be possible to satisfy everybody.
The LORD CHANCELLOR:I shall, of course, do my best but we are very much in the realms of guesswork in this field. However, we shall apply what forecasting certainties, or even probabilities, are possible and I shall gladly let noble Lords know what is the result. As my noble friend has indicated, we have not yet established equality before the law. At present, the poor man very often does not have equality before the law. The only comfort I can give the House is that, in the criminal field—where his liberty is at stake—equality before the law is pretty complete. That is a great deal to have accomplished since the legal aid and advice scheme came into operation.
The Earl of ONSLOW: As this is a Socialist Bill, would it not be nice to see the Socialists trying to guarantee help to poor people, with the encouragement of the Tory Party, or is that perhaps too simplistic a view?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Strange though it may seem, even a Socialist Administration is concerned about public expenditure, and I am fascinated to learn that at the present moment the mood on the other side of the Committee is for increased public expenditure.
A Noble Lord: The answer is to drop the Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I hope that my noble and learned friend understands the disquiet that some of us on this side feel about this Amendment. We understand that at present things are not very

27
easy and that the money is not available, but under this Bill, which is so far-reaching and so complicated, there seems to me to be a strong case for giving consideration to the Amendment when the time is ripe to do so. It is very difficult for ordinary people to understand the Bill, which is also a revolutionary measure. Therefore, it needs special consideration.
Lord FOOT: We are all waiting to know what the noble Baroness intends to do about this. May I, in all friendliness, make the distinction which I tried but probably failed sufficiently to emphasise before, which is that I believe the difficulty about the noble Baroness's Amendment to be that she is proposing that we should write into the legal aid law that people who object at a public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order should have the benefit of the assistance which the Legal Aid Act provides. Apart from the matter of expense, I believe that there is a difficulty in dealing with the matter in that way, in that one would be creating an anomaly, because it would be only at public inquiries into compulsory purchase orders that the person affected would be entitled to legal aid, whereas there arc many other forms of public inquiry where the case for the representation of the impoverished or impecunious person is just as strong as it is here. I believe that it would be a serious error of principle to try to amend the legal aid law, as we all want to see it amended by being broadened and widened in this way, and thus introduce yet one more anomaly into the general law on legal aid. I beg the noble Baroness to consider that situation. I am wholly in support of everything she wants to do, but I think that this would be the wrong way to go about it.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I add just one word? This is a different case from that of the ordinary existing tribunals. At the present moment tribunal defendants are not entitled to legal aid. But they do not always want legal aid: they want surveyors or doctors, or some technical expert to help them in their case; they do not necessarily want a lawyer. But this is a different type of case, because it is new law, revolutionary
28
law—as the noble Baroness opposite said —and it is so complicated that an ordinary person must have some help to see his way through. Otherwise, I am not in favour of extending legal aid to all tribunals. I do not think it is necessary.
The LORD CHANCELLOR:If I may again impose myself upon the Committee, may I say that I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley. Perhaps I should have indicated earlier that those who have had experience of public inquiries of this kind—and there are many distinguished lawyers in the House who have—will realise that the inspector who conducts the proceedings will certainly do his best to see that an objector's objections are properly expressed, expounded and ventilated, and that he or she can be assisted in the conduct of the proceedings. I am not for a moment suggesting that in all inquiries of this kind legal help is either essential or of very great value. But I readily say that in some cases it is. I should be a very strange lawyer if I said less than that; I certainly believe that to be the case.
But it is worth remembering that these are somewhat informal tribunals; where one of the duties of the inspector is to assist the objectors in what they are seeking to say. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said, and with what has just fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. The difficulty is that, worthy as is the intention in these matters, we are, unhappily, at this moment up against insurmountable financial difficulties.
Baroness YOUNG: It may seem strange, too, that I am slightly cautious about pressing Amendments to a Division, but I very much wanted to test the feeling of the whole Committee on this issue which, so far as I can ascertain, has not been raised previously during proceedings on this Bill. I should like first to answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have heard on more than one occasion the argument that he has put so well: that public inquiries are not all that formal, and that an objector can make a case very well in front of an inspector who will be sympathetic to the way that case is being put. The first time I heard it was when a local government official

29
was advising someone that he had nothing to fear from a public inquiry, that if he could not put his case well everyone would understand it. Long experience has now taught me—and if nothing else has taught me, these Committee proceedings have taught me—that if one has a good lawyer beside one, then one is much better off than if one has not; and I could do with a lot more help, I may say. I am quite certain that this is true in the serious matter of an inquiry, and I do not think that we are really arguing about it.
With regard to public expenditure, I am told that I am asking for increased public expenditure. But when I compare this with some of the other items on which the Government think it perfectly all right to spend a lot of money—I might quote, for instance, the winding-up of the 174 direct grant schools as a very good example—I believe that we are concerned here with a matter where money ought to be spent. I entirely see the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that it is singling out one thing. I have singled this out in this case because
this is what the Bill is talking about. I quite see his argument (and his advice on this is right) that we ought to look at the whole question of legal aid; not pick out one thing, but look at a whole lot of things.
My reply to that is that if we wait to see how the Bill works in this or in other matters, we will, so far as I can see, inevitably wait for three or four years before we shall find out how it is working and whom has suffered, as well as whom we ought to have helped. Therefore many people who require help may have to do without it because they will not have legal aid. The whole matter of amending the legal aid law is not for me and is certainly not to be brought up on consideration of this Bill. Having listened to the debate, I shall press my Amendment and so test the feeling of the Committee as a whole.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 59F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Amory, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Arbuthnot, V.

Gage, V.

Onslow, E.

Arran, E.

Glasgow, E.

Piercy, L.

Balfour, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Reigate, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ridley, V.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sackville, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Birdwood, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Halsbury, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Brooke, of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellt, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandys, L.

Camoys, L.

Hawke, L.

Savile, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hayter, L.

Shannon, E.

Carrington, L.

Headfort, M.

Somers, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stamp, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Cowley, E. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Leinster, D.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Thomas, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Effingham, E.

Ward of North Tvneside, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Elles, B.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Elton, L.

Monck, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Gaitskell, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Phillips, B.

Bacon, B.

George-Brown, L.

Platt, L.

Balogh, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Roberthall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

St. Davids, V.

Birk, B.

Grantchester, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Slater, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henley, L.

Stedman, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hoy, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Byers, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Castle, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wade, L.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wigoder, L.

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

McLeavy, L.

Willis, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Melchett, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.4 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 59G:
Page 59, line 10, at end insert ("and where the Secretary of State gives such directions, section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 and section 181 of the Scottish Act of 1972 (blight notices) shall have effect as if the land specified therein included land which is the subject of a compulsory purchase order the consideration of which has been postponed by directions given under sub-paragraph (1) above and as if the acquiring authority had served no counter-notice objecting to the blight notice.")
The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that this Amendment looks as though it needs someone to interpret it, but it goes to a point which seems to me to be of some importance. If your Lordships would be so kind as to look at paragraph 5 of this Schedule your Lordships will see that a new provision is inserted here in relation to what the Secretary of State may do when a compulsory purchase order is presented to him for confirmation. He can confirm part of it and (this is what is new) he can postpone his consideration of the rest of it. What I should like to know is: what is to happen to that part of the land the consideration of which is to be postponed? I may have missed it, but so far as I know a clue has not been provided anywhere in the proceedings so far.
I should like to paint two simple pictures. There is a farmer, the whole of whose farm is to be acquired by a com-
32
pulsory purchase order under this Bill, part of it for (shall we say?) housing and part of it for industry. It is run as a single unit, and the local authority sends the compulsory purchase order up to the Secretary of State for confirmation. The Secretary of State confirms the compulsory purchase order as to part of the farm and postpones his consideration as to the other half of the farm. What is the farmer to do with the half of the land which is not acquired by the local authority? It is only half of a unit, and he will presumably find it very difficult to farm it on its own. I cannot imagine that anybody would want to take it off him as a tenant because, first, again it is only half a unit and, secondly, there is absolutely no guarantee when the Secretary of State will come to the end of the postponement and will finally decide what he is going to do with the land. So that seems a very awkward predicament for the farmer.
Secondly, let us take an urban case, where we are talking about urban redevelopment. There is a block of 50 houses, and it is decided by the local authority that they will buy the whole of this—let us say half of it for housing and half of it for a recreation centre. The Secretary of State confirms the part of the order, relating to 25 houses, which concerns the land proposed for housing but decides to postpone consideration of the other part, relating to the other 25 houses, because he does not think that the case has yet been made out or, it may be, because it is not yet possible to afford

33
the recreation centre. What is to happen to the owners of the 25 houses on the land in respect of which the compulsory purchase order has not been confirmed? They will presumably, if they wish to, continue to live there, but they will certainly never be able to sell their houses to anybody else if they want to move.
This is not a unique set of circumstances. I have not moved an Amendment to take out the power to postpone, although it seems to me to be an odious power. I have tried to draft a more modest one and to refer to what is a perfectly well-known procedure where local authorities or the Central Government step in to make it impossible for the citizen to deal privately with his land. I must assure the Committee that if there is a compulsory purchase order hanging over a piece of property, the consideration of which has been postponed, it is most unlikely that it will be possible privately to deal with that land. Nobody will touch it with a barge-pole. Therefore, I have tried to bring in what is commonly known as the blight notice procedure, which applies in a whole lot of similar circumstances. If the local authority decide that they want your land for a road or some other scheme for which they have compulsory powers, then if you cannot sell it on the open market at anything like a reasonable price you can offload it on to them. The only extra complication is that, normally speaking, they have a right to object, but in this case, in my Amendment, I have taken away that right to object because they have already promoted a compulsory order on the land itself and therefore, presumably, they must say that they want it.
I believe that if the procedure is necessary, which I very much doubt, then at least it ought to be tempered in favour of the citizen's rights in some such way as I am suggesting in this Amendment. The drafting is no doubt defective, but I hope the Government will be prepared to accept the spirit of it because otherwise we shall have yet more hardship of the sort which, in all the Amendments I have been dealing with, I have been attempting to avoid. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I accept the noble Viscount's good intentions, but I think that in this case the Amendment is misconceived. By virtue of Section 70(1) of
34
the Land Compensation Act 1973 persons entitled to blight protection can already serve blight notices on authorities as soon as the CPO has been made and submitted for confirmation. The ability to serve a blight notice is therefore in no way affected by any directions the Secretary of State may give under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4.
The Amendment is unacceptable because it would deprive the authority of the ability to challenge a blight notice by serving its own counter-notice, as the noble Viscount said. There may, however, be good grounds for such an objection; for example, the blight notice could be defective or served on the wrong authority, or the authority might have decided not to acquire. If the owner-occupier does not accept the counter-notice he or she can refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal for determination.
This procedure is standard for all blight notices regardless of the circumstances under which they are served and there is no justification for departing from it in this one instance. Moreover, authorities can either use the powers under this Bill or their powers under the Planning Acts to acquire land for private development. As the provisions of paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 are also found in the planning Acts, compulsory purchase orders which were made under the planning Acts but confirmed only in part would be unaffected by this Amendment. The noble Viscount gave the impression (to me, at least) that this was a new procedure; but it is also to be found in the planning Acts; so that where the authorities use the planning Acts they will still be able to object to blight notices made under the same circumstances as if they had used the powers under this Bill. I think this would be anomalous and could not be justified.
The noble Viscount spoke of a farm. I think he will know that a local authority could under existing law take all the farm unless the part could be taken without material detriment to the rest of the property.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Can the noble Lord say to which section of the 1973 Land Compensation Act he was referring?
Lord MELCHETT: I was referring to Section 70(1) of that Act.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Lord set out clearly the present procedure, but I hope he does not think by setting it out that he automatically confirms that it works fairly and properly. Facilities are there to go to the Land Tribunal and for all the stages that he has described. It may well be that this Amendment is defective and would be an anomaly. I accept that; but perhaps the noble Lord can take the argument behind this Amendment to confirm that it is acting unfairly at the moment because of the delay that is occasioned by the working of the present procedure. You may have land owned by a company who are working on borrowed money. Part of their land comes under a compulsory purchase order for very good public reasons and they are not able to agree with the district valuer or whoever it may be on what is considered to be fair compensation. The fact that it is under a compulsory purchase order puts it as a blighted area and it means that they cannot test the market in the normal way to find out what the true value is likely to be in order to sustain their argument. The result is that if they are working on borrowed money with high interest rates the delays occasioned by the present procedures may mean that they are losing more money because of the high interest rates on the loans covering that land than they can gain by arguing and getting proper compensation.
The whole point of my intervention is not to suggest that this Amendment will answer the whole problem but that it may be used as a hook on which to hang the argument to present to this or to any other Government that they must not be complacent about the present procedures. In theory they look fair; in theory all the facilities are there for people to get a fair deal. But when you recognise the length of time it takes to arrive at a real conclusion, then the net result to many people is that they are being treated unfairly because of the delay. If on this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, can use his influence to speed up the procedure, then I think it would be a good thing that we have had this chance of putting on record these arguments.
Lord MELCHETT: In certain respects the Bill does speed tin the compulsory
36
purchase order procedures. In that respect it conies in for some criticism from noble Lords opposite; but I do not think that the intervention by the noble Lord really arises on the Amendment that we are discussing.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think it does. My noble friend was talking about the delay in the blight notice procedure. To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. if he inquires into the standard timetable for one of these things, will find that my noble friend is correct. I would certainly bear out what he has said. This is a laborious process. It is the best we have, but if the noble Lord does not think that that intervention was relevant then I would invite him to take a good deal of further advice on how the blight notice procedure works. He may then be induced into doing what my noble friend has suggested and into using his influence towards a possible speeding-up in this procedure. That was not an irrelevant intervention. It is an extremely severe problem.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of the provision in the 1973 Act. I am sorry that I overlooked this and I am grateful to have had the explanation. But he has mystified me in one respect. He says that the powers to postpone a decision as to part of the land already exist under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I do not think they do. I think that what is happening is that by the Amendment in paragraph 5, we are amending Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. Therefore, if after this Bill is on the Statute Book a compulsory purchase order is made under Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, it will thereafter be possible to postpone a decision although it is not, in fact, possible to do so now. It is because the Amendment in this Schedule is to the 1946 Act that it will then be able to be used in a compulsory purchase order made under legislation other than this Bill. I do not think there is any precedent for it. We must all wait to see how it works out, but I think it will cause difficulty. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 59, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) Where the Secretary of State gives a direction under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above on any land which is being farmed as agricultural land or which has been developed, he shall not grant a compulsory purchase order authorising the acquisition of that land without allowing any objection to be raised as if the original order had not been submitted to him."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is basically that where the Secretary of State issues a direction postponing a compulsory purchase order of any land which is being farmed as agricultural land or which has been developed he should not grant a compulsory purchase order without allowing any objection to be raised as if the original order had not been submitted to him. The problem is this. Paragraph 5(1)(a) deals with where a compulsory purchase order has been made and the Secretary of State "is satisfied that the order ought to be confirmed". But a little further on in the same paragraph it says, so far as I can see, that he can postpone it almost indefinitely. I want to try to make certain that if he then changes his mind at a later date—because the wording in paragraph 5(1)(b) is,
"has not for the time being determined whether it ought to be confirmed"—
then he may confirm it at a later date. At that stage I should like those people who might have withdrawn an objection to have a second opportunity to raise it because there has been a change of circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: Before he very unfortunately left the Chamber, the noble Viscount contradicted what I said about the split decision procedure being in existing planning law. He often berates members of the Front Bench opposite him for talking while he is speaking. I am now in the position of having to contradict him when he is not in the Chamber. It is a fact—and I hope that one of his noble friends will draw this to hisattention—that the split procedure in paragraph 5 is identical to one which is derived from the 1947 planning Act and is now in Section 132 of the 1971 planning Act. That Act does not contain provisions similar to those proposed in the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In any case, the procedure
38
is intended to be used only on the rarest occasions when the land comprised in the part of the order confirmed is urgently needed for development, but more time is needed to consider separate issues arising only in relation to the remaining land for example, planning issues arising only in relation to that land which were the subject of concurrent planning inquiry. It is of course possible that with the passage of time between the first and second decisions new considerations may arise in relation to the remainder land, which should be taken into account in deciding whether compulsory purchase of that land should be authorised.
The split decision procedure will not be used unless an inquiry or hearing has been held into objections—my right honourable friend gave an undertaking to that effect at the Commons Report stage, on Monday 13th October at col 1084 of Hansard—so that the Compulsory Purchase by Local Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1962 will apply. Under these Rules, if the Secretary of State shoud receive any new evidence after the inquiry, or takes into account any new issue of fact which was not raised at the inquiry, and this new evidence or new issue of fact disposes him to disagree with the inspector's recommendation, he must notify the parties and any one of them may insist on the inquiry being re-opened. Furthermore, the Secretary of State may in any other case cause the inquiry to be reopened if he thinks fit. Thus if any owners, lessees or occupiers wish to raise new issues in relation to the part of the order on which the decision has been postponed they are at liberty to do so, and if the Secretary of State considers that this issue warrants re-opening the inquiry then, clearly, he will do so. There could be new issues other than agricultural ones which would justify such a course and these would not be covered by the Amendment.
While the Government therefore accept that there may well be cause for allowing a further opportunity for objections arising from the deferment of the decision, and not only objections related to agriculture, they take the view that the Inquiries Procedure Rules make adequate provision and that the Amendment is unnecessary. Moreover, if

39
accepted, the Amendment would mean that the paragraph would differ significantly from the planning Act precedent—about which the noble Viscount did not believe me, but which certainly exists—from which this provision is derived, which would make the Statute Law in this area more complicated than it is already. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: This is one of the times when I am grateful for the reply, and I am glad that I put down the Amendment. The very fact this has been brought to light will help. It could be used in a question of dispute at a later date. I am much obliged and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 59, line 10, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where any land is under a compulsory purchase order which the acquiring authority do not acquire within two years of the date of the order, the authority shall forfeit the right to acquire that land compulsorily except under a direction from the Secretary of State and then only for the development land value to be arranged by the district valuer.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to deal with a case where any acquiring authority say that they will acquire a piece of land and then do nothing about it. If they have made a compulsory purchase order or propose acquisition of the land, and then leave the poor owner wondering whether he will be paid for it, or what is to happen, he could then force the authority either to do something or to forfeit the right to acquire the land. I think the last two words of my Amendment, "district valuer" should have been "valuation officer" or perhaps "the proper officer of the valuation department". I trust that this defect does not make my Amendment unacceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The effect of this Amendment would be that where the Secretary of State had given directions postponing consideration of a compulsory purchase order so far as it related to land specified in the directions, the powers of compulsory acquisition would lapse if, the order having been confirmed in due
40
course in relation to that land, acquisition did not take place within two years after the date of the order. Since the Amendment is presented as an additional subparagraph to paragraph 5, it is presumably intended to apply only to the circumstances of that paragraph.
I agree it is not unreasonable that there should be a time limit to the exercise of compulsory acquisition authorised under the Bill. This is recognised in paragraph 4 of the table in Part I of Schedule 7, the effect of which is that the authority are to be regarded as abandoning their power to purchase the land if they have not served notice to treat within 12 months (not three years as under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965) after the order comes into operation; that is after notice of confirmation is first published.
The period in the Amendment is two years from "the date of the Order which presumably means the date on which the authority made the order before submitting it for confirmation, and a substantial part of that period would be taken up by the procedure leading up to the part confirmation and part deferment. The rest of the period could be unreasonably short to allow for the consideration of the deferred part to be concluded, for that part of the order to be brought into operation and the subsequent service of notice to treat and completion of acquisition. The Government therefore consider that the shorter time limit imposed under Schedule 7 should stand in relation to orders dealt with in the manner of paragraph 5. I hope that the noble Earl now accepts this point.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: There is more to the problems which people have to face than those described. If it is a compulsory purchase order for a scheme which can be allowed to lapse and not carried on, then I agree that the facilities for seeing that right is done seem to be satisfactory. But there are many circumstances today where an area is blighted without a compulsory purchase order having been put upon it. The example I have in mind is this. A ring road is to surround an existing city or town. Part of the ring road has been built and is in operation, and it is known that the rest of the area on the line of the ring road will eventually have to be acquired for the purposes of completing

41
the road scheme. No compulsory purchase order has been put upon certain sections, because the authority like to phase their compulsory purchase orders to lit in when the money is available to carry the scheme through. So we have a situation where, for overriding national reasons of having to economise in the spending of money, a delay has been imposed upon the completion of ring roads and other developments.
The owner of the land in such an area is left with blighted land because, while the land does not have a CPO upon it, it is known that the ring road will eventually have to be completed and that land can be used only for the completion of this ring road. So one is in a position where the owner of land has land which is blighted, although it does not have a compulsory purchase order. In those circumstances, this Bill, or some other measure, ought to make clear that the local authority or people responsible for completing the ring road, should be made to complete the purchase. Otherwise, there is an asset which may be backed by borrowings—which are expensive today—and which cannot be used, and its owner is being made the victim of these circumstances.
I appeal to the noble Baroness not to think that the problems we have to face are the straightforward ones such as she described, which can be met by appeals and the withdrawing of compulsory purchase orders, because there are other circumstances where schemes have to be postponed and where unjust treatment is being meted out to owners of land. So I should like to feel that in this Bill, or in another one, something can be done about this situation.
Baroness BIRK: What the noble Lord has said is very interesting, and I have listened very carefully. But the Amendment we are discussing is quite specifically referring to any land which is under a compulsory purchase order, and I think we must confine ourselves to that Amendment. Furthermore, the blight categories to which the noble Lord referred were extended by the 1973 Land Compensation Act, which was brought in by the last Administration. I do not quite understand why, if there was a problem, the previous Administration did not do something about it then. We may be able to discuss this at a later stage of our
42
deliberations, but it really has nothing to do with the point we are discussing at present.
The Earl of BALFOUR: This is also something I should like to look at again, particularly in view of the comments made by my noble friend. I may not have this Amendment in the right place, and in order to save time I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.31 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 62 and to speak to Amendment No. 63 at the same time. Both are minor drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 36, after ("3(1)(b)") insert ("of Schedule 1")—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD: These are simple drafting Amendments which we shall be glad to accept, but 3(1)(b) is a key paragraph and it might be for the convenience of the Committee, before we leave Part I of this Schedule, to raise a point arising where paragraph 3(1)(b) is referred to on page 57 in line 28. The Committee will now know that we are dealing in Schedule 4 with a provision for modifying procedures for authorising compulsory purchase orders. Those procedures are laid clown in Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill we are now discussing amends paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. But paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act stands, and is not modified by any part of Schedule 4 or anything else in the present Bill.
In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the land Act (to which the noble Lord's Amendment makes more specific and clearer reference as a result of the drafting Amendment, so we are quite sure what it is we are talking about) we read the following, which is part of the preliminary procedure of authorising compulsory purchase orders:
"Before submitting the order to the confirming authority the acquiring authority shall … serve on every owner, lessee and occupier … of any land comprised in the order a notice in the prescribed form stating the effect of the order …".
That is part of the preliminary procedure leading up to a compulsory purchase

43
order, which is not modified by Schedule 4. That being so, I can see no reason for the words which are printed in our Bill at lines 29 and 30 on page 57, to which we might conveniently refer as (8)(b,) since that is how it appears, as follows:
"has specified an address for the purposes of this paragraph,".
I can see no reason for that to be there, because it is quite obvious from what I read out from Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act that the acquiring authority will already have the addresses of all the occupiers and owners in order to serve that initial notice on them; so from that point of view (8)(b) on page 57 is unnecessary.
It also seems to me that every owner and occupier is entitled to know the outcome of the compulsory purchase order, which is what sub-paragraph (8) is all about. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord if he would please look at this to see whether sub-paragraph (8)(b) ought to come out. I should also be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me, although not necessarily now, if he comes to the contrary view, how he jusifies its retention.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to the noble Lord for not expecting a definitive answer at this stage. I suspect that this may be another thing for which we have to blame the Renton Committee. We are being discouraged from legislation by reference, and it may be that this ought to be in. Another reason why subparagraph (8)(b) might need to be in the Bill is that these notices under subparagraph (8) will be served by the Secretary of State and, as I understand it, the Secretary of State will not necessarily have the addresses.
The Earl of BALFOUR: We are at present dealing with almost the very bottom of page 59 and what particularly concerned me here was that in paragraph 7 it says:
"Where the compulsory purchase order was made by the Land Authority for Wales";
and my noble friend read out exactly what 3(1)(b) says. It starts by saying, "Before submitting the order". This is dealing to a great extent with local authorities, and surely there should be
44
some words in the present tense rather than in the past tense in line 34 so that it might read:
"Where the compulsory purchase order is made by the Land Authority for Wales".
I wonder whether, between now and the Report stage, the noble Lord would look at this point again?
Lord MELCHETT: I really think we are getting a long way from my drafting Amendments. This is a point which perhaps the noble Earl might more conveniently raise on the Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 63.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 41, after ("4") insert ("of that Schedule".—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 60, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply to any right of access from adjoining land or existing way leave over or under the land acquired."
The noble Earl said: Here we are considering where the rights of any person over land have been extinguished. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 says:
"… all private rights of way and rights of laying down, erecting, continuing or maintaining any apparatus on, under or over the land shall be extinguished …".
This is one of the few occasions where I must declare an interest, because it could affect me personally at some time or other. I am seeking here to cover a situation where a pipeline could be underneath the ground and it might be supplying water to a farm or an industry. For instance, in the case of ICI, I understand that they have pipes which go from one of their factories to another. I hope that in such a case this pipe does not have to be lifted or perhaps diverted—which might even involve a pumping station—and that where these connecting pipes, or perhaps a culvert under the ground, exist and rights were given to the old owner, when the local authority acquires them we do not sacrifice the position completely. That is the point I am seeking to deal with here, and I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: With this Amendment of the noble Earl we come to Part III of Schedule 4 and I hope that we are now sailing into calmer waters—not that there has been undue turbulence on the earlier parts. Before I deal with the noble Earl's Amendment I should like to make a general point about Part III and the remaining Amendments to the Schedule which may be of assistance in our further discussion of these matters. All the provisions in this part of Schedule 4 are taken direct from the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, reminded us recently that was a consolidating Act. These provisions derive from the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and they have therefore been in operation for almost 30 years and therefore presumably have been approved by several intervening Administrations.
These provisions are about what an authority can do with the land once it has acquired it. They have nothing to do with the compulsory acquisition itself. It would have been possible, therefore, for us to attract these provisions to the Bill simply by providing in it that land acquired under Clause 15 should be treated in the same way as land acquired under the Town and Country Planning Act. That would no doubt have saved us all from what I hope will not be too prolonged a discussion, in the circumstances, of the matters arising in this part of the Schedule. But legislation by reference is now looked upon with disfavour—the Renton Report has emphaised that—and clearly if what is referred to can conveniently he expressed in the Bill dealing with the matter, this is obviously desirable. I hope I shall not be censorious in saying that the trouble about doing that is that it submits the old legislation, in detail, before either House of Parliament and provides a temptation for a crucial reappraisal which would not otherwise have taken place. I acknowledge that there are moments when reappraisals may he necessary, but perhaps they ought to be done with reasonable restraint so as not to prolong discussion unnecessarily.
I mention this background for two specific reasons. First, there will be cases in the language of Part III where the wording is somewhat antique and relates back to an earlier era; and, secondly, as
46
to the definitions it is highly desirable that they should not diverge from the definitions in the planning Act itself. This is not just a matter of tidiness. If we produce a situation in which there are different definitions of the same thing, in the Town and Country Planning Act and the Community Land Act—as in due course it will become if it receives Royal Assent—then the courts will be bound to take the view that Parliament had some good reason for producing that divergence. This means we should look carefully at any suggested changes for these could lead to problems of interpretation, not only of this Bill but of the Town and Country Planning Act also.
I come now to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. Its effect would be that where land had been compulsorily acquired under the Bill any right of access to the land from adjoining land, or any existing way leave over the land acquired, would not be extinguished under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4. This Amendment would, I fear, frustrate the development of land acquired under the Bill where the continued existence of the rights in question would, or certainly might, conflict with that development. It will be appreciated that paragraph 9, which we are considering, corresponds to Section 118 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and, like that section, is intended to ensure that land acquired compulsorily, after due consideration of any objection, may be developed for the purposes or reasons for which it was acquired. It would be quite unacceptable that, in these circumstances, private rights in or in relation to the land acquired should stand in the way of its development.
The remedy provided by these provisions is compensation under the Land Compensation Acts. Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) give entitlement to such compensation to any person who suffers loss by the extinguishment of rights. With regard to the precise problem of pipe-lines it will he possible, if these provisions go through, to terminate rights to have those pipelines under the relevant land. Indeed, this is what the power is there for, if it should prove necessary for the type of development. But again there compensation would of course have to be paid, and if it were a major pipe-line, local authorities might well put the development round

47
the pipe-line and get round the problem in a pracical way of that kind rather than terminate the right to the pipe-line, which I concede could present difficulties. Those are the reasons, to prevent frustration of proposed development, why this Amendment should be resisted.
4.46 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: If a layman dare express a point of view different from that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not think one can easily accept his suggestion that, because a definition was fixed some years ago—a definition which has not been altered, as he said, over 30 years—that means there ought not to be another definition in the light of more recent events and more recent thinking. I do not think there is any hardship in having two slightly different definitions. Here we have a situation, surely, where the owner of land does not particularly want to sell; he does not want it altered. But for good public reasons certain things must be done to that land and the public authority in some form or another wishes to acquire it. If the public authority in the name of the nation wants to alter something which the private owner does not particularly want altering, I believe the private owner ought to have the choice of any number of definitions in order to establish his position in resisting public encroachment upon his position. If the public authority does not have a case good enough to substantiate its position under both definitions, or several definitions, then the matter ought to be looked at very carefully before it has its way.
I am arguing only on what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said rather than on the specific effect of this Amendment. But if it is that he attaches a lot of weight to his suggestion—he said it was not for neatness; I can think of no reason other than neatness—I do not think one could easily accept the fact that judges could not see the problems and could not differentiate so far as using their authority and their discretion is concerned. It is purely neatness. And it could well be, as so often happens when bureaucracy takes over, that neatness happens to act unfairly against the private owner.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Lord has said goes to underline
48
how foolish it is to attempt to make general observations before introducing a substantial part of a Schedule. I was only cautioning the Committee that if we alter a definition here it will mean altering a definition in the Town and Country Planning Act which has wide implications all over the country and might, by reason of amendment now, have implications for what has gone in the past. I am giving only advice and a cautionary word of notice. I do not think the precise point arises on this Amendment, and I shall not make the mistake of giving general advice again.
The Earl of BALFOUR: May I say a final word before withdrawing this Amendment. I am sure that noble Lords who have had anything to do with land transactions are well aware that whenever one buys or sells a piece of land one gives to the adjoining proprietor certain rights over it for the extraction of timber, or whatever it may be. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for being here to answer this question. All I ask is that when this Bill becomes an Act the noble and learned Lord will bear in mind that any directions given to local authorities or to the Secretary of State should give to adjoining proprietors the normal rights that are given to them by local authorities, even in the case of development, wherever that is physically possible. If I can be given that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR:I can hope only that developments of this kind will be dealt with sensibly and with as much agreement as possible between all the parties affected. If agreement is not possible the remedy will have to be compensation, but the less the necessity for that the better. Therefore one hopes that sweet reasonableness will circumvent even pipe-lines.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment, may I take this opportunity to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether Part III of this Schedule is simply a re-enactment of something that can be found in the 1971 Act?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is.
Lord FOOT: Does that apply also to Part IV?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It applies to Part III but not to Part IV. In fact, it could not apply to Part IV. That Part deals with special provisions which seem to be influenced by the Peak Park Joint and the Lake District Special Planning Boards. Apart from that, Part III is a repeat of the earlier provisions in the 1971 Act.
Lord FOOT: If that is so, it follows that all of the Amendments from Amendment No. 64, which is the one we are now considering, to Amendment No. 74A and, indeed, the Government's own Amendment, Amendment No. 74B, are out of order in the sense that if they were carried they would alter the existing law. Therefore, there must be this general objection to all of the Amendments between Amendment No. 64 and at least Amendment No. 74A, that they would be introducing new definitions which would be in conflict with the definitions in the 1971 Act. If that is so, could not we abandon Amendments Nos. 64 to 74 which would have the advantage of expedition and might keep us here for a shorter period in the early hours of tomorrow morning or the day after?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I find the noble Lord's suggestion devastatingly attractive! No Government Amendment would be embarrassed by that radical Liberal proposal. Amendment No. 74B would take out the one thing that is not precedented, and therefore that would not embarrass me! If the noble Lord has the power to move a general Amendment to that effect, he will receive enthusiastic support from the Government Benches.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 60, line 33, after ("statutory") insert (",industrial and mineral,").
The noble Baroness said: As I rise to move this Amendment I am very conscious once again that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, does not approve of my activities. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the information that the whole of Part III is taken from the 1971 Act.
50
I had realised that parts of it were, but I must confess that I had not appreciated that the whole of it was taken from that Act and I am relieved to think that he, too, might have found it a little difficult! Notwithstanding the strictures of everybody, I must inform the Committee right away that I intend to press Amendment No. 64A and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 67B, 69A and 69B. We could usefully discuss some of the points which must inevitably arise on this Amendment in the context that the 1971 Act was a consolidating Act. That Act was passed by a Conservative Government, and I should be hard put to it to say that, staunch in my support of my Party as I am, it cannot be considered again.
With those introductory words may I turn immediately to Amendment No. 64A, which would have the effect of giving to industrial and mineral undertakings the same rights under this Schedule as statutory undertakers. Within the United Kingdom there are a number of major heavy industrial and mineral installations which are connected by feedstock pipelines to works in other parts of the country. For these pipelines, permanent rights in the land have been acquired and the pipelines are integral to the production processes.
The point of my Amendment is that pipelines should be treated by any authority—it is a planning development of the surface—in exactly the same way as overhead power lines and railways will be treated under the provisions of Schedule 4. It is more than likely that at some time or another land acquisition by an authority will lie across such a pipeline. It should be impossible for an authority to acquire the pipeline land unless it has made out a very special case under the same procedures as are laid down in similar circumstances in respect of statutory authorities.
I am aware that this point was raised in another place. As I understand it, at that time the Minister gave two reasons why this procedure could not be adhered to, and perhaps I may say why I do not find them entirely satisfactory. The first reason was that a statutory undertaker is doing something for the whole community. As we do not quite know what "community" means, it is equally arguable that somebody else may be doing

51
precisely that. The Churches and charities have already argued that they are, although I am not putting them all together in this Amendment. The second reason was that the industrial operator or mineral undertaker would receive compensation in any event. The second argument is not always relevant to the circumstances which I have described. That the pipeline should continue to exist in order that the industrial processes may continue could be far more important than any amount of compensation. It could mean, otherwise, the end of the operations altogether. With those remarks I beg to move.
4.59 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Baroness has explained the purpose of her Amendments to which, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak. It is true that mineral and industrial undertakers are not defined in the Town and Country Planning Acts, or in the Bill, but in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1973, for the purpose of planning permission granted by the Order; and "industrial undertakers" means undertakers by whom any industrial process is carried on, and mineral undertakers" means undertakers engaged in mining operations.
Apart from the general point that has already been made, that the provisions in question correspond to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Acts, there does not seam to be any justification for granting special protection for the rights of such bodies, because they are not providing public services but are operating commercially. Any objection on the ground that acquisition and development of the land would prejudice their operations through the loss of their rights in the land would be for consideration in relation to the compulsory purchase order. On the other hand, Think we are all agreed it is entirely appropriate that statutory undertakings, whose operation has been recognised by Parliament as of vital importance in the public interest, should be able to contest any proposal to extinguish their rights.
The procedures in paragraphs 17 and 18 are designed for this and, in the event of an unresolved dispute, the Minister responsible for the undertakers and the Secretary of State jointly determine the
52
issue. Therefore I suggest it would be quite inappropriate that these procedures should be applied to mineral and industrial undertakers. We have to accept that statutory undertakers are in a special position. They are bodies established by Parliament, and to suggest that nearly all industrialists in this field should be included seems quite wrong and certainly should not be included in this Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I have never argued that statutory undertakers are not in a special position; of course they are. What I tried to argue was that it could equally be said that a number of industrial undertakers were in a special position, especially now when anything that threatened their processes and the work they could do would have a direct consequence on the economy by way of employment. But that may be regarded as a point outside the scope of this Bill. I think it would be a mistake to assume that because they are not statutory undertakers they are not doing anything of great importance to the community. However, as I indicated at the beginning, I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 64B:
Page 61, line 20, at end insert ("but shall not be given until after the proposals and any objections thereto have been heard at a Public Inquiry and the Secretary of State has been advised of the proceedings at such Inquiry").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment follows on discussions that we have had earlier on Schedule 4, and its purpose is to require that public inquiries should be held in cases in which there are objections to compulsory purchase orders. This Amendment is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State shall not authorise any of the operations mentioned in paragraph 1(1) of this Schedule until an inquiry has taken place and he has been advised of its procedures. I beg to move.
Lord GRIDLEY: I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lady Young, but from a different and wider angle. I should like to emphasise that

53
there are other interests—as she said in speaking to preceding Amendments—outside those of statutory undertakings, which have vast interests in this country; for example, the building industry. Very wide powers are given to the authority under this Bill, and also to statutory undertakers. There are also in this country many members of the building industry who possess land banks, and I do not think the wide powers conferred by this Bill have been sufficiently appreciated. I can conceive of many interests in which the building industry are greatly involved, where statutory undertakers, or an authority itself, want to acquire land adjoining or going over land banks which exist at present. As this is rather a specialised interest, which can be known only to the building industry itself, I should like to see a right of inquiry given to the building industry and for the Secretary of State to call for this in these circumstances. If this were done, it would remove the present uncertainty and stagnation in regard to the building of houses in this country.
Lord MELCHETT:However slowly houses are being built now, they are being built a great deal faster than they were a short while ago. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with that. He said that the Bill will mean that the authorities have to acquire vast amounts of land, but we have made it clear on several occasions that the Bill does not interfere with the existing planning system. So it does not mean that any additional land will be coming into development. So if the noble Lord will accept that at the moment vast amounts of land are being bought for development by private developers, then I will agree with him that the same amount of land will continue to be bought in the future, but more of it by public authorities than in the past. It is not the case that vast extra quantities of land will be developed because of this Bill.
Turning to the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I should like to make two points about it. First, there is nothing in the 1971 Act, as she may have suspected, which says that before land can be acquired (either by agreement or compulsorily) or appropriated for planning purposes, planning permission for its development must first have been obtained. But if a local
54
authority propose to acquire land compulsorily under the planning Act, then, as they will know, the long-established practice of the Secretary of State is not to confirm a CPO unless he is satisfied that the planning aspect has been properly covered. If land was acquired for planning purposes by agreement, it would of course be unlawful for the authority to develop it unless planning permission had been granted (after any procedures applicable to the grant of such permission—including, where relevant, an inquiry—have been carried out).
Secondly, this Bill—like the planning Act—does not specifically demand that planning permission shall have been granted before land can be acquired. But the Government have made it quite clear that the community land scheme, and hence land acquisition under the scheme, is, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, planning based; and there is the evidence of the Government Amendments to Part I of Schedule 4 to show that there will be CPO public inquiries into owners' objections where the planning status of the land has not been established by processes involving an inquiry. That is an area of the Bill which we have been over in some detail.
But that is not the end of the matter. The fact that land has been acquired, whether for planning purposes under the planning Act or under the Bill as land which is suitable for development, does not override the need to obtain planning permission before development can be carried out—and if it has not been obtained beforehand, then it must be obtained subsequently. Furthermore, in both cases if the procedures before planning permission is granted involve a planning inquiry, then an inquiry must be held.
Thus the opportunities for owners and the general public to object to development proposals on planning grounds will be neither more nor less for land acquired under the Bill which is proposed to be developed under the powers of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4, than for land acquired or appropriated under the planning Act where Section 124 of that Act applies. In both the planning Act and the Community Land Bill the availability of planning permission will obviously be a crucial factor in the Secretary of State's consideration of an application for consent to carry out the development, and

55
I should make it clear that such consent would not constitute the grant of planning permission. I therefore cannot accept that any additional procedures of the kind suggested in the Amendment are justified.
Baroness YOUNG:I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. It is useful to have that statement on the record, so that we can study it, and those who arc concerned about the workings of this part of the Schedule can also read it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 64C:
Page 61, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is really a probing Amendment so that perhaps we may have some idea of the way in which the Government believe the discretionary powers here will be exercised. The Amendment is to require the Secretary of State to direct authorities to advertise any points which appear to him to be requisite, rather than leave him to decide whether or not to require their advertisement. It would be useful to know the situation in which the powers are likely to be exercised. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: This subparagraph corresponds to subsection (4) of Section 124 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The section applies to any land acquired or appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes. As with most of the rest of this part of the Schedule, the section goes back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. It is not a prerequisite of such acquisition or appropriation that planning permission has been granted for any form of the development of the land, and where development is proposed to be carried out by a local authority, which is the local planning authority, permission is deemed to have been granted by the Secretary of State unless the development is a substantial departure from the development plan. In that case the procedures which operate require the authority to advertise the proposal, but in other cases it is desirable for the Secretary of State to be able to
56
require the authority to sound out local opinion about the development proposal, bearing in mind that it will not be development for local authority purposes.
The situation with regard to planning permission will be the same as that under Part III of the Bill, but it does not demand that there should be advertisement in each and every case, as I understand would be required by the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It should be left to the Secretary of State to exercise his judgment as to when local opinion will be relevant in deciding whether the authority should be allowed to carry out development, which they would not otherwise have power to do.
Baroness YOUNG: Once again, I should like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, for that explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 61, line 33, at end insert ("acquisition and").
The noble Earl said: Briefly, I wish to move Amendment No. 65, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 66 and 67.
Lord MELCHETT: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Earl for a moment. It would be greatly to our convenience if he could speak merely to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66. We understood that Amendment No. 67 was on a very different point.
The Earl of BALFOUR: All right; I will speak to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66. Sub-paragraph (5) of this Bill is taken from Section 124 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I have been interested, particularly with regard to Scotland, in Section 114 of the Scottish Act. There are quite a number of differences here. If I may draw the attention of your Lordships to a point, one reason for this Amendment has regard to the position in Scotland of the Scottish Special Housing Association.
If I may go through sub-paragraph (5), it says:
"An authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into arrangements with an authorised association".
I argue here for the inclusion of the words, "acquisition and". I want to put

57
in those words because in the case of the Scottish Special Housing Association, they would buy the land,
"… of any operation which, apart from the arrangements, the authority would have power under this paragraph to carry out,".
I think it would not be in their interests that the words,
"(including terms as to the making of payments or loans by the authority to the association)",
should be left in, particularly bearing in mind the special position of the Scottish Special Housing Association. It is on their behalf that I am really interested in trying to make certain that they will have exactly the same rights in future as they have at the present moment. With those few words, I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Lord FOOT: Are we not getting ourselves into considerable trouble here?—because not only is this in conflict with all the powers in the 1971 Act, but we are introducing yet another anomaly. I am afraid that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is not even grammatical. If we read it with the Amendment—if the noble Earl will follow me—we read:
"An authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into arrangements with an authorised association for the acquisition and carrying out by the association of any operation …".
As I understand it, you cannot acquire an operation, but if you are not acquiring an operation, what are you acquiring? It cannot be right as it stands, both grammatically and with regard to the context of the 1971 Act.
Lord MELCHETT: Those are both points I was going to make, so a little time has been saved. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for merely speaking to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, which makes our life easier. So far as Amendment No. 65 is concerned, besides the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, the provision in the Bill is designed to enable authorised associations to carry out development in place of the authority, without the land being transferred to an authority. If it is felt that land acquired under Part III should be disposed of to an authorised association so they can carry out development for their own purposes, such disposal, if considered under the relevant provisions governing
58
the disposal of land—I must correct myself before going any further. I started off by saying, the provision in the Bill"; I meant to say the Amendment of the noble Earl would have that effect.
In this Bill the provisions governing the disposal of land are to be found in Clause 41, and the duty to have regard to any application of a former owner in material interest is set out in Schedule 6. The strictures which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, applied to Amendment No. 65, so far as it is in conflict with the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, apply also to Amendment No. 66. I also find it hard to understand why the noble Earl should wish to prevent an authority under the control of the Secretary of State from making grants or loans to an authorised association in appropriate cases. As I understand it, that is the effect his Amendment would have.
The Earl of BALFOUR:This part of the Bill certainly does not comply with Scots law. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would look at Section 114 of the Scottish Act of 1972, some time between now and Report stage. I must quite firmly draw that to his attention. It is supposed to apply to both countries, but there are a remarkable number of differences between English and Scottish legislation. I am concerned about this. However, I will not press it further, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 61, line 44, after ("suit") (",or in Scotland the instance,").
The noble Earl said: In Scotland we do not have suits. I insist that at this stage, this Amendment is necessary if this Part of this Bill is to comply with Scottish law; otherwise, some other Amendment must go in at some other place. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: If the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, agrees, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 68A and 218W, as they all connect.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I expect that is all right.
Baroness BIRK: The first three are in Schedule 4 and No. 2I8W is in Schedule 10, Page 88, line 18. They are all the same: after "suit" insert "or in Scotland the instance". The interpretation of the legal term "suit", as I understand it, would be the same on both sides of the Border, but I acknowledge that the alternative proposed by the noble Earl is a purer form of words in the context of Scottish law, and therefore I have very great pleasure in accepting all those Amendments.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 62, line 8, leave out ("the working classes and others") and insert ("letting").
The noble Baroness said: It is, of course, easy to see why these words have crept into this Part of the Schedule. I understand that the Schedule is taken from the 1971 Act which is a consolidating measure, and clearly this term must appear in a much earlier Act. Without in any way wishing to be facetious, I am inclined to think that there are two classes nowadays, those who work and those who overwork. I think that Members of this Committee could put themselves in the latter class without any difficulty. The term "working class" is a term not generally used, and what is meant in this case is authorised housing associations with houses to let to people. Therefore, it seems to me an anachronism to use these words. I put down this Amendment to see whether we could find something better. I have no doubt the argument will be that as it is in the 1971 Act it cannot be altered, but I should have thought this was something which ought to be looked at again. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I agree with the noble Baroness that the term is archaic and anachronistic. When I saw it in the Amendment and in the Bill itself I thought, "This is rather what I call the Upstairs, Downstairs Amendment", now a very popular programme, with Mr. Hudson and Mrs. Bridges every week seeming to have a much better time than the people with all the traumas going on upstairs; maybe it has now become encased in our social history. That I would say hastily, is not a good enough reason for keeping the words in the Bill
60
and if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor were here he would explain in a far more learned way why it is so.
To be serious, it is not just the original Acts which would have to be changed. I agree there is a strong case for any Government with enough legislative time to bring things up to date, but over the last decade or more we do not seem to have had a Government with enough time to do it. But also change would mean that all the articles and memoranda of the various associations would also have to be brought up to date. This provision is in exactly the same words as Section 124(8) of the 1971 Act. I can only say: Thank goodness it was not an original idea of this Government to put it into this Bill. It was originally introduced in the last century and was then incorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act 1932. While I very much appreciate what has been said, and particularly the feeling behind it, as it comes from the other side of the Committee, I must resist the Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: I suppose the noble Baroness would claim that "others" includes the rest of the population, because I can think of a very large section of the population which would not be included in the "working classes". Nowadays one attains one's majority at the age of 18, but a great many people are still studying after the age of 18. Are they called "working classes" when they are studying? Some of them are, and some of them are not. I should not have thought they came into the category of working class. Then, of course, there are the quarter of a million or so who are, unfortunately, regarded as unemployable. They come from what is generically called the working class, but they are not working because they are incapable of being employed. Then there are a certain unknown number of people who prefer not to work, because they find they can make a very good thing out of having a large family on the dole. That finally leaves about 5,000—I believe that is the estimated figure—who never have worked and have no intention of working. I take it that this paragraph includes everybody except the 5,000?
Baroness BIRK: I do not think I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in

61
his political and social swipes across the community, except to say that maybe one should now define the working class with the old definition of the middle class. If you think you are in it, you are in it.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not intend to press this Amendment. I can see the reasons why the term is brought into this Bill. I think it is now a completely misleading term and to use some such word as "letting" would be infinitely preferable, but it would obviously put a lot of people to a great deal of trouble to alter it at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 67D:
Page 62, line 19, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 67D. We now move to paragraph 11 under the general heading of "Power to override easements and other rights". The effect of my noble friend's Amendment is to deal with that part of the paragraph which would allow modification of the effectiveness of restrictive covenants. I am not sure which noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will be dealing with this, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will certainly know that this sort of thing is normally done, even in the case of a compulsory purchase order, under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which despite its date is still apt and appropriate, and in fact was modified by the last Labour Government and widened in its extent. My question is: what is wrong with Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in this case, and what difference in compensation will there be between that which will be assessed, if the Bill remains as it is, under paragraph 11(4), and that which will be assessed if it is done in the ordinary way, under the Law of Property Act. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure about the Act of 1925, but paragraph 11 is identical with Section 124 of the Town and Country Planning Act and is intended to serve the very same purpose. I therefore call in aid a more recent parentage to the legislation than
62
the 1925 Act, if recency of parentage is an impressive argument. Turning to the merits of what is proposed, the Amendment does not argue against the overriding of interests and rights to which paragraph 11(3) refers—"any easement, liberty, privilege, right or advantage annexed to land and adversely affecting other land, including any natural right to support"—but for some reason it singles out contractual restrictions. Several of those restrictions, of course, would have had a contractual origin.
But, in any event, the purpose of paragraph 11 is to ensure that any land that has been acquired under the Bill with a view to development may be properly used for that purpose, whether by the acquiring authority or any person who purchases or leases the land free of any restrictions relating to the land. It would clearly frustrate that purpose if contractual restrictions on the user of the land were allowed to survive, and, of course, it cannot be ruled out that contracts might be entered into with the very object of preventing development.
The paragraph provides, as your Lordships will see in sub-paragraph (4), for the payment of compensation under the Land Compensation Acts on the basis of injurious affection. Compensation is the established and precedented remedy in situations of this kind. Overriding the restrictive covenants is done under the 1925 Act by private individuals. For local authorities the overriding is done under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. In both cases compensation is assessed by the lands tribunal and in theory, therefore, the compensation basis should be the same in either case. With great respect, I do not think that there is anything in this point, particularly since sub-paragraph (3) has been surrendered without a protest.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As I understand it, the answer is that Section 84 is the part of the law which is used when the issue is between private individuals, and Section 132 of the Town and Country Planning Act is used when local authorities are involved. I shall read in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord said about compensation factors, which I was not able to follow as he was going

63
along. I beg leave to withraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 68 and 68A formally.
Amendments moved—
Page 63, line 7, after ("suit") insert (",or in Scotland the instance,").
Page 65, line 5, after ("suit") insert (",or in Scotland the instance,").—(The Earl of Balfour.)
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Baroness accepts these Amendments, which I understand is her intention, may I inform the Lord Chancellor that while he was out of the Chamber just now she betrayed the pass, because she admitted an Amendment to a clause which I understand is an exact reproduction of the 1971 Act. She has, in the noble and learned Lord's absence, given the whole game away.
I do not know whether the situation can now be retrieved. May I suggest an argument to the noble Baroness to reverse her previous position? It would be this: the word "suit", where it is used, is not used here in this Bill in its legal sense, or it need not necessarily be regarded as being used in its legal sense—that is, a suit at law. It can be regarded as being used in its colloquial sense. If I may read the earlier passage, it reads like this:
… which is actionable at the suit of any person on any ground".
If you read "the suit" in its colloquial sense and not in its exact sense, it applies equally quite suitably in Scotland. I am afraid that the noble Baroness has got herself into difficulty, and I do not know whether the situation is now beyond repair.
Baroness BIRK: With great respect, I do not think it is I who put my foot in it. The Scottish Act refers to "at the instance of" in the sections which are equivalent to the provisions in these paragraphs, so the golden rule was not in fact broken. It does not go against the dicta of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In this case it is an extremely simple operation. It also applies to Scotland. I always think that different things often apply to Scotland than apply to England. I can assure the
64
noble Lord, Lord Foot, that I have not broken any rules, and that in fact it is in the Scottish Act, and if he desires I shall draw his attention afterwards to the exact provisions.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: May I confirm that my noble friend has not erred from the path of rectitude in my temporary absence. What is proposed is an exact reproduction of the English Act, but it did not take into account the 1972 Scottish Act. "Suit or instance" is an admirable combination of the two.
5.36 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 65, line 26, leave our paragraph 15.
The noble Earl said: I never like putting down an Amendment to any piece of legislation to leave out a paragraph or a clause. I should like to quote—and I think this is the best way I can do this—to show how paragraph 15 is virtually an extraction from Section 119 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, or Section 129 of the English Act of 1971. I should like your Lordships to compare paragraph 15 with the words that I shall now read from the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, quoting Section 119(1):
"Any land being, or forming part of, a common or open space, which has been acquired by a Minister, a local authority or statutory undertakers under this Part of this Act or compulsorily under any other enactment, or which has been appropriated by a local planning authority for planning purposes, may—

(a) in the case of land acquired by a Minister, be used in any manner by him or on his behalf for any purpose for which he acquired the land; and

(b) in any other case, be used by any person in any manner in accordance with planning permission,

notwithstanding anything in any enactment relating to land of that kind, or in any enactment by which the land is specially regulated.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising any act or omission on the part of any person which is actionable at the instance of any person on any ground other than contravention of any such enactment as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section."
The wording in this Bill is very much wider than the wording that existed in the Town and Country Planning Act. One thing I am concerned about is that

65
this allows the use of development land, particularly in the case of open spaces, and there is a serious risk that we may lose things like commons or, worse still, part of the Green Belt areas which exist around some of our industrial cities. I ask particularly that this matter be investigated between now and Report to see that these Green Belts are protected, and that nothing in the Bill will enable a local authority perhaps to take advantage of a provision whereby that situation of the lands is weakened.
One of the disadvantages of the reform of local government has been the creation of very much bigger authorities. When the Local Government (Scotland) Act was going through your Lordships' House, I explained how the green belts of Edinburgh and Glasgow, to mention but two, had been beautifully protected because no authority ever gave planning permission for any development on that land without the consent and agreement of the other authorities connected with them; and because no authority ever agreed, nothing was ever built in those areas.
I have quoted some past legislation and in spite of what has been said by noble Lords opposite—about most of this part of the Schedule being an extract from town and country planning legislation—it is clear that it is not an exact extract and that there are a considerable number of differences. I have pointed to some, but it is difficult to point to each difference. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be examined between now and Report, because I am sure that all noble Lords are anxious not to see weakened by this provision what we have been able to protect in the past.
Baroness BIRK: The purposes for which land of the categories mentioned in paragraph 15, which the noble Earl wants to delete, may be utilised are generally regulated by statutory provisions of a severely restrictive nature. These restrictions may be overriden through acquisition under a compulsory purchase order, but such an order is subject to special Parliamentary procedure, whether or not there are any objections, unless—and I stress this—the Secretary of State certifies under the procedures in paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Acts; that
66
the area does not exceed 250 square yards, or the land is required for the widening or drainage of an existing highway, or that equally advantageous land is to be given in exchange. In other cases, where the land is acquired by agreement—and this is where it departs from the Town and Country Planning Act, because that does not cover acquisitions by agreement, which are covered by this Bill—there would be room for legal argument as to whether such land could be used for development purposes. Paragraph 15 removes that doubt and also confirms that position where the land is acquired compulsorily.
Paragraph 15 does not, therefore, represent a warrant for the taking of open space or common land for development which is, I think, what the noble Earl is anxious about. The procedures which have to be negotiated before such land may be acquired for development, and which include an opportunity for public objection and in many cases an inquiry, are themselves a deterrent to attempts to erode commons and open spaces. But where these procedures have been passed through successfully, it is vital that there should be no doubt about the ability to carry out development of the land.
The Amendment is possibly based on a misunderstanding, because its wording is not wider. The planning Act provisions cover all land acquired by agreement and compulsorily under the planning Act, or compulsorily under any other enactment, including this Bill. The provision in the Bill is to cover acquisition by agreement made by the Bill. The real answer is to be found in the printed note, so the answer to the noble Earl's remarks is to be found in the Bill—in the note on the Schedule and in the clause—and I think there has been a genuine misunderstanding on his part which I hope my reply has cleared up. If he has not been able to assimilate such an enormous amount as I have had to say—I have had a great deal to say in a short time—perhaps when he reads the Report of my remarks in Hansard he will find that his doubts and anxieties are unnecessary.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I am seeking information, because I remember that when we took the London Government Act through your Lordships' House

67
there were areas in London—for example, Wimbledon Common and Chislehurst Common in my constituency—which were covered; in fact, there was a cricket pitch in my area which was covered by an Act of 1812. We also have under that legislation commoners who regulate the public spaces in that area and I believe a similar form applies to Wimbledon Common. Can the noble Baroness tell me whether there is anything in this Bill which will wipe out the power of the established administration, by which in many areas of London commoners administer open spaces which, in the main, are places of beauty and amenity to the local area? Is there anything in this provision which will destroy the rights of what are now the established administrations of commoners and mean the taking over of open sites and commons which are at present great amenities of the local inhabitants?
Baroness BIRK: No. As I understand it, this provision has nothing to do with the point the noble Baroness raised. Nor was it the point about which I was speaking when dealing with the noble Earl's Amendment; it is the part of the Schedule which deals with the use and development of land for open spaces. The noble Earl's Amendment would take away a certain amount of the protection. As I pointed out, restrictions may be over-ridden through acquisition under a compulsory purchase order—it is only in extreme cases where they can be overridden—but, as I said, such an order is subject to special Parliamentary procedure, whether or not there are any objections, unless the Secretary of State certifies under the procedures in paragraph 11 of Schedule to the Acquisition of Land Acts, so there is a double safeguard.
As I pointed out, certification will apply where the area does not exceed 250 square yards or the land is required for the widening or drainage of an existing highway, or if equally advantageous land is to be given in exchange. As I explained, in other cases where the land is acquired by agreement—this would be the only other alternative—there would still be room for legal argument as to whether such land could be used for development purposes. In other words, even if there is agreement and somebody
68
wants to give up the common land or open space—which is what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, gave us an example—it could still be turned down by the courts. So my understanding is that there is no fear on that score at all.
Lord HAWKE: Perhaps the noble Baroness can allay my fear on this. When my noble friend Lord Balfour was reading from the Scottish provision, it appeared to me that the land could be developed only in accordance with the original purpose for which it was acquired. Reading this provision, however, it looks as though that does not necessarily ensue, because it seems that a common could be taken into ownership by a local authority for one purpose, and then, perhaps because it has run out of money and the authority has to keep it for two or three years, it could decide to use it for a totally different purpose. In line 30, if, after "with" the word "the" were inserted, that would meet my point, but does it meet the point of the authors of the Bill?
The Earl of ONSLOW: When the noble Baroness says that land of equal value is to be put in its place, who is to decide what is land of equal value? I raise this because in my home area we have had a considerable issue over the replacement of some public open space by other land of equal value. Secondly, do I understand the noble Baroness to have said that, if a local authority does want such land, it would have to push an Act through Parliament to repeal the 1812 Act?
The Earl of BALFOUR: I fear that I am becoming rather concerned. I refer again to the wording of the Bill. Paragraph 15 says:
"Any land … forming part of a common … may be used by any person in any manner in accordance with planning permission".
Planning permission is given only if something is to be developed; that is, if a building is to be erected. So far as I know, there is no need to apply for planning permission if the land is to be turned into a golf course. I may be wrong here, but I am concerned about buildings going up in the Green Belt area. Furthermore, the noble Baroness said that this paragraph would be subject to special Parliamentary procedure, but I should like once

69
again to refer your Lordships to Clause 40, which deals with exclusion of Parliamentary procedure. So far as I know, the exclusion under Clause 40 would apply under Schedule 4 as much as anywhere else. As a result, I am rather perturbed about the situation and I hope the noble Baroness can put my mind a little more at rest.
Baroness BIRK: On the point about the exchange, it is not a question of value, but it is that the land should not be less in area and should be equally advantageous. It would be up to the Secretary of State to decide after an inquiry if there were objections. However, I must say again as I said when I originally answered the noble Earl's first point that, where the procedures have been passed through—and I spelt them out very carefully—and passed through successfully, it is vital there should be no doubt about the ability to carry out development of the land. In the last resort, therefore, and when all these filters have been gone through—and it would be extremely difficult to come out at the other end and to get permission generally to develop open land or commons—it may be that there will be some pieces of land on which, after all the inquiries and after the objections and even by agreement, if that agreement is ratified, there may be the possibility of development. That is quite clear. It is part of positive planning and part of this Bill, but it would be very rare.
It is the acquisition which is subject to the special Parliamentary procedure under the Acquisition of Land Act, and Clause 40 does not remove that requirement. I agree that it is a very complicated point and a very difficult part of the Bill, but it ties up with the Acquisition of Land Act in these points which I have touched on, and it does not go against any of the matters which the noble Earl is still concerned about.
On the point which the noble Baroness and, I believe, the noble Earl, made about the 1812 Act, as my noble and learned friend said to me, all we know about it at the moment is the overture—at least, that may not be his position but it certainly is mine. I shall look into this point, though, as of now, I do not believe that the noble Baroness has anything to fear. I undertake to look at it.
Baroness HORNSBY-SM1TH: May I take the noble Baroness up on this point? At this moment, Wimbledon and Chislehurst commons are completely protected against development, and it is no good the noble Baroness saying that local authorities will have to go through all these filters before such areas can be developed if she is saying that if moves were made to take over either of these two commons—which I amusing purely as examples because I am familiar with them—which are at present completely protected against development, the Bill means that, despite the noble Baroness's filters, they could be developed for housing or anything else. This is a matter of very serious concern to people who cherish their open spaces.
The Earl of MALMESBURY: May I also include the New Forest in this?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Now your Lordships have the great advantage of the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is the Government spokesman on Welsh affairs, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the difficulties she has referred to apply to Wales or whether land in Wales is sacrosanct as it should be in this area of common land?
Lord HAWKE: On the last point, can the noble Baroness inform me whether a local authority can acquire land for one purpose by going through all the correct procedures and then, by planning permission, use the land for a totally different purpose?
Baroness BIRK: On the last point, there are two processes: the land is acquired and planning takes place after that. The present Bill is concerned with development. I have explained at great length and several times the difficulties and obstacles in the way of acquiring the sort of land we are discussing at the moment—open spaces and common land —and I have underlined that there would be very great difficulties in the way of such land coming into development. But that land is not completely protected. On the other hand, it is not completely protected at the present time under the existing law. The Bill will not make the position any different. Wales is in exactly the same position, I should add, though I do not know whether the noble Lord will be happy or sad about that.

71
Paragraph 15 is in identical terms to Section 129 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. If it were deleted, it would have the odd result that commons and open spaces and all the examples that have been brought forward by noble Lords could be used without difficulty if acquired under that Act but not if they were acquired under the present Bill, despite going through the same statutory procedures. So I believe that there is unnecessary worry because what noble Lords are talking about is the position exactly as it now exists, and, if the Bill were amended in the way the noble Earl has suggested, it would make the situation worse and more complicated.
Lord HAWKE: Do I understand the noble Baroness to say that, under the existing law and under the Bill, it would be perfectly possible for a local authority to acquire a common saying, while passing, through the usual hoops through which it had to go, that it intended to turn the common into a playing field but, finding after a year that it had no money to turn it into a playing field, later to obtain planning permission and to use it for a housing estate?
Baroness BIRK: No, it could not. If it wanted to do that it would have to go through the special Parliamentary procedure, and it would not be allowed.
The Earl of ONSLOW: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, she has not allayed my fears, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, on the question of areas of public open space which are protected at present by specific Acts of Parliament. Stoke Park in Guildford is another such area, as well as Wimbledon Common and Chislehurst Common. If the Bill is to contain a provision which allows such protection to go, then that is something well worth worrying about very considerably. After all, our forebears in their wisdom decided that such places were worthy of special merit, and they asked and obtained from Parliament a special Act of Parliament to protect them. At the moment, through her replies, the noble Baroness has not given me anything other than cause for worry.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Although it was clearly not my intention that paragraph 15 should be left out, I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I do not
72
think that paragraph 15 is giving the protection that is needed to existing commons and open spaces; and in this respect I particularly emphasise green belts. Would the noble Baroness please look at this matter very carefully between now and Report stage, to see whether paragraph 15 needs a lot of tightening up? Its present wording is far too wide, and protection needs to be given here. I shall give the noble Baroness one excellent example. Planning permission is obtained from the local authority. Let us take another example. At one time there was a move for responsibility for river purification to be put back into the hands of local authorities. Luckily, there were so many Members in another place who objected to that proposal that that responsibility was left under the private boards, for the simple reason that there are no worse offenders than the local authorities. In cases of planning permission, very often there are no worse offenders than local authorities when their own interests are involved. It is for that reason—and not because I or anyone else has any axe to grind—that I have asked the noble Baroness to protect what I think needs to be protected under the provisions of this legislation, regardless of the Town and Country Planning Acts, the Acquisition of Land Acts or any other Acts. I have acted to try to make certain that there is not a loophole—which I think there is in this provision—which would allow local authorities under this Bill to do something which they have not been able to do before. That is my point, but I shall not press it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 67, line 36, at end insert—
("(7) In this paragraph and paragraph 19 below any person who has an existing cable, pipe or culvert crossing land acquired under Part III of this Act shall have the same rights as if he were a statutory undertaker.")
The noble Earl said: We are concerned here with pipes going across land, not with looking for compensation. Is there anyway in which a private pet son who has, say, a waterpipe feeding his farm, or a culvert draining land, can be protected in exactly the same way as if that cable, pipe or culvert—noble Lords

73
will perhaps forgive some of the expressions I am using—was the property of a statutory undertaking? I do not think that I am asking for anything unreasonable here. It is not a question of compensation. If the sort of facility I have in mind was taken away, it could seriously upset an adjoining proprietor whoever he may be.
Let us consider, for example, an instance where the National Coal Board has a pipe taking water away from a disused coalmine into a river. The National Coal Board is protected as a statutory undertaker. But, for argument sake, there might be a private person who has a disused quarry which has become a lake, and which floods occasionally. He must retain the right of being able to drain water across land that may have been acquired by a local authority under the provisions of this Bill. I am concerned here about the extinguishment of rights of way and any rights to apparatus of statutory undertakers. Whatever rights they have to compensation or to anything else, a private person should occasionally have just as many rights to claim. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: This Amendment would give any owner of a cable, pipe or culvert crossing land acquired under Part III of the Bill the same rights as statutory undertakers have under paragraphs 18 and 19; that is to say, rights to object to a notice by the authority that the rights to maintain the "apparatus" are to be extinguished or requiring the removal of the apparatus; rights to be heard; and rights to compensation from the authority. As I said when speaking on previous Amendments the provisions of paragraphs 18 and 19 (and 20 in this case) are specifically designed to cover the special interests of statutory undertakers, who, as I pointed out in reply to Amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have responsibilities under Statute to provide services needed by the public.
Apparatus belonging to other persons is covered by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, which, although it does not confer the same rights on the owners, clearly encourages authorities to reach agreement about the maintenance or removal of apparatus. Failing any alternative to the removal of the apparatus if the land
74
is to be developed, compensation is payable in accordance with the Land Compensation Acts; but it would naturally be to the authority's advantage to reach an agreement if at all possible, since it would reduce or remove the compensation liability. But in view of the provisions of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, which, as I said, provides for compensation and for agreements to be made with the owner of the apparatus, there does not appear to me to be any need for the provision that the Amendment seeks to make.
It is also unacceptable that paragraphs 18 and 19 should depart in any way from the corresponding provisions in Sections 230 and 231 of the Town and Country Planning Act. If they did so, the rights of owners would differ according to the power under which the land was acquired, which would be most unsatisfactory. It would put it all over the place, and the consistency that is needed here would be lost. I hope I have made the position clear, because once again there is this basic difference between statutory undertakers and other undertakers, which goes all the way through the Bill.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am most grateful for that explanation, which will be of benefit to other people who may read the report of our proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.9 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 69, line 19, leave out from ("Office") to ("or") in line 20.
The noble Earl said: I am seeking here to leave out the words "of the Inland Revenue Department". Surely in this case the Valuation Office is the district valuer who fixes the rates. I may be wrong, but surely this is a local authority matter, not a national exchequer matter. This is a probing Amendment to find out why the words "of the Inland Revenue" were included here. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Earl is right: he has, I think, misunderstood this, because paragraph 21 corresponds with subsection (7) of Section 280 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, in which

75
there is a reference to "an officer of the Valuation Office", without the words "of the Inland Revenue Department". This, I think, is the misleading point. But Section 280 contains other references to such an officer, and to avoid repetition "Valuation Office" has its own definition in Section 290(1) as meaning the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue. That, in fact, is the correct long title. In the Community Land Bill the only reference to the Valuation Office is in paragraph 21 of Schedule 4, and its title must therefore appear in full. In other words, there is nothing sinister about this. This is the correct expression, and it has just been spelt out in this one place in the Bill.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 69, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of paragraph 22 below").
The noble Earl said: This part of the Bill has been taken from Section 280 and Section 281 of the 1971 Act, and I argue that, as the two must be linked, the words,
"Subject to the provisions of paragraph 22 below"
are needed in this case, for it would then make this provision have the same effect as the equivalent words in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: I wonder whether, in answering this Amendment, the noble Baroness could deal with one other point about which I am a litle anxious; namely, that the authority given under sub-paragraph (3), to search and to bore as well as to survey, does not overrule the need for planning permission if the searching and boring involve the erection of any machinery—which, to the best of my knowledge, is development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, and could be done only if planning permission was available.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Earl's Amendment is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. The various provisions of paragraph 22 make it clear that they qualify
76
the relevant powers of paragraph 21, including, as the context requires, not only sub-paragraph (3) but also sub-paragraphs (1) and (2). Nevertheless, the noble Earl has compared paragraph 21(3) with Section 280(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act, and it is also quite true, as he pointed out, that the latter has the opening words,
" Subject to the provisions of section 281 of this Act …"
I think I must be quite fair and say that it could be argued that in the interests of conformity, and in view of what we have said generally this afternoon, these words should be inserted in the Bill. Therefore, because it is such a personal pleasure every now and then, after all his tremendously hard work, to be able to say "Yes" to an Amendment which the noble Earl has moved, if he feels strongly about this one and the Committee feel that it would clarify the situation—although I must warn your Lordships that it involves putting a few more words into this rather long Bill—I am prepared to accept this Amendment. On the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised, I gather that he does not have any reason for anxiety. The answer is, "No".
7.15 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 70, leave out lines 19 to 24.
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville, I beg to move this Amendment, which is to do with modifications to the Land Compensation Act 1961. I have looked at the two sections concerned, Sections 2 and 4, and so has my noble friend, and we really cannot see to what matters any further regulations might refer. Therefore, we should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord opposite, or from the noble Baroness, what matters are to be covered by the regulations and what will be the scope of other modifications which might be introduced without the necessity to publish any regulations. This is merely a probing Amendment to find out what is in mind. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that I find this Amendment, No. 72A, somewhat obscure. It is to leave out lines 19 to 24 on page 70.
Lord SANDFORD: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. It is merely a probing Amendment to find out the content of the regulations.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Section 2 of the 1961 Act provides that the Tribunal shall sit in public, governs the number of witnesses, entitles a member of the Tribunal to enter on and inspect land and requires the Tribunal, on application by either party, to specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular matter the subject of the award; and Section 4 deals with the costs of proceedings and provides for the delivery by the claimant of a detailed notice of claim. Those basic provisions clearly are desirable if the Lands Tribunal is to determine compensation disputes under paragraph 22. It is unlikely that regulations will be made—they have not been made under the 1971 Act: they are not likely to be made under this Bill—but these basic provisions in regard to the procedures will remain, and they effectively protect the position. That is the position with regard to regulations, and I cannot take it further than that I am afraid.
Lord SANDFORD: I think the Committee will agree that it has not taken it any further. The noble and learned Lord is perfectly right, of course, when he describes what is in Section 2 and Section 4 of the Land Compensation Act, but, as I explained, that was not the purpose of the Amendment. Clearly these will be relevant, and I do not for a moment intend to press the Amendment. I hoped, however, that we would hear from the noble and learned Lord what regulations might be needed and why it might be necessary to modify these very basic elements in the Land Compensation Act which no one has found it necessary to modify so far. But perhaps it will be possible for the noble and learned Lord to write to my noble friend and myself to tell us what the regulations will do, or perhaps he may be in a position to tell me now.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that the SOS information that I have received takes the matter any further, but perhaps I may say again that this is a provision taken from the 1971 Act, which contemplated the possibility that regula-
78
might need to be made. They have never been made under the 1971 Act and we cannot presently contemplate them being made under this new Act, as it will be; but if regulations ever were made under the 1971 Act it should be possible for the same to be done under this Bill, to keep the two in line. But I will look into the matter to see whether there is some domain where regulations might be needed, and if the answer is that there is no such possibility we might even consider eliminating the regulations, if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is not here, would permit so unorthodox a procedure.
Lord SANDFORD: This side of the Committee has been suspicious about this Bill; but when the Secretary of State takes unto himself powers to frame regulations and import modifications into an Act which has had hitherto no need of them and cannot tell us why he needs the powers, I am bound to say that our suspicions are increased rather than diminished. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 70, line 31, after ("undertakers") insert ("manufacturers").
The noble Lord said: The statutory undertakers have a certain protection here. This involves land which has been used for boring or rights of entry, and I feel that it is perfectly fair that a manufacturer in this case should have the same rights as the statutory undertaker. I feel that "manufacturers" would adequately cover the case, as under the Development Agency Bills. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: Sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 22 provides that if the land is owned by statutory undertakers who object to a notice of intention to carry out works under paragraph 21(3) on the grounds of serious detriment to their undertaking, the works can only be carried out if authorised by the appropriate Minister. The Amendment proposes that this provision should also cover "manufacturers".
Paragraph 22(6)—corresponding to Section 181(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—recognises that statutory undertakers have responsibilities towards the public for providing services and that any rights to carry out survey

79
works which would seriously interfere with the provision of those services should not be exercisable without the authority of the Minister responsible for the undertakers. In short, this provision protects the interests of the general public.
Although the business interests of persons or bodies other than statutory undertakers should not be interfered with more than is necessary—and this we all agree—there is not the same element of public interest involved and accordingly the application of the procedure to manufacturers would not be justified. In any event, it is to be expected that in practice the rights would not be invoked without previous attempts to secure agreement to entry for the purpose of carrying out the works in question.
The same point applies here as to all Amendments proposed to Part III of Schedule 4; that is, that the provisions correspond to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Acts, and for the reasons reiterated this afternoon it is highly undesirable that they should differ.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I accept what the noble Baroness has said, but I wonder whether she would bear in mind in relation to any directions subsequently given by the Secretary of State that in many cases industry today is getting more complicated, more delicate types of machinery are in use and there is more highly-skilled production in highly technical fields. When anything like this is done, it is possible that, unknowingly, damage could be done to that industry. In many cases compensation is not the answer. I do not want to delay the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 70, line 38, leave out paragraph 23.
The noble Baroness said: I am aware that a similar provision to this is in the 1971 Act; that is, the Secretary of State may displace the 1968 Rent Act or the equivalent Scottish Act in the land acquisition that takes place. I think it will be helpful to have on record what will happen to people who would be so dispossessed under the Rent Acts because there is one way in which the position of a tenant will completely
80
change. He has security of tenure under the 1968 Rent Act; whereas if he becomes a council tenant he will not have any security at all in that way. I should like to know what the Government propose on this matter, whether or not the 1973 Compensation Act will apply and whether such persons who might be dispossessed would be rehoused and compensated and in what way. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to the question put by the noble Baroness is that the Land Compensation Act 1973 or Part III of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 which cover such matters as rehousing, home loss payments and disturbance payments, would all apply and the tenant would be protected by those provisions. This paragraph reproduces the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The only difference is that under the 1971 Act the provisions apply only to local authorities. As the relevant authorities under this Bill include (as noble Lords will know from Clause 1 of the Bill), local authorities, new town authorities, the Peak Park Joint Planning Board, the Lake District Special Planning Board and, in relation to Wales, the Land Authority, the provision applies equally to their procedure and their powers. The important point is that, as I have already said, those affected will be rehoused and compensated.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for that answer and glad to have it on record for those who may be affected by this Bill so that they should know that this will he the case. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK: Amendment No. 75 is consequential to Amendment No. 17 and to several others moved earlier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, leave out lines 1 to 4.—(Baroness Birk.)
6.29 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 71, line 16, at end insert ("if and only if other land is available to fulfil the purpose for which the land is still required").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Colville. We now move to the final Part of this long Schedule—Part IV—which deals with the local authority's powers to appropriate land. All this is in the context of the object of the Bill: the promotion of positive planning. It seems to me that, under paragraph 25, if land was acquired for a certain purpose—for example housing—it may now, under the powers conferred by this paragraph, be appropriated away to industry. A short time ago, we were talking about those powers in relation to commons. This appropriation can be done even if there is still need for housing land. The purpose of this Amendment, which seems to me to be a reasonable constraint on what otherwise look to be sweeping powers, is to allow such appropriation only if there is by now other land to fulfil the need for which the original acquisition took place. Without this limitation, local authorities can acquire land using the powers under this Bill for one purpose and, without waiting to fulfil the purpose for which the land was acquired and publishing a reason, they can then appropriate it, using powers under this paragraph, for some other purpose, leaving the original purpose, for which the first acquisition was justified, completely unfulfilled. For reasons of logic alone, it is necessary to have an Amendment on these lines. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The purpose of sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 25 is to enable a local authority or planning board to appropriate land for the purposes of Part III of the Bill—and thus, in effect, to bring it within the ambit of the land scheme—so that advantage may be taken of the provisions of Part III of Schedule 4 to the Bill; for example, the power to override easements or other rights, powers to develop and extinguishment of rights of way. This is in step with the Town and Country Planning Acts under which the provisions corresponding with Part III of Schedule 4 cover both land acquired or appropriated for planning purposes.
Where such an appropriation is effected, land would still be developed for the purpose for which it was held before appropriation, but the land can be used more effectively when the authority can
82
apply the relevant provisions of Part III of Schedule 4 by an appropriation bringing the land within Part III of the Bill. On the other hand, where land is held under Part III of the Bill as development land, it is still required for development if it is to be used for a school. Subparagraph (1)(b) provides the power in that example to transfer the land for specific purposes of education. Again, it is not a question of creating a deficiency of land for the purpose for which it was held. I am advised that this Amendment —although I hesitate to suggest it—may have arisen from a misunderstanding of the purposes of paragraph 25. I hope that my explanation of the technicalities will have helped the noble Lord opposite.
Lord SANDFORD: It has helped in that I have an explanation which, together with my noble friend, I will want to look at. My first understanding of what the noble Lord has said is that it is his right honourable friend's intention to use the powers conferred in Part III in a more sweeping way than I originally envisaged. I will look at what he said more carefully, and, with my noble friend, decide what to do about the Amendment at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 71, line 20, at end insert—

PART V

  INTERPRETATION
  26. In this Schedule "notice or order shall be served in accordance with section 283 of the Act of 1971 or 269 of the Scottish Act of 1972.")
  The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make certain that notices or orders within Schedule 4 are served in accordance with the usual planning practices under Section 283 of the 1971 Act or Section 269 of the 1972 Scottish Act. There are a number of cases where notices and orders are mentioned. I beg to move.
  Lord MELCHETT: I thought that I was going to have to justify a departure from the Town and Country Planning Act provisions, which of course this is. From the spirit in which the noble Earl moved this Amendment, I understand it does not strike at that matter, but at the application of this Part of the Bill

  83
  to Scotland. I confess that I do not have advice on this point at hand. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to take this away and see whether any modification is needed so far as Scotland is concerned.
  The Earl of BALFOUR: I do not think the noble Lord understands this matter. Under Schedule 4 there are notices and orders which are required to be served, and I am arguing they should be served under the same provisions as the sections quoted here which exist in the respective planning Acts. I want to make certain that notices are served, or orders are issued, giving exactly the same provisions as are in those sections. Therefore there will be no short-cutting of the procedure.
  Lord MELCHETT: In that case, the noble Earl was getting at the point which I and my advisers originally thought of, and I therefore find myself justifying a departure from the Town and Country Planning Act. The departure is made because the authorities which will be operating the scheme will, on the whole, be local authorities and it is felt that the sections of the Local Government Act (that is, Sections 231 and 233) which apply generally to the service of documents, which would also include notices and orders under the Bill, should apply to the giving or service of notices under Schedule 4. Local authorities will be operating under these provisions of the Local Government Act, and it seems sensible that authorities under the Bill should also operate under the same provisions. I can tell the noble Earl that there are services of notice provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, so that point is covered. I hope that with that brief explanation he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
  The Earl of BALFOUR: As it appears to be covered under the Local Government Acts, I am happy on that point. But until I received that answer, I was not happy. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be the fourth Schedule to the Bill?
  Lord MELCHETT: It may be convenient for the Committee for me to answer the question raised earlier by the
  84
  noble Earl. I said then that it would be more convenient to answer his question at this stage. The noble Earl appears to have forgotten. It may be that as I answer his question he will remember. This was with regard to the tense of the paragraph of the Schedule and why it said "was" rather than "is". The answer is that that paragraph says "was" because these notices are served after the compulsory purchase order has been made. Therefore, the compulsory purchase order was made at the time when the service of the notice is relevant. I hope that that answer is helpful.
  The Earl of BALFOUR: This is paragraph 7 on page 59 of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has gone too fast for me. This again concerned the Land Authority for Wales. Once they have made an application for a compulsory purchase order, are they then giving a reasonable opportunity to local authorities to object? It was purely from the Welsh local authorities' point of view. It is not something on which I want to take up the Committee's time. I felt that they must not do something first and ask questions afterwards, which can happen in the best of circumstances.
  Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
  6.39 p.m.
  The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 15, line 18, at end insert ("in accordance with the development or structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State").
  The noble Earl said: Regarding the land acquisition management schemes I should like to recommend strongly that subsection (1) of Clause 16 should read:
  "There shall be a land acquisition and management scheme for the area of each county authority in accordance with the development or structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State."
  I feel that people owning land, people involved in the development of land, the local authorities and everybody else concerned in this field, must have as much notice as possible and we must to some extent follow plans. I should perhaps add one more word of explanation. The words "structure plan" appear quite a lot in the Local Government (Scotland)

  85
  Act, and for that reason I think we need a little more than just the words "development plan". I beg to move.
  Baroness BIRK: The effect of this Amendment would be to require that land acquisition and management schemes be drawn up in accordance with development or structure plans; but the Amendment confuses land acquisition and management schemes, which set out the functions of authorities in each area, with development plans, which include structure plans and which indicate the way in which such an area should be developed, regardless of who carries out the development. I think that if the noble Earl examines this point again in the light of what I have said, he will see that there is a confusion between land acquisition and management schemes and development plans. Clause 1 of the Bill gives concurrent functions in England and Scotland to both tiers of local government and to new town development corporations, and in England to the National Park Planning Board.
  The LAMS for each county area is the means of resolving the conflicts and duplications which would otherwise occur. It is in no way concerned with the merits or demerits of land acquisition, nor with any particular piece of the land which may be acquired. That is a matter for the five-year rolling programme which authorities will be required to prepare in order to justify their borrowing requirements. A development plan is in no sense about who does what: it is about land-use planning and not about functions. Therefore it has no relevance to the preparation of the land acquisition and management schemes. So there is this difference, and although one may argue that land acquisition and management schemes ought to take account of the distribution of functions under the Planning Act, this is already achieved in Schedule 5, in paragraph 1(c) and (d.)
  I do not know whether the noble Earl's Amendment also seeks to tie the land scheme to the planning system, but this is what the Bill is partially about and this is already achieved quite explicitly in Clause 17(2)(a) and (b.) Whatever may be the motives behind the Amendment, I think the noble Earl will agree that it could be meaningless nonsense to require the land acquisition and management schemes to be drawn up in accord-
  86
  with development plans. They are two separate things: there is first the one and then the other. For that reason this Amendment is unacceptable—although I imagine it was probably intended to be a probing Amendment.
  The Earl of BALFOUR: The noble Baroness is quite right in that assumption. In respect of the duties of local authorities, I feel they must follow some sort of plan or agreement whereby the average person living in an area of a county can know roughly what is being planned and what will go on. I felt that a plan was probably the best way of showing what the authority was doing, and where. I understand from what the noble Baroness has said that this appears as a management arrangement in this Part but it is not necessarily connected with any planning. I may have misunderstood, but I felt the object here was to make certain that where land had been acquired it was developed or laid out in accordance with efficient planning and, basically, good management in the development of the land—much as a farmer would plan his fences to suit his layout and what he planned to do with the various parts of his land. I felt this ought to be able to be questioned to some extent by the general public or, much more specifically of course, by the local councillors. Many local authorities are not very good at producing plans, and unless there are plans available people will not really know what is going to happen. However, I do not want to take up any further time, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 78:
  Page 15, line 19, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made")
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 78 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 82, 86, 87, 90 and 126. These are purely drafting Amendments. In the Bill as it stands we sometimes talk of "preparing" land acquisition and management schemes and sometimes of "making" land acquisition and management schemes. It has been decided to standardise this and so the expression "making" will be used. That is effected by the Amendments. I beg to move.
  The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 79:
  Page 15, line 22, after ("by") insert ("the county authority and")
  The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to bring about the situation that the scheme shall be for performance by the county authority and each of the authorities in the area of the county authority. For general clarity, I would have thought it was necessary to bring in both here, rather than just leaving it to the district authorities within the county to carry out the planning, and leaving the county out of it. Let us make this clear if possible, as to whether it is something that the county should do as well as the district, or something that just the district should do. I beg to move.
  Lord MELCHETT: Of course the county authorities will be involved in making land acquisition and management schemes. The Bill provides for this, because the reference, in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 5, to the county authority sending a copy to the Secretary of State makes it absolutely clear that the county authority itself is included.
  The EARL of BALFOUR: It would seem then that this Amendment is not necessary. Is that so?
  Lord MELCHETT: That is the case.
  The EARL OF BALFOUR: In that event, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.50 p.m.
  The EARL of BALFOUR The EARL of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 15, leave out lines 27 and 28, and insert—

  (" (i) developing it themselves, or

  (ii) developing it themselves and disposing of a material interest in it, or

  (iii) disposing of it for development by others, or

  (iv) leasing it for development by others; or

  ")
  The noble Earl said: Somebody reading the Amendment might not realise that paragraph (ii) at line 29 of page 15 would be expected to follow paragraph
  88
  (iv) of my Amendment. Let me explain why. The Bill says:
  "the acquisition by those authorities of laud with a view to—

  (i) developing it themselves and disposing of a material interest in it, or

  (ii) making it available for development by others."

  This appears to me to be very restrictive on the functions of the local authority. I feel that basically we must widen this provision from the point of view of local authorities, to allow them to do a little more. For example, they may want to dispose of land for development by others, or perhaps for it to be leased for development by others. But I must emphasise that my Amendment would delete only lines 27 and 28, of the Bill, and the words "making it available for development by others "would come after paragraph (iv) of the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord MELCHETT: I was not entirely clear from the noble Earl whether he was speaking to an Amendment other than his when moving this Amendment, or whether he was relating it to something in the Bill. It may be helpful if he got me straight on that point before I reply to this Amendment.
  The Earl of BALFOUR: Amendment No. 80 would leave out paragraph (i) of Clause 16(3)(a) and substitute the four paragraphs of the Amendment, and paragraph (ii) in the Bill would become paragraph (v).
  Lord MELCHETT: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. However, I regret to have to tell him that the Amendment is unnecessary. Land acquisition and management schemes are meant to deal specifically with land bought for private development. Paragraph (i) of the Amendment would deal with local authorities buying land for their own use. Powers already exist for authorities to acquire land and develop it themselves for their statutory functions; for example, in the Housing Acts. Paragraph (i) is therefore unnecessary.
  So far as paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the noble Earl's Amendment are concerned, the Bill as drafted provides for authorities acquiring land with a view to developing it themselves and disposing of material interests in it. The words

  89
  "making it available for development by others", in the Bill as drafted, cover both disposing of it for development by others or leasing it for development by others. Therefore, I have to tell the noble Earl that it is our view that paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Amendment also ore unnecessary.
  The Earl of BALFOUR: I am glad to have that explanation. I have no doubt it will be of benefit to local authorities. I certainly took legal advice on this point at the time and I felt that from a local authority point of view the wording was too restrictive. But that assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is good enough for me, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord SANDFORD: Amendment No. 81 would introduce a debate on four other Amendments—Nos. 83, 84, 84A and 86A—all to do with the date of introduction of these schemes. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would feel, in view of the fact that that debate is certain to last quite a while, that it might be as well to break for supper now rather than in five minutes' time when we were already launched into it.
  Lord STRABOLGI: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. That is a very good idea and I suggest that the Committee breaks now until 7.45 p.m. to take other business. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
  House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REDUCTION OF GENERAL GRANT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
6.55 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move, that the Local Government (Reduction of General Grant) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before this House on 7th August, be approved. My Lords, by reason of urgency this Order has been
90
made without a draft having been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. The Order which came into operation on 8th August confers on the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning power to reduce the general grant payable to a district council if that council pays remuneration in excess of the guidelines contained in the White Paper The Attack on Inflation (Cmnd. 6151). This power is similar to that which applies in Great Britain where under Section 4 of the Remuneration Charges and Grants Act the Rate Support Grant payable to local authorities can be reduced.
The Order is limited in time by Section 1 of the Remuneration Charges and Grants Act 1975 and so will lapse when that section does—either on 31st July next year or later if the main Act should be extended. It is the hope of the Government that the powers contained in this Order may never have to be used. My Lords, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Local Government (Reduction of General Grant) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 7th August, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I support this Order. From these Benches, I think it is fair to claim, we have made it clear previously that we believe that the £6 limit is a necessary step at the present time. I am sure that local government in Northern Ireland will accept that all the United Kingdom ought to come under the same pay restraints at the present time. I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. I am interested to know whether any agreement has been reached between councils in Northern Ireland and their staffs on pay for the current year in the way that has already happened here in Great Britain. With that one question, I associate myself with the Government's stance on this Order.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for supporting this Order. As regards the question he asks, as I understand it this matter is still under discussion, but I will in due course write to the noble Lord on the exact position. I do not think there is anything to add,

91
except to thank the noble Lord for supporting us.

ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTION OF ANIMALS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
6.58 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Artificial Reproduction of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 22nd September, be approved. My Lords, the Order seeks to replace and extend the existing statutory provisions for control by the Department of Agriculture over the practice of artificial insemination of animals by persons other than the Department, and to make new provisions for control over the latest development in techniques for artificial reproduction of livestock; namely, the transplantation of ova from one animal to another. Provision is made in the Order for extension of the Department's power to establish and operate artificial insemination centres. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that the service operated by the Department is the only such service available to farmers in Northern Ireland to cover all techniques of artificial reproduction of animals and to include, in particular, ova transplantation.
Provision is also made for greater control over the practice of artificial reproduction of animals by private operators and trade in semen or ova through licensing of practitioners and premises. These controls will apply, for instance, to the farmer wishing to practise "Do-it-yourself" artificial insemination in his own herd unless the semen is obtained from his own sires, to veterinary surgeons practising the ova transplant technique and to commercial developments such as selling or importing semen or ova. Provision is made for wider powers of enforcement of the provisions of the Order and for a higher maximum fine for offences.
I want to make it clear that no immediate or significant swing away from the present public artificial insemination service in Northern Ireland is foreseen. Nevertheless, it is known that many pedi-
92
breeders and larger milk and beef producers are becoming interested in "Do-it-yourself" artificial insemination and that as soon as the ova transplant technique becomes a viable proposition they are likely to turn to this method of reproduction as well. The proposals in this Order are intended to make easier such developments while maintaining essential controls over the health and quality of livestock in Northern Ireland. Finally, I should say that the measure has been welcomed generally by those interests in Northern Ireland likely to be affected by its provisions. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Artificial Reproduction of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 22nd September, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords. I support this Order. I appreciate the noble Lord's statement towards the end of his remarks, that this service by the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland has played a very great part in preserving the quality of livestock for which, of course, Northern Ireland is famous. There is just one question of which I have not given the noble Lord notice and I should be perfectly content if he wrote to me upon it. I should be interested to know whether the fees which are charged in the Provinces are at the same level as those which are charged in the rest of Great Britain. At a time when farmers are looking at all their profit margins and costs, I should like to know the answer to this question and this seems to me to be the moment when I might put it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the general welcome he has given to this provision. As to fees, my understanding is that they are comparable but I should like to write with an accurate assessment to the noble Lord. Apart from that, I can say only that I am grateful that this important piece of legislation, which to some extent anticipates legislation in Great Britain, will be accepted here.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.3 pm. until 7.45 pm.]

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
7.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Champion): I think when the House resumed I was about to call Amendment No. 81. I should advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 81 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 15, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) The scheme shall be prepared not less than 3 months after the passing of this Act or such other date or dates as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, and in view of what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman has just said I wish to say straight away that this is a paving Amendment to a consideration of Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 84A and 86A which was the grouping proposed by noble Lords opposite and accepted by, I think, all Members of the Committee on this side.
All I wish to say is that the five Amendments together represent an anxiety and a concern felt on this side of the Committee that the programme proposed in the Bill, which is that the schemes should not only be prepared but now, by virtue of the Amendment which has just been made to the Bill, should be completed not later than 31st December 1975, is unrealistically early and our feelings on the evidence before us is that the authorities will not be ready by that time. How they are getting on is not a matter in which I am concerned, but my noble friend Lord Ridley is. For that reason, I will not say any more on my own Amendment but, as it were, use my Amendment to introduce a debate on which I am sure my noble friend will have a good deal to say, and we shall have to consider what to do about these Amendments at this stage. I beg to move.
Viscount RIDLEY: I should like to speak principally to Amendment No. 83, which postpones the date by which the LAMS have got to be prepared by the authorities under this Bill, to what I believe to be a much more realistic date. In another place an Amendment was moved at Report stage to give a six months' delay which was rejected in, I thought, not very civil terms by the Minister of housing and planning; in terms which were in striking contrast to the great courtesy which we have had throughout the Committee stage of this Bill in this House.
Since the Bill was published and introduced here, I think the date of 31st December has become absolutely impracticable in real terms in almost all cases. Obviously I cannot say what the position is throughout the whole of the country, but such inquiries as I have been able to make have led me to believe that there are very few authorities who have completed the preparation of this extremely complicated matter of the LAMS. I would ask the Minister whether she would be kind enough to give us some indication in her reply as to how many authorities she really expects to have completed all the details of LAMS by 31st December. I believe that throughout the North of England, which I happen to know best, a great deal of work has been done but no definite agreements have yet been made. I am told, for instance, that in London there has been a draft scheme in existence for several months, but it is still not finally agreed between the various authorities.
There seems to be in my own case—which I know more about than anything else—an authority, a county and a district together which most certainly are not dragging their feet, as the right honourable gentleman Mr. Silk in would like us to believe. We are certainly not going to be ready by 31st December, with the best will in the world. The Bill will become law at the earliest by about 12th November. Then we have all the complicated and difficult Amendments, radical alterations to the law of the land, which have to be put through these councils—through the full councils as well as all the various committees. I hope that we shall be able to do something else at Christmas, and not be working too hard during that period. It is no good saying

95
that local authorities have had many months in which to prepare schemes. It has not been possible to prepare schemes until the details of this Bill have been known, and until all the regulations which come from it have been published. It is nonsense to suggest that these things can be done without them.
The two months' grace which Amendment No. 83 seeks does not seem to wreck the sense of the Bill but is a helpful and realistic Amendment, which will mean that in the end, we get better schemes and a smooth and easy transition. We are involved in the extremely difficult tensions which now exist, and have existed for some time, in the relationships in the planning field between districts and county councils. Anything which forces either side to take up attitudes is against the interest not only of local government but of this Bill in particular.
In moving this Amendment, I have the support of the Association of County Councils, who feel very strongly that a delay of two months will not make any effect on the Bill, but will give us a chance to produce a realistic scheme which will last. I am glad to say that I have also had strong representations on this matter from the Association of District Councils, who likewise feel that it would be a mistake to rush the matter in view of the slow progress which the Bill has made—slower progress than was intended when it was first introduced into Parliament.
Finally, we are here talking only about England. When we get to line 35 on page 15, noble Lords will see that Scotland does not have a date line set for it. The date for Scotland will be introduced at the discretion of the Minister, which seems to me to make some sense. We are here expecting England to he bulldozed into a date before any other parts of the Kingdom. I repeat that it is important that the Minister should tell us, before we decide what action to take on these Amendments, how many schemes she expects to be ready in all their detail by 31st December, because if this figure is not large we are making the law into a nonsense. It would be much better in that case to postpone the operation of this law, which will do nothing to postpone the operation of the Bill, to a date which is realistic. This has the final advantage
96
of being the rare occasion when we can use the date of 29th February, which occurs only once every four years. I beg to support Amendment No. 81, and also at the same time to move Amendment No. 83.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to support both my noble friends on this issue. I should particularly like to support the noble Viscount who has just spoken, and particularly to commend his moderate tone. It was very noticeable to those who have read the Official Report of the Report stage in another place that the Minister seemed to go way beyond normal tactfulness in the relationship between central and local government. I think one can excuse it only by remembering that it was 2.30 in the morning. I am not sure why the Government seem to have got themselves on this hook, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will be able to advise us later what their view now is.
It seems to me that the date of 31st December was set some nine months ago when, possibly at that stage, it was a reasonable target for local authorities to achieve. But we now have just over two months to go before the end of the year. From my investigations with local authorities of the area in which I live, it seems that this is not a reasonable time. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to say why the Government are apparently in such a rush; why the Minister was so strong about keeping to this date, and why it is, indeed, that we are asked to pass what seems to be a totally unrealistic date.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should like to support wholeheartedly the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, with his vast experience of the part of the world in which both he and I live. It is very remarkable, with all the complications in this very difficult Bill, that in my part of the world we made a lot of progress in trying to produce a scheme which will be of as much benefit as possible to the plans which we have to bring forward. I think the suggestion must have been made without noble Lords opposite realising what a long time the Committee stage of this Bill would take.
I do not think there can be any opposition to this very realistic Amendment,

97
because whatever one may feel about the Bill—and I am certainly not a supporter of it—if it really comes on to the Statute Book it will be up to everyone on both sides of the Committee to make the best efforts to make its details work as smoothly and as well as possible for the various parts of the country which we represent. I have a feeling that noble Lords opposite will themselves be a little unhappy that the date at present in the Bill is quite unrealistic, and I am sure they will feel exactly the same as we do. I feel that when the answer comes from the noble Baroness opposite she will agree that we really are putting forward a most realistic Amendment to help plan the Bill to the best of our ability, to serve the part of the world which those of us are concerned with this Amendment know best. It is very difficult, when one has a Bill as complicated as this, to expect even the best local authorities to produce a plan in such a short period.
I am delighted to support the Amendment of my noble friend. I feel that the noble Baroness will also feel very happy about accepting the Amendment and that, as a result, we shall be able to make as much use as we possibly can of the powers which will be in the Bill. I say no more, except that I am looking forward to a very generous acceptance of the Amendment of my noble friend. I hope that we shall at least be able to say that here in the South, which is a very long way from the North, we are able to put our case as we see it, because we are very proud of our own part of the world and want to do the best we can, under the powers we may have, to provide a scheme which will be realistic and helpful. I am delighted to have this opportunity of supporting the Amendment.
Viscount AMORY: I should like to associate myself with what my noble friends have said, and particularly with what my noble friend Lord Ridley said at the beginning of his speech about the courtesy invariably shown to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a courtesy which is thoroughly disarming when one wants to say something mildly offensive, as I do at the moment. It seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, that in the last few Bills they have sent along for us Ministers have been content to allow some provisions to get into Bills which
98
are utterly unrealistic, and I think this date of December 31st is a clear case.
Christmas is nearly upon us. I know that because I ordered my Christmas cards today and I never do that until I am convinced that Christmas is upon us. The Bill is unlikely to become an Act for another few weeks, anyhow. How can the local authorities have their land acquisition and management scheme plans dovetailed in with each other and ready by that date. I suppose the answer the noble Baroness may give is that, if for sound reasons they are unable to do so, no doubt they will not be asked to achieve the impossible. If she says that, I would say to her that it is not really a satisfactory answer, because it is a sign that there is something sloppy in the legislation. Local authorities and their staffs have nearly reached the breaking point, with the mass of new commitments laid on them by Parliament in recent years. Surely the least Parliament can do is to ensure that a time-scale is designed, appropriate to the tasks laid upon local authorities, and not expect the tasks to conform to a prefixed time programme. I do hope the noble Baroness will be able to say something rather comforting to us, because we are rather worried at these really unrealistic provisions that somehow find their way into Bills, and too often remain in them.
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I should also like to support this Amendment, and in particular speak to Amendment No. 84. I chose the date 31st March 1976, for this reason, that under Section 155 of the Local Government Act 1972 the yearly accounts are to be drawn up to 31st March. In regard to all the provisions in this Bill, I feel that the local authority must be in a position to budget for that expense at the commencement of its financial year. Those of your Lordships who have had any connections with local government will know that only too often various schemes and proposals have been put forward and have had to be postponed until the commencement of the next year because the necessary finance had not been budgeted for. It is purely in that light that I have chosen this specific date, and I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee, as we are all on similar points, if I suggested that this might be considered at the same time.
Baroness BIRK: The feeling of Members of the Committee who have spoken is quite evident. The contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, were very seductive in their different ways, Lady Ward saying how happy she would be if we were to accept the Amendment, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, making his comments; but I am afraid I shall have to say in as charming a way as I can that the answer so far as I am concerned is, "No". Perhaps I may make one general point before I discuss the Amendments. I always feel very strongly that whatever you do in life—whether it is putting into practice a piece of legislation, or getting an article prepared for a deadline, as I have had to do—Parkinson's Law in the obverse seems to operate; the time either expands or contracts according to how much time you are given; you can use all the time in the world if you have it, but if the time shrinks you move forward in a more urgent way in order to accomplish what you have to do. I think this also applies to duties put on local authorities. All these Amendments are concerned With the date for the preparation of land acquisition and management schemes. At present it is 31st December this year for England. Amendment No. 81 would change it to three months after Royal Assent; Amendment No. 83 to the 29th February 1976; Amendment No. 84 to the 31st March 1976; Amendment No. 84A would also set the date at 31st March 1976, and would remove the power of the Secretary of State to set a later date in particular cases; and Amendment No. 86A would remove the power in Scotland for the Secretary of State to specify the date by order and substitute the date 31st March 1977.
The assumption obviously, expressed very clearly by all noble Lords who have taken part, is that the present time limit of 31st December will not allow sufficient time for the making of the schemes to be completed. Our discussions up to date with the local authority associations and individual authorities show that this is simply not true. In answer to the question which I think was put to me by more than one noble Lord, we have no detailed information about the progress in each county area, but our general information, which comes to us
100
from contacts between the regional officers, the individual authorities and also through some of the associations, is that a great deal of work has been done. My noble friend Lady Stedman, speaking on another point, made it clear that in her area a great deal of work had gone forward. In some areas, it is true, no doubt more time would be welcomed, but, as I said, more time is always welcome whatever we are doing. Equally, some authorities have made it clear that they would not favour any relaxation of the date because they fear this would remove the present impetus which they have managed to generate behind the preparation work. Incidentally, on that point, I think I ought to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that I got the impression that he thought there was a difference between schemes being prepared and arrangements made. Actually they mean the same thing; that is to say, agreed between the authorities. The alteration we have made does not mean that local authorities will have less time, but of course the schemes only have to be made by 31st December and not submitted to the Secretary of State by that date.
Given that the date has been clear since the Bill was first introduced in March, and that where there are genuine problems the Secretary of State has power to extend the time limit—the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, was quite right when he said this was no doubt one point that I would make, and it is very pertinent—there seems to us to be no reason for a general change in the dates. Amendment No. 84A is particularly undesirable, because if you look at it carefully you see that in setting a later date it would also remove the power to extend the date in particular cases; it in fact removes a certain amount of flexibility, which should be endemic to the whole exercise. This could remove what could be a necessary power in certain circumstances, where schemes cannot be concluded in time for reasons beyond the control of the authorities concerned.
Amendment No. 86A would set a definite date in Scotland. The fixing of the date here was left to order because it was not clear when, because of their later local government reorganisation, authorities would be ready to prepare their land acquisition and management

101
schemes. Consultations have now taken place with the Scottish local authorities, and it is provisionally proposed that LAMS shall be prepared by 1st April 1976. Therefore it would be impossible for me to accept Amendment No. 86A which sets a date a year later than this.
It is true that we need three months, and we want authorities to decide quickly how they are going to handle schemes. If as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, pointed out, this Bill becomes law in the middle of next month, as I am sure we all hope it will, authorities will then be setting about their preparations for the completion of their plans, but it does not mean that at that date they have to be submitted to the Secretary of State. Any further delay would put the whole thing off until the New Year, and then the delay would get longer and longer. All that the Bill requires is that the land acquisition management schemes should be made by 31st December. There is still an opportunity for authorities to go through them again, and to tidy those odds and ends which need tidying up, because they do not need to be submitted to the Secretary of State at that date. As I and other Members of the Committee have already said, if there are special circumstances then the Secretary of State can give further time.
It is not as though this Bill suddenly appeared out of the blue when it came before your Lordships' House. This Bill was introduced in another place as long ago as last March. It has been discussed. There have been more consultations with local authority organisations and others than have ever taken place before on any piece of legislation. It has all been known. A great many local authorities have already started making their preparations, and it is perfectly true that many of them would feel distinctly aggrieved if they felt the whole thing was being slowed down, which it would be if the date were changed. As the matter stands, those who are going ahead with their arrangements would continue with them, others would be encouraged to do so, and in particular circumstances they would be able to go to the Secretary of State (who has the power to extend the time limit) because of their particular problems.
I do not, and cannot, see that there is any reason for delay. It would be wrong,
102
and one of the great problems about delays in getting this Bill through would be the sense of uncertainty that could be felt by many local authorities. To have a target, and to have to go ahead and work to it, is the best way of getting even a complicated piece of legislation off the ground and into working reality.
Viscount AMORY: May I ask whether the noble Baroness will accept that when I said that this Bill might become law in another few weeks, it was on the assumption that the other place would have the good sense to accept whatever Amendments your Lordships care to make to the Bill, and on no other assumption whatever?
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I pick up two points which the noble Baroness mentioned in her reply. Her reply was in sharp contrast to the reply her right honourable friend made on 13th October at column 1092. It is worth recalling what he said. In reply to an Amendment moved in similar terms to that we are discussing now, he said:
"If they are not prepared to do this by 31st December my right hon. Friend is prepared to do it for them. My right hon. Friend has quite a lot of power in this matter. Not only can he step in; he can create organisations that can step in and he can even find other local authorities—there are plenty of good local authorities all over the country —who would be prepared to step in on this basis."
That is a very different tone from the noble Baroness's gracious reply. Having made the point that the local authorities have only to make the scheme by 31st December, what is the situation concerning when they have to submit the scheme to the Minister? I do not think that she mentioned that in her reply, and it is pertinent to this whole debate.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am concerned about one matter which I should like the noble Baroness to consider. Having suggested that Scotland might bring in this procedure on 1st April 1976, I should like her to remember that our reorganisation of local government has been going for less than a year. On 15th May it will have been in operation for a year. I know from my local authorities that they are not prepared to take on this as well at the present moment. I do not say that they are all like that—some may be further ahead—but we have

103
had our teething problems with reorganisation of local government in Scotland. I make a small plea for the Secretary of State not to put in a date in the Bill but leave the wording rather as it is—and I think I can speak for the local authorities here; I am no longer a member, but I am still in quite close contact with them—and do not be in too much of a hurry in Scotland.
8.18 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: It has been an interesting debate. I do not think that the noble Baroness has done much to allay our anxieties. I should like to remind her that the constitutional position is that this is not yet the law of the land, and if any local authorities have been doing any work on this they have been doing it solely to oblige the Secretary of State. They are under no duty whatever to do anything about this until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Secretary of State has no power to oblige them to take any action until the Bill is law. That is the constitutional position and it is worth saying that as a preliminary.
I accept that, when the Bill was introduced in March, 31st December 1975, might have seemed a reasonable target at which to ask the local authorities to aim, because although the constitutional position is as I have said they are usually willing and obliging when it comes to doing this kind of thing. But the position is now that it is perfectly possible, and I should have thought quite easy, to find out whether the 31st December 1975, is still practicable. It may well be that the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend will be proved right by events, in which case all we need to have is some specific information in the Official Report between now and the next stage as to where the local authorities have got to. She can easily find out which are ready now, which have their land acquisition management schemes prepared, and we should not be surprised, after what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to hear that Cambridge-shire are ready, and there may be others. She could then go on to say which local authorities think they will be ready by 31st December, and then go on to list what dates the other counties and their districts will be ready.
104
In the light of that information, Parliament could decide whether 31st December was right, or whether 29th February was better, or whether 31st March was better still, or whether the situation was such as would be most suitably met by my Amendment; namely, that none of those dates was any good because nobody was sufficiently advanced, and then the Secretary of State would be left free to decide some other date. It seems to me that that information, which it would not have been reasonable to ask for when the Bill was read a second time in another place, is now reasonable to ask for. I should like to hear the noble Baroness respond to that invitation—to give Parliament which should now be available—before we decide on the matter, and in the light of what she says in response to that I w ill decide what to do with my Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me about the date of submission to the Secretary of State, and the answer is that there is no specific date; there is no requirement in the Bill for submission by a given date. It is, as the noble Earl will see, as set out in Schedule 5(4)(1);
"As soon as practicable after a scheme has been made … a copy … shall be sent … to the Secretary of State."
The date 31st December has always been seen in relation to a first appointed day in Spring of 1976, which is what we are expecting anyway, and the gap between the introduction of the Bill and the date is not really relevant except, as I pointed out, that people would know about it so that it would not be something that suddenly came on the heads of local authorities. I cannot see the argument that one has got to take a poll, as it were, of the heads of local authorities, when we know that some of them are ready and anxious for the date not to be delayed. I should have thought that the way to proceed is the way the Government intend, which is to go ahead with the date and then, if there are local authorities which have perfectly reasonable grounds for showing the Secretary of State that they are not able to get these schemes prepared or made—whichever word one likes to use—then the Secretary of State can decide, on that basis, whether they should be given more time.

105
When the noble Earl talks about what my right honourable friend said in another place at 2 o'clock in the morning, he should accept, first, that there is an important time and space difference between talking at 2 o'clock in the morning and talking at about 8.20 in the evening. Secondly, the comments made on that occasion clearly indicated that a number of Members of another place were getting rather exercised and were feeling weary and emotional, and some of the remarks they made certainly indicated that a number of authorities would be encouraged, if not told, to delay and drag their feet on this Bill. When one is told that, one naturally does not react in, perhaps, a particularly gracious manner, nor should one do so. But it still is a fact that whatever date we put in—let us be realistic about this—noble Lords opposite would object. If we put in a later date, the same would apply.
We know that there are local authorities which are being encouraged to drag their feet and delay because they do not want to see this Bill come into practice. On the other hand, there are a great many authorities which are anxious to get started as soon as possible, and once they get started there will, we believe, be many mow authorities which will recognise the advantages of the whole scheme and will try to get it under way. I see the point of view of people who are genuinely and, from my point of view, perhaps misguidedly, against this Bill and would like to see it delayed for as long as possible, but if one does not take that view, as we do not, then the sooner implementation starts—which is at the end of this year, within a flexible framework—the better.
I should comment on Scotland, which is a rather special case. As the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, pointed out, local government reorganisation in Scotland meant a delay all along the line in terms of this Bill, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has agreed to the date proposed for Scotland, of 1st April 1976, and at a recent seminar held for officers from all authorities in Scotland there was not one voice heard to say that this date was unattainable. The noble Earl should feel relieved at that. I could go into greater detail on Scotland to back up the case I have made, but if the noble Earl is satisfied with
106
what I have said I will not take up the time of the Committee.
What it comes to is that there is a difference of opinion over this. Getting back to what I have said on many occasions, I frankly believe that the date is a fairly superficial question and that we are really talking about the principle of the Bill, whether or not one wants it to come into operation. We on our side want to see it begin as soon as possible and are quite satisfied that the date 31st December—and I repeat this is the date by which plans have to be prepared or made but not yet submitted to the Secretary of State—is right. I cannot see any argument for saying that this is too tight a programme or that it is inflexible or unacceptable. It should at least be tried to see how it works out.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I do not know whether the noble Baroness intends to reply to the constitutional point of some importance made by my noble friend.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, I do.
The Earl of K1NNOULL: Can the noble Baroness say how often a Minister of the Crown tells local authorities to prepare large and expensive schemes when he has no legal right to do so? She seems to have skated right over that point. I suspect that the reason why her right honourable friend got so annoyed was because if local authorities are dragging their feet, he has at present no power to tell them not to do so. It seems to me that what the Committee is being asked to decide is whether 31st December is a realistic date. I submit that it is not.
Baroness BIRK: I apologise for not answering the constitutional question I was asked. I forgot to answer it and I assure the Committee that there was no question of my trying to evade it. It is general practice that once a Bill has had its Second Reading in another place, anybody can go ahead, particularly if it is a Government measure, on the assumption that the Bill will be passed and be on the Statute Book. As a Bill goes further along and gets through its Committee and Report stages in another place, and it even gets accepted by noble Lords opposite that the Bill will get on the Statute Book, as they have with this Bill.

107
then one can say that it has become constitutionally acceptable. If anything happens in between, then there is a change. But there is no reason in our form of Parliamentary democracy and with our constitution why local authorities—or, indeed, where legislation affects them, individuals—should not act on that assumption, and that is all that is being done in this case. If we had come forward with a date in February or March, I would bet anything, and I do not normally bet, that there would be Amendments putting back the date, and further back three or six months after that date, until it would be almost impossible to find a date acceptable to those who are fundamentally opposed to the whole Bill in principle.
Lord SANDFORD: The noble Baroness must not impute those sort of motives. Our concern is to make the Bill operate reasonably well and to improve it so far as we can by a number of practical adjustments. Your Lordships must take what I said in moving the Amendment at its face value. When the noble Baroness's right honourable friend introduced the Bill, he wanted to set a date by which time the land acquisition schemes were to be operative. I have no argument with his estimate of 31st December 1975. That was nine months ahead when the Second Reading of the Bill took place. That was quite reasonable and it may well still be reasonable. I am not arguing that we must abandon that date at this particular moment. What I am saying is that there must now be evidence on which Parliament can make a judgment. The noble Baroness has it well within her power to find out which authorities are ready now, which will be ready by the end of the year and which will not he ready until some future date. All I ask is that Parliament should be furnished with this information upon which we can then make a judgment. If the noble Baroness will address herself to answering that question—can she or can she not. will she or will she not?— I shall know what to do with my Amendment and we can get on. Can she just answer that question?
Baroness BIRK: I have already told the noble Lord that I have not got that information in detail and that even if I could get it I should consider that it was
108
not relevant to the basic issue. Whatever time was given, reasons could still be found for putting it off still further. I believe that what we have to do is to take the date that has been set down and on which authorities will be acting. In order to save time and not to mislead the noble Lord, I must say that I do no feel that there is anything more I can say about this. I am not prepared to take the matter back for consideration and the noble Lord must make up his own mind about the Amendments. I shall have to resist them all.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should like to ask the noble Baroness one question: supposing we were to put down a question in the House about the information. Am I to understand from what the noble Baroness has said that the answer from the appropriate Secretary of State's representative—and I suppose that that would be the noble Baroness—would be that it is quite impossible for Parliament to be presented with this information? Having spent a long time in the House of Commons, I know that no Minister of the Crown would get away with that there and I hope, therefore, that they would not get away with it in this House. If a question were put down what would be the answer?
Baroness BIRK: I did not say that the question would not be answered. What I said was that I did not have the information now and that, even if I had the information, it would make no difference to the decision taken in this Bill. However, if the noble Baroness wants that information, I suggest that she puts down a Question and goes on from there, and that she should not hypothesise from what we are discussing at the moment which are Amendments to this Bill and not a Parliamentary Question.
Lord SANDFORD: If I may say so, I feel that the noble Baroness is getting very near to treating Parliament with contempt. There is information which could be made available and she is not prepared to give it to us. I feel that that is a disgraceful state of affairs. I am not going to press my own Amendment—
Baroness BIRK: I ask the noble Lord to give way. I have now repeated about six times that I have not got the information. What I said was that if I had the information or could, over a period of

109
time, get it, it would not make any difference to the date that has been set down in the Bill. I have been absolutely frank and consistent about this and I have said that all the time. The noble Baroness put another question to me and I said that if she wanted to put down a Starred Question she should put it down but that that was an entirely different matter.
Lord SANDFORD: I am not expecting the noble Baroness to produce this information out of a hat here and now. What I am saying is that the information could be got and that we could have it in time for the Report stage. What the noble Baroness is saying is that she is not prepared to produce that information for us and I find that a disgraceful reply. I shall not press my own Amendment because I feel that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley is on the whole better. I hope very much that he will press it and I shall certainly support him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 82. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 78.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made").—[Lord Melchett.]
8.35 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("31st December 1975") and insert ("29th February 1976").
The noble Viscount said: We have already spoken at length on this subject, but I want to say one or two things in relation to the noble Baroness's remarks. She was kind enough to give great attention to this subject and, first of all, I must repeat that we are not seeking to delay the first appointed day which brings the Bill into action. If carried, the Amendment would have no effect on the date on which the Bill would become operative. Secondly, the noble Baroness said that a great deal of work had already been done on the LAMS. I do not deny that. What I believe she has failed to realise is the extraordinarily complicated problems which preparing such matters entails. I beg her to consider the fact that, in the Government's own words, this is a very fundamental reform of the law of land tenure in this country. It is more important to give us two months in which to get these things right in all their details and to get agreement between county and district councils and everybody else than to tight for eight weeks which, if granted—and I trust that the Committee will grant them—would mean that we may get a much better agreement and that the Bill will work much better than the noble Baroness now expects it to work and certainly better than I hope it will work. However, I am not seeking to destroy the Bill. This is not a wrecking Amendment. If Scotland can have a date of 1st April, why should England not have one of 29th February? I beg to move.
8.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 83) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Amory, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Balfour, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Inglewood, L.

Savile, L.

Bethell, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Digby, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Elles, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Elton, L.

Middleton, L.

Vickers, B.

Falmouth, V.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B

Glasgow, E.

Onslow, E.

Yarborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Ridley, V. [Teller.]

Young, B.

NON-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L

Bacon, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pannell, L.

Balogh, L.

Henley, L.

Peddie, L.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Birk, B.

Hoy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

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

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Foot, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

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

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.46 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 78
Amendment moved—
>Page 15, line 35, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 78.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("making").—(Lord Melchett.)
8.48 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD move Amendment No. 87A:
Page 16, line 9, after ("Council") insert ("or the Peak Park Joint Planning Board").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 87A, and I wish at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 88A, with which it is linked. The purpose of this Amendment is to import into the Bill some special arrangements for the benefit of the Peak Park Joint Planning Board. The Committee will have observed already that because of the situation of the Peak Park it has been necessary to specify the Peak Park Joint Planning Board individually among the authorities having powers under the Bill. But it is necessary to go a stage further under Clause 16 to make special arrangements for that Board in respect of the preparation and making of a land acquisition and management scheme.
Those Members of the Committee who are familiar with that part of the world will see readily enough why this is necessary. The Peak Park Joint Planning Board exercises planning functions and is responsible for the positive planning of the area of the Peak Park. The Board has some powers which are otherwise held by counties, and it has other powers, notably of development control, which are normally held by districts. The Board combines both sets of powers in respect of its area which it shares with six counties and nine districts. A similar situation occurs to a lesser deuce in the Exmoor National Park, but there only two counties and a small number of districts are involved, and it is reasonable to leave the co-operative arrangements to the authorities there; and there is no need to specify anything in the Bill.
But as the notes on this clause indicate, the Department has realised that some provision is required for the Peak Park Joint Planning Board and I had been expecting to see something appear by way of a Government Amendment. But as it has not appeared—and we are now half-way through the passage of the Bill in the Second House of Parliament—it seemed to members of the Board, and the chairman in particular, that it was necessary to get something into the Bill. I have been asked to move these Amendments on their behalf, which I am glad to do.
The position is that none of the six counties which has territory in the Park, and none of the nine districts, has the normal planning functions because these are discharged by the Peak Park Planning Board. The Peak Park Planning Board is the structure planning authority for the area of the Park: the Peak Park Planning Board is the development control authority for the area of the Park. So in

113
their view and in mine it is necessary to have these Amendments, which make it clear that the preparation and making of a land acquisition and management scheme within the area of the Peak. Park is the responsibility of the Peak Park Planning Board. I have their assurances that they will exercise these powers as follows. They will retain to themselves those planning and land acquisition functions which are necessary for them to discharge their functions as a National Park authority, but they will leave with the districts those land acquisition functions which would normally belong to other authorities for the purposes of acquiring land in support of their ordinary functions as district authorities.
I think it will be quite practicable to operate the scheme in that sort of way, and I hope the Committee will agree that it would be a much easier and more straightforward task than it would be if the six counties and the nine districts were to prepare schemes of their own, and if the Peak Park Planning Board were to be given, as it would be, the unenviable task of seeking to co-ordinate the planning and land acquisition functions of 15 separate authorities. It is for this reason that I am proposing these Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 87A.
Lord CASTLE: I instinctively want to support the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Henley, because the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in particular, has provided me with the first opportunity to intervene in your Lordships' debate, and I know we have a joint interest in the preservation of National Parks and in the elevation of the authorities which control them, though I am not certain we should agree on every detail. However, having heard earlier this evening what I would regard as a somewhat wrecking Amendment coming from the other side, I have reservations about the support of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with him. The unfortunate fact is, of course, that I have been associated with local government for the last 20 years and I do not have the same contempt as some people have for the rectitude and probity of local government operators; and I do not think an appointed board is necessarily a better operator in these matters than local government. In any case, the general pattern of this Bill has been to pass over to the
114
local authorities these initial efforts to acquire land and to plan its use.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, despite his disavowal that he wants to delay the Bill, has shown his hand a little in this matter, because if we leave it to the local authorities here we know that most of them in the area, despite the warnings which they have received from the Opposition Benches that this Bill will not get on to the Statute Book, have already manned themselves and are operating in advance. They are preparing, in fact. They are making surveys, and so on; and this, I believe, applies to all the areas around. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, possibly knows, as I have been told, that all the authorities concerned are already in negotiation one with the other and with the Peak Board for the allocation of the proper amount of land to be conceded to that area for the National Park. This, I should have thought, were we to carry this proposal, would be a delaying action, because the negotiations seem to go pretty well, and before we know where we are we shall have a thorough agreement between the Board and the local authorities. To disturb that arrangement at this stage would be, to my mind, inappropriate, and I hope that the Government stick to their guns on this matter.
Lord HENLEY: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Castle, has not misunderstood what the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is about. Quite naturally, I think, he has perhaps not agreed entirely with what he might well see as a delaying action on the part of the Tory Benches, but because this may have been so it does not necessarily mean that every Amendment is a bad one. This Amendment seems to me to be good, practical, common sense. I cannot see any reason why the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, are defective from a practical point of view, as to how the conduct of the Peak Park Planning Board's affairs should be carried through.
I know that I go further than does the noble Lord in wanting to see National Park Planning Boards autonomous, and I know also that many people in local government, on both sides of your Lordships' Committee, do not agree with me.

115
This is a battle which has been fought over the last five years: whether National Park Planning Boards should be autonomous or whether they should be sub-committees of the county councils. I stand on one side; I think the noble Lord, in whose name this Amendment is set down and who spoke first to it, probably stands on the other. Nevertheless, let it not be forgotten that nobody has done more for the concept of the National Parks and how they should be run than the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Castle, in making his strictures upon this Amendment, will bear that in mind.
I do not want to go over the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has put forward; they seem to me self-evident. Nor do I want to argue this long debate which, as I say, has gone on over five years, as to whether National Parks should be autonomous or whether they should be sub-committees of county councils. That, I think, is not an issue in this Bill. But so far as this Amendment is concerned I cannot see why the Government should object to it. It does not go any way in the direction that the more extreme of us would want; that is, towards making other boards autonomous. It merely, I think, tidies up the way in which the Peak Park could conduct its affairs. I hope the Government will not reject this Amendment out of hand. I know they do not want to dismantle the present structure of the machinery by which National Parks are run, and this does not seem to me to damage that in any way. I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Lord says, if he will accept what seems to me, from a practical point of view, a very sensible Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: It might be helpful if I set out the position as it is now, because, of course, it has been complicated by negotiations which have been going on during the passage of the Bill. The land acquisition and management scheme provisions in Clause 16 are drawn up in terms of "county areas". This makes sense for the normal situation in which the parties to such a scheme will be a county council and the districts (including any new town development corporation) within its area. In general, also, there
116
will be no problem for the National Parks, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, because most of them are administered by committees which have no independent statutory existence and therefore cannot be a party to a land acquisition and management scheme. This applies even to the Exmoor National Park although this crosses the boundary of Devon and Somerset. The Lake District National Park presents no problems, because it lies wholly within the county of Cumbria and can be a party to the LAMS for that county area. There remains the question of the Peak District National Park which falls into the six county areas named in subsection (10) of Clause 16.
I should like to stress that the problem in the Peak Park area is purely an adminitrative one. It has been made clear that LAMS are to be prepared jointly (so that there is no difference in practice between the Park Planning Board being treated as a county authority for a single LAMS, or as a district authority contributing to six LAMS). Similarly, it is clear that LAMS are functional arrangements about who does what; they are not land acquisition programmes with the programme for each county area co-ordinated by the county authority. The difficulty is that it may be inconvenient for the Planning Board to engage in separate discussions contributing to the production of six separate LAMS; and that, if the LAMS of the six county areas were applied in exactly the same way in the National Park as outside it, there could be a wide range of different arrangements for the operation of the scheme in different parts of the National Park.
This question was raised in Commons Committee. There was then support from both sides of the Committee for having a separate LAMS for the National Park area, though some of this may have been based on a misunderstanding of the implications of such a decision which will be purely administrative. My honourable friend then made it clear that we were sympathetic with the Board's case, but that we wanted to leave the authorities concerned to arrive at an agreed solution if that were possible.
Detailed discussions have taken place between the Planning Board and the constituent authorities. No agreement has been reached on the approach which the

117
Board favour. The constituent authorities have, however, agreed that, even if there is not a separate LAMS for the Peak Park, there should be the following arrangements to help meet the Board's case. First, each county area's LAMS should be prepared in two parts, separating out provisions relating to the National Park from those for the rest of the county area; secondly, there will be uniform arrangements for the Park areas in each separate LAMS so that there would, in fact, be uniform treatment across the whole of the National Park; thirdly, a joint committee will be formed to oversee the LAMS and implementation of the scheme in the National Park area.
Although the Board have not achieved all that they wanted to as a result of their negotiations with the constituent authorities, the arrangement proposed by those authorities goes a good way towards meeting the Board's legitimate concern. It is arguable that it would be better to go further and treat the Park area as a county area for the purposes of Clause 16. That has been argued by Lord Sandford. But, though the Board would naturally prefer this, it is difficult to see a strong case for amending the Bill, given the arrangements which the constituent authorities are prepared to adopt, which would lead to a unified LAMS within the Park, even though, in terms of mechanics, this would be incorporated in the LAMS for six separate county areas.
The Government took the view when this point was raised in the Commons that the best way to proceed was to leave this matter to local agreement. Although full agreement has not been reached there are clearly the makings of a useful compromise in the approach proposed by the constituent authorities. Indeed, this was the point made by my noble friend Lord Castle who seemed fully to understand the Amendment and all its implications. Therefore, I should not be inclined to recommend the Amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
Indeed, I very much hope and suspect that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will not be pressing his Amendments, particularly in view of what was said about local democracy in the debates on Clause 2 and even more particularly in view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said about the setting up of joint boards. He made particular reference to
118
our over-riding reviews of the minority of local authorities in that situation and we have no doubt that the noble Lords opposite will want to think very hard before committing themselves to supporting a proposal that they now know does not have the support of the local authorities in the area, even though it is being pressed by the joint board.
As I understand it, this is not even a question of some of the authorities feeling one way and some another. My information is that all the authorities in the area which have communicated their views to my right honourable and honourable friends on this matter are opposed to the proposal put forward in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and are content with what I should have thought would be the reasonable compromise that they themselves propose.
Viscount RIDLEY: May I say that I should like to take up a permanent position on the fence on this one?
The Earl of ONSLOW: There is only one thing that the noble Lord in his ineffable Old Etonian manner has not explained. It is what happens if there is a permanent disagreement and you cannot get the agreement that he so confidently expects. This is the thing that worries me and several of my noble friends on these Benches.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Earl was not listening to what I said. I said that agreement had not been reached but that a compromise had been put forward by the local authorities which seemed, by and large, to meet the reasonable case which the joint planning board wanted met.
Lord SANDFORD: First, I must say how nice it is to have a Back-Bencher from the other side taking part in these debates. But I must also say that I resent the suggestion that in introducing this Amendment, the sole purpose of which is to try to make this miserable Bill work better, I am accused of taking delaying action. I thought I had said what had happened; namely, that the chairman of the Peak Park Planning Board, not finding that the Department were doing what they said they would do (and what they have told us in their own notes that they intend to do) namely, to introduce something to make the Bill work properly in

119
this particular area, thought it necessary that somebody took some action. I was asked to do it and I am doing it. The other thing I would want to say to Lord Castle is that the Peak Park Planning Board is not an appointed board. It has no more appointed members on it than any other National Park authority. One-third of the members are appointed and all the others are members of adjacent county councils. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord MELCHETT: In case the noble Lord forgot it, I should say at this point, unlike the joint boards.
Lord SANDFORD: Yes, quite different. These are not appointed members; two-thirds are members of the county councils.
Lord CASTLE: They are appointed by the county councils, not popularly elected like local government.
Lord SANDFORD: As to two-thirds they are elected members of their county councils serving on the Peak Park Joint Planning Board, in the same way as other elected members of the county council may serve on the library committee or education committee. There is no difference except that one-third of the members are appointed. So we are not dealing with a non-democratic body.
The Department of the Environment's own note to us indicated that some provision had to be made, by which I understand that they were not satisfied. They may be satisfied now, but originally they were not satisfied that the matter could be left to be worked out by the local authorities in the ordinary way, and I agree. It is a question of who does what; but there is no question at all that the job of co-ordinating the land acquisition and management arrangements of six counties and nine districts is a formidable task, particularly if they do not all agree as to how it should be done. But it has to be done in respect of the Peak Park. There have to be uniform arrangements, and a joint committee is not strong enough. If a joint committee were satisfactory, that is the way the Peak Park would have been administered from the beginning; but anybody who has had anything to do with National Parks—and the noble Baroness, Lady
120
White, will be one of them—will know that joint committees are not strong enough or unified enough to do the job. The Welsh experience in the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia is ample demonstration of that. The Committee must take it from me that one of the things which was borne in on us over and over again in the year or more I spent reviewing the National Parks was that they cannot be administered properly unless their administration is tightly integrated with a single park officer serving a single committee, and with unified functions.
The noble Lord said that the decision had been taken to treat the Peak Park area as a county area. But it is a county area; the Peak Park Planning Board is a structure planning authority. It has county functions. It is not good enough to let the Bill work in such a way so that in this important function, land acquisition, the job suddenly starts to be done by six separate authorities held together by a joint committee. The arguments we have heard are absolutely fatal concerning the administration of a National Park. Having so recently reviewed the whole situation and found this to be so, I am totally unimpressed. On the other hand, if it is possible for the local authorities involved in the Peak Park to come to an arrangement which satisfies the Peak Park Planning Board and which produces unified administration, I should be the first to leave them to work it out. The less Parliament and the Secretary of State interfere with the co-operative arrangements of local authorities, the better it is for them all. For that reason, I should like to leave it that I will not press this Amendment. I will read what the noble Lord has said and will find out by making local inquiries how the matter stands, and I will return to the matter at Report stage. But unless further facts are adduced by then to satisfy me that a good, unified arrangement can be made for land acquisition in the Peak Park area, I will have to press these Amendments or Amendments like them. Unless the noble Lord opposite wishes to say anything I will withdraw—
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Lord withdraws, may I invite him to reconsider his decision. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, knows more about this matter than anybody in the Committee, and the

121
idea of a joint committee of six different authorities trying to decide this matter seems to me absolutely appalling. I hope that the Government have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about this, and that they will be prepared to receive the argument. I hope the noble Lord is not going to withdraw the Amendment because many of us—certainly my colleagues on these Benches—want to support him in carrying this to a Division.
Lord MELCHETT: I fully agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said towards the end of his speech. I agree with him that what is needed is time for the local authorities in the area to come to some sensible compromise with the Board. I think it would be sensible to give more time for this. I think it would be sensible for noble Lords opposite, and indeed for the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Henley, to look with some care at what I have said about the very sensible compromise solution which has been put forward by the authorities and possibly see, in consultation with the Board, whether anything more needed to be done. This is something which undoubtedly will work much better if there is co-operation and that is a step I would wholeheartedly support.
I should like to make one small point, having said the friendly bit, which is that the notes on clauses which were intended to be helpful to noble Lords opposite and which appear to have caused nothing but trouble—did not say what the noble Lord said they had said. In fact on this point the note said that further consideration may need to be given to the treatment of the Peak Park Planning Board. It did not say that the Government intended to bring forward an Amendment or that further consideration necessarily would be given to it. I would also point out to the noble Lord, in case nobody else is going to say anything, that my noble friend did not say that this was a delaying Amendment but that some of the other Amendments pressed by noble Lords opposite have been delaying things but—
Lord HENLEY: No, the noble Lord cannot get away with that! His noble friend said that this was a delaying Amendment, and I took exception to that.
Lord CASTLE: I must explain that I said nothing of the kind. I said that the rectitude in these matters of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had been called into question purely and simply because of the manner in which he had treated earlier Amendments, which were wrecking Amendments. I could not support that kind of attitude and although my instinct was to support him on this, on further examination I realised, as often happens. that reason was on the side of the Government.
Lord MELCHETT: Before we get side tracked by the large measure of agreement which I think exists between the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and myself, may I reiterate that I hope he will withdraw the Amendment—and certainly I hope it will be possible for us to come to some agreement on this matter before the next stage. I would re-emphasise the wisdom of this, even if noble Lords on the Liberal Benches are not satisfied, because there are some technical defects in the Amendments which would not make it wise to put them into the Bill at this stage.
Lord SANDFORD: Quite apart from the technical defects, which do not move me very much, I think it would be the prudent, sensible and right thing to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage. I welcome the invitation of the noble Lord to look at this together to see what can be done; but I must say that it will not be satisfactory to leave it to the promise of some joint committee and some joint arrangement between six counties and nine districts. That is a fatal recipe for administering something as complex and difficult as a National Park. But if between now and Report stage we can get to something much nearer to the spirit of my Amendment, let us by all means try to do this. On Report stage we shall either have to have assurances which will produce something like it or else we shall move Amendments similar to the present ones but without the defects. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.18 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 16, line 34, after ("Wales") insert ("Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles")
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will note that subsection (12) of Clause 16 excludes Wales and the Isles of Scilly. Under the English Local Government Act, from the very helpful notes which have been supplied, it appears that the Council of the Isles of Scilly is a single-tier authority, so that no land authority management scheme is required. I argue that Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles are in exactly the same position as a single-tier authority and therefore should also be excluded from this provision of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I appreciate that island authorities have no local authority either directly above or below them, with whom they could divide the functions under the Bill, but a LAMS is not merely a method of agreeing divisions of functions, though this will obviously be important in most schemes. It is also a scheme setting out other important arrangements for the execution of the authority's functions in connection with the acquisitions of land. It will, for example, be concerned with the staff resources which are available to an authority. It will spell out the reliance to be placed on the district valuers' services, whether or not the authority propose to engage private firms on an agency basis. It could be used to reach agreement with another authority outside the authority's own area on the joint use of staff. The document will also be of interest to the Secretary of State who will be given an insight into the authority's approach to many matters which will not be covered in the rolling programmes of acquisition. LAMS will also be the earliest indication to the Secretary of State of how arrangements for implementing the scheme are progressing, and will alert him to areas where advice and assistance may be needed. I hope that for these reasons the noble Earl will accept that it is important for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to be able to draw up land acquisition and management schemes for their own areas.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Then why have the Isles of Scilly and Wales been left out?
Lord MELCHETT: Wales has been left out because of the separate arrange-
124
ments for Wales under the Land Authority for that Principality
The Earl of BALFOUR: And the Isles of Scilly? Why have the Isles of Scilly been expressly excluded? I must press this one a little more. I cannot see the difference between Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles and the Isles of Scilly. I think I have a right to have this point answered.
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that as the Amendment does not deal with the Isles of Scilly I am not able or prepared to answer that while it is being discussed. If the noble Earl wishes to put down an Amendment dealing with the Isles of Scilly, I shall be happy to answer it.
The Earl of BALFOUR: Let me put your Lordships clearly in the picture here. In Scotland the administration of local government was arranged so that Scotland should be divided into regions or districts—I am quoting from the Local Government (Scotland) Act, Section 1—
"other than Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles) …
"Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles shall be local government areas to be known as islands areas, and shall comprise the areas respectively described"—
in one of the Schedules—
"being administrative areas existing immediately before the passing of this Act."
They have not changed their status at all, any more than have the Isles of Scilly. I would say to the Government that either the Isles of Scilly should stay in Clause 16, or my Amendment should be accepted; in other words, either the Isles of Scilly should be included in Clause 16 or, if they are to be excluded, the same thing goes for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles.
Lord MELCHETT: I have spelt out in some detail why Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles should draw up a land acquisition and management scheme. The noble Earl did not touch on the various functions which I indicated the LAMS would have for those areas and why it was important that they should draw one up. I hope he will accept that they should. It may well be that the Isles of Scilly also should draw up a LAMS; and as I have said, if the noble Earl wants

125
to move an Amendment to include the Isles of Scilly I will consider that point.
The Earl of BALFOUR: In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.24 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I wonder whether I might raise one point which was raised in the Report stage in another place. It concerns subsection (7) of this clause in which the scheme, one will see, would "not create any obligation enforceable in law". The point was raised in another place as to what the obligation was between an authority and an individual. The question is what action any individual could take against an authority if they failed in their obligation. The second point that was made was that the Minister, by this subsection, will apparently have power to direct that the obligation would be enforceable by law. The point asked is how the Minister would take it upon himself to issue this direction. Would it be by Statutory Instrument or some other process? I hope that some elucidation can be given, because the point was particularly raised and I think the reply which the Government then gave was that they would look at this matter and no doubt make some observation during the proceedings in this House.
Lord MELCHETT: The first point that the noble Earl raised was what obligation would a member of the public and the authority have as regards the land acquisition and management scheme. Perhaps I have misunderstood his point?
The Earl of KINNOULL: My point is what obligation the authority have towards a third party. When I say "a third party" I mean an individual or a district council.
Lord SANDFORD: My noble friend must speak for himself, but may I intervene? It seemed tome that the point at the Report stage in another place was that if the Secretary of State makes the lands arrangements enforceable at law (which is what subsection (7) does, that subsection being incorporated into the Bill at the Report stage in another place) with the object of tying the authorities
126
to the arrangements they had made between themselves, what steps does the Secretary of State take to ensure that this does not make the arrangements enforceable against private individual citizens? That was not his intention. However, as drawn at the moment, subsection (7) could carry that interpretation.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his elucidation of his point. Land acquisition and management schemes do not concern individuals as such. As we stressed on previous Amendments to the clause, they are practical matters of deciding who does what and what facilities are available to authorities. They are designed to be pragmatic, flexible, working arrangements. Individuals could not take any action against authorities which arose out of something that was said in the land acquisition and land management schemes. As I have said, they are not in that sense directly the concern of private individuals.
The noble Earl also asked me—this is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, addressed himself—about the provision in subsection (7) which says that the Secretary of State can direct that a land acquisition and management scheme will create obligations enforceable by law. I should emphasise that this will be only on the application of all the authorities in the area of a county authority. The Secretary of State will make this legally enforceable by a direction that will in practice amount to a letter that is sent to the various authorities and that will have to be published with the land acquisition and management scheme in the same way as the LAMS will be published.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Can the Secretary of State make what is at present unenforceable at law something that is enforceable at law by letter to an authority? This seems to me to be a little strange. I think that this should be dealt with in Parliament which is where the law is changed. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can comment on that point?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It would surprise me if without statutory backing behind it a letter or direction from the Secretary of State would have the force of law. That would indeed be a remarkable state of affairs. However,

127
part of the relevant subsection obviously needs elucidation. It would indeed be a very remarkable state of affairs if what has been talked about could produce legal enforceability. However, there may be an explanation of this mystery which is not apparent to me at the moment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: While thanking the noble and learned Lord for that interjection, may I ask him whether this mystery could be cleared up before the next stage of this Bill?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
Lord MELCHETT: I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 78. I beg to move Amendment No. 90.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 23, leave out ("preparing") and insert ("making").—(Lord Melchett.)
9.31 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 71, line 24, at end insert—
(" (a) the opinions of the communities living or carrying on business or other activities in the area or wishing to do so").
The noble Lord said: I think we have had all along the view expressed by noble Lords opposite—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, expressed it just now—that the land acquisition and management schemes are just matters between the authorities themselves. I do not think that really will quite do because the authorities concerned are responsible to their electorates for the discharge of their functions. Listening to the debate on this Bill, one would think that they were responsible to the Secretary of State, but that is not so. They are responsible to the people who elected them as to how they discharge their functions. That being so, I should have thought the first of the matters which they should consider in drawing them up are the opinions of the communities living or carrying on busi-
128
ness or other activities in the area, wishing to do so, because the arrangements which are made for acquiring lands for development will very much concern all these communities. What suits their convenience should be paramount among all the other considerations that should be taken into account. For that purpose, I think the Bill would be better if this Amendment were imported into it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: This is not the same point, but it has arisen earlier so I will try to keep my comments on it fairly brief and merely remind the Committee that the Bill gives concurrent functions in England and Scotland to both tiers of local government, to new town development corporations and in England to National Park Planning Boards. LAMS simply concern the question of who does what. As I said on a previous Amendment, it is a functional arrangement to ensure that authorities do not spend their time trying to do each other's jobs; that they work out a way of setting about it. In this respect the approach is similar to that under Section 183 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the power to make development plans and schemes to deal with the problem of overlapping planning functions between districts and counties. This is why I believe the Amendment is misconceived. It is true that there may be some public interest in the making of these functional arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said he did not see why it should be taken for granted that no one was interested, but those interested can attend council meetings and they can lobby their representatives, if they wish. But that is quite different from giving statutory backing on the lines proposed.
The real public interest comes as an end result of a LAMS: what people want to know is how the scheme is actually going to be operated in their area, but as a whole they are not particularly interested in the processes of preparation, and meeting the interest in the end result of how it is to operate is already provided for in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5. There is no inclination or desire in the Bill to prevent people making representations, but to make a statutory condition like this seems to be quite unnecessary. The Bill here is analogous to Section 183 of the Local Government

129
Act 1972, which clearly recognises that such matters are inappropriate for this kind of public participation, otherwise it would no doubt have provided for it.
Quite honestly, I do not think this sort of wide-open Amendment is really helpful. It is not specific and we have had several debates on the question of the community. One of the definitions given in the Oxford dictionary is:
"An organised political, municipal or social body",
so I suggest that in this context the local authority is such a body and that any representations or interests can be channelled through it.
Viscount RIDLEY: I am not sure that the noble Baroness Lady Birk, appreciates what a tremendously important issue this is. As a councillor, I find that what gets people excited and interested in what is going on is the sort of subject we are discussing now, the possibility of the development of councils and so on in their neighbourhood. It seems to me so important that I should not like the Amendment to be withdrawn too quickly, although it may not be in the form in which it should be accepted. As this Bill develops, it is of great importance that the people involved are interested, and that those who live in these places know what is going on. I hope that the noble Baroness will not turn her eyes against public participation, because this is being demanded more and more by the public.
Baroness YOUNG: I am glad to support what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, have said about this matter, because, if I may speak to my Amendment No. 92B. which is really on the same subject, it is not good enough to say that people are interested only in the end result. Of course they are very interested in the end result, but we have inferred throughout the Committee stage that the Government look at this as a major land reform Bill, and its very first part will be the making of these land acquisition and management schemes. To suggest that people will not be interested is simply untrue.
I am delighted that the Government have now found a definition of the "community". Of course it is a very narrow one, as I suggested at the beginning.
130
What they are saying is that "community" is synonymous with "local authority" or, I suspect, "bureaucracy". But, be that as it may, a great many others living in the area will be interested who, in the interest of public participation of one sort and another, will want to make their voices heard. Therefore, I hope the Government will seriously consider these Amendments.
9.38 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: May I make it clear that this is not a question of either myself or the Government feeling that there should be no public participation. I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Horridly. Everything possible should be done to encourage people in all spheres to take as much part as they can in the making of their own area or community, and in local life. But we have again to draw the distinction between the rather technical side, the functional side and the way in which the community or the area develops, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, referred. LAMS have nothing to do with all the development which has to take place in the area. They are concerned with whether the powers should be exercised by the county councils, the district councils, or both, and they will not define where the power should be exercised.
Noble Lords may well say that this is something in which many people are not interested, but there is nothing to prevent them from being interested. There is nothing in the Bill that says, "Thou shalt not portray an interest in your LAMS." But we say that it does not seem to be the place to write in a statutory requirement; and, furthermore, it is surely up to the local authorities themselves, where necessary, to generate and help to encourage this interest. With the greatest respect, noble Lords are concerned with the development side, the development plans, which are the structure and the creation of the local area LAMS on which the Amendments are pinned. They are rarely the technical "nitty-gritty". They are not the place at which many people would feel they were participating, or had something personal to contribute. Those who do will not be offended in any way; they will be encouraged to take an opportunity to particpate. But to write this into the Bill in this statutory way seems

131
rather unnecessary, and, although well-intentioned, it adds woolliness.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: If I may say so, surely the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, ought to think that one should put in everything which will encourage the community to take an interest. It is fascinating for the local authorities, the councillors, the aldermen—whoever they are—to say, "Ah! but the Government of the day have thought it so important to try to encourage people to take an interest that they have even put it in a Parliamentary Bill."
The noble Baroness may be quite right in the way she expresses things, but she does not seem to understand how important it is to ordinary people who are not ncessarily connected with local authorities, to know that they would be welcome and that they are likely to be encouraged. I think it is most important that this should be put into a Parliamentary Bill, so that it can be pointed to by those who want to encourage all sorts of odd people, who might otherwise not have done so, to take an interest. I am absolutely staggered that the noble Baroness does not seem to understand this. If she will come up to our part of the world we can show her.
Baroness BIRK: I often go up to the noble Baroness's part of the world, because I am married to a "Geordie", so I know it pretty well.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: But the noble Baroness is against it.
Baroness BIRK: I am not against it, and I am not against "Geordies". I do not think the noble Baroness quite understands what it is she is being so passionate about. The things that she feels people will be so interested in can be very dull stuff unless they have that particular specialisation or interest. We are not talking about how the community or the area develops. We are talking about the functional machinery. There is nothing to stop people taking an interest, and nothing to stop the local authority taking the initiative to interest people.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Noble Lords have in mind and have indicated the creation and structure of the community and the area, when what we are discussing here in these Amendments
132
are the land acquisition and management schemes, which are really the functional set-up. It is not at all an anti-public participation stand; it is being quite sensible about what is really relevant to a Bill which is going on the Statute Book.
Lord SANDFORD: We will not despair of trying to convert the noble Baroness into a more positive view of public participation than she holds at the moment, but we must not spend too much time on this Amendment. We have heard one city councillor and one county councillor supporting me in my view that, when it comes to deciding who does what and where the local community have a right to be considered, it really does make a difference whether land acquisition is done from county hall or from a district office in some other town. When there is a choice, the views of the community and the convenience of the community should be taken into account. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross I beg to move Amendment No. 90B. This seeks to insert into paragraph 1(a) an important element in the whole business of land acquisition and management which the Government seem to have omitted. One of the most skilled parts of the whole business is the assembly of the land for which the acquisition powers and the planning framework are required, and that is not covered by any of the phrases that are used here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 27, after ("the") insert ("assembly").—(Lord Sandford.)
Lord MELCHETT: I think it probably is covered by a phrase already in the Bill. Of course, the Government entirely accept that where authorities may need to undertake land assembly—and this will be particularly true of urban areas—they will need staff experienced in land assembly. Equally, we accept that in such cases this will have to be considered when the land acquisition and management scheme is being prepared. But in fact the point is already covered by the general reference to "acquisition of land", of which land assembly is but a specialised form. Further specific

133
reference is, therefore, in our view, not necessary.
Lord SANDFORD: I think that is a pity, because everybody can see that there is a clear distinction between acquisition, which can be done by one group of experts, and assembly, which requires an additional skill. But we shall not take time on it now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.46 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 72, leave out line 4 and insert—
"(f) such other matters as the Secretary of State may specify by order under this paragraph."
The noble Viscount said: I hope that it will be convenient to the Committee if, in speaking to Amendment No. 92, I deal with Amendments Nos. 93 and 96 and, if possible, No. 106 as well, because they all relate to the same point. The objects of these Amendments are to try to exclude the Secretary of State's absolute power of direction, and to replace it with a power which can be exercised under the control of Parliament. The direction procedure is totally arbitrary. Not only can Government directions be promulgated in many ways—for instance, by circulars and letters, et cetera, to local authorities—but in similar circumstances can be dealt with quite differently between different authorities. This of course I am certain is not the intention of the Government, but it is within the nature of this procedure. All these matters which are now subject to the direction of procedure by the Secretary of State and to which I am referring are important matters indeed, which justify some degree of Parliamentary control.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments would remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue directions in connection with the matters to he considered in the preparation of land acquisition and management schemes, and the content of such schemes, and would substitute a power to make orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. The decision on what matters are subject to Parliamentary procedure is governed very largely in our constitutional history by precedent, and any departure from these precedents needs very careful consideration, otherwise there is a great danger of Parliament being completely swamped with so many orders, if they require Parliamentary approval, even if they are only subject to Negative Resolution procedure, as to clog the whole machine of the operation of Parliament, which is already under considerable strain.
The present powers of direction follow the precedented treatment for powers of a similar scope and content in other legislation. In fact the provisions dealing with land acquisition and management schemes are closely modelled on Section 10(C) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which was inserted in that Act by Section 183 of the Local Government Act 1972. That section deals with the preparation of development plan schemes, and contains various powers for the Secretary of State to issue directions. Similarly there are numerous powers in the Water Act 1973 for the Secretary of State to issue directions—and I am not choosing that legislation because it happened to be passed by a previous Administration in order to make a political point, but merely to illustrate local recent history in this field. In my submission, there is no reason for departing from these and other precedents that could be cited and I

135
submit that the Amendment should therefore be resisted.
Viscount AMORY: I had made up a little speech on this Amendment which I particularly wanted to address to noble Lords on the Back-Benches opposite, but about 10 minutes ago I looked up and there was none there, so I tore up my notes and that speech will never be made. Nevertheless, I wish to make a few observations in lieu of it. The plethora of situations which are left to be dealt with by Ministerial direction is a bad feature of this bad Bill. Unfortunately, it is not exceptional and, as one bad Bill follows another, I find myself getting more and more petulant. My friends have noticed it and if this goes on much longer petulance will be the surviving feature of my character.
This tendency to leave more and more to be dealt with in this way is one of the developments of post-war legislation. Both Parties have sinned in this way, but whereas the Tory Party has usually sinned in a rather shamefaced way, the Party of noble Lords opposite has sinned with joy, because it is their philosophy that Secretaries of State are created for the sole purpose of intervention and throwing their weight about. In my opinion, this is evidence that this Bill attempts to deal with issues in too great detail. Noble Lords may tell me, as the noble and learned Lord indicated just now, that the alternative would be to make the Bill still longer and more complicated. I do not think that is the only alternative. Another alternative is often to recognise and accept that there are many problems which may be too complicated, too varied and too detailed to justify an attempt to deal with them by legislation. If we want to simplify the spate of legislation, which is in danger of getting out of hand, let us more often than we do recognise that some proposed action may be desirable but is too complicated in detail to attempt.
Anybody who has been a Minister knows the temptation of leaving awkward points to be settled by directions and, in a confessional mood, I admit that I have been guilty of that many times. In the case of real details, if they must be covered at all, that may be the sensible course, but some things covered by direc-
136
tions in this Bill are not really details they are almost matters of principle. Most of the directions in Clauses 42 and 43 and Schedules 5 and 6 are in regard to matters of importance. If these actions are to be attempted at all then, as my noble friend Lord Ridley said, they should be subject at least to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, and that applies particularly to any additions that may be made to the general principles listed. My noble friend made out a very strong case against the indiscriminate use of this power of direction, which is so tempting and so insidiously easy but which is appropriate only to real matters of detail and not to matters of importance.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I doubt whether your Lordships' House will ever accept the noble Viscount's image of himself as being petulant. He is the least petulant person that, in many years of association in another place and here, I have met among politicians. So I am not worried that there is any real risk that this approach will induce that unhappy state of mind in him, but these are difficult problems as to the extent to which one should zealously work out in the Bill itself every detail of administration of a scheme of this kind. Admittedly it is immensely complex, as every town and country planning scheme has been in the past and is likely to be in the future. It is a difficult problem of balance, but ultimately one has to make sure that the Parliamentary process itself can operate. One can secure some control through Parliament on what Secretaries of State do with their powers. There is a powerful sanction in Parliament for getting rid of a Minister through successful debates and through bringing him to book in the Commons itself.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble and learned Lord says that there is a powerful sanction for getting rid of the Secretary of State, but has this happened since the War?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I think it has. Some Ministers who have not been able to cope with their responsibilities—and I shall not be pushed into giving any examples—have suffered through their incompetence in dealing with their duties, and Parliament has this power over Ministers. The noble

137
Viscount has embraced not only this Administration but previous ones in his general criticism, but I fear that I am impenitent in suggesting that, in regard to the kind of matters where the directions which we are debating at the moment can be issued—namely, what should be considered in the preparation of land acquisition and management schemes and the contents of such schemes—I cannot believe that there is great room for mischief in that highly technical situation. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount may think that in this category of directions at least there is little to fear.
If I may use this opportunity to return to a matter on which I was foolish enough to express a view a few minutes ago, I said, in regard to directions issued by Ministers and their legal force, that general directions are usually given by circular to all local authorities, but the information which I presently have is that if directions are special directions they are given by letter addressed to the particular authority or group of authorities and that those letters can alter the law if Parliament has given authority for them to do so. Looking back at the famous Clause 16(7), that provided that:
"Except if and in so far as the Secretary of State, on the application of all the authorities in the area of the county authority, otherwise directs, a scheme under this section shall not create any obligation enforceable by law."
If all the authorities in the area of the county authority do so apply, then the effect of that provision is that an obligation enforceable by law can arise. That is perhaps a departure to a previous point which I may have been out of order in raising, but I felt that I might have misled the Committee and I am told that the position is as I have now described it. I cannot feel entirely happy about that, however, and I shall have another look at it. In the light of what I have said about the general matters raised by each of the noble Viscounts, I hope that they may take the view that it is better to give Secretaries of State these powers to issue directions and not to require them to be brought before Parliament further to encumber and clutter up the already overworked Parliamentary machine.
Viscount RIDLEY: I was not surprised to see that the noble and learned
138
Lord sheltered behind the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I suspect that both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, know this Act by heart and that they quote large chunks of it to each other when they go to bed at night. It has been a marvellous hedge for the Government to hide behind, and I congratulate them. I wish to refer the noble and learned Lord to the Town Development Act 1952, of which I am sure he is aware, in which he will find very comprehensive development powers for the assembly and management of land by local authorities. That Act specifies that these things should be subject to orders laid before Parliament, and in my opinion it is perhaps appropriate that this should be done. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would agree that, should there be drastic changes proposed, he would give an undertaking that they would be discussed with local authorities' representatives before they were made by the Secretary of State. This would go a long way to meeting the point that I was making.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that that is essential and it will be done; certainly I can give that assurance.
Viscount RIDLEY: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK: It is now ten o'clock and probably an appropriate time to adjourn this Committee stage.
House resumed.