COMMUNITY LAND BILL

HL Deb 28 October 1975 vol 365 cc243-404

7.45 p.m.

House again in Committee.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 113:

Page 74, line 14, at end insert— (" . Where an authority have disposed of any land under paragraph 2 above and that land has been partially or wholly developed in the same class of development for which that land was made available the authority shall not have any rights to compulsorily acquire such land.")

The noble Earl said: I will explain very briefly the reason behind this Amendment. It is that where an authority have disposed of any land under paragraph 2 of this schedule and that land has been either partially or wholly developed according to the planning permission that was granted, the authority shall not have any rights compulsorily to acquire such land again. So far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill to prevent land from passing through the hands of the authority more than once. This is the reason behind the Amendment and I beg to move.

7.47 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

As the noble Earl has explained, the effect of this Amendment would be to prevent an authority from using compulsory purchase powers to acquire land which it had acquired and disposed of under the scheme where the land had been partially or wholly developed for the class of development for which it had been made available. In disposing of land under the scheme, whether to prior right applicants or to others, authorities will need to buy it to ensure that the development for which the land is made available is consistent with the planning objectives for the area as a whole. In practice, this means that only on very rare occasions would they seek to reacquire land which they had already acquired and disposed of.

Nevertheless, there may well be cases where plans are changed and where a different kind of development will be required. For example, if a new road needs to be routed through land which had already been disposed of under the scheme, it would be quite wrong and inconsistent with the objectives of the scheme to deprive an authority of their powers compulsorily to reacquire that land.

Moreover, the Amendment would prevent authorities from using compulsory purchase powers to undertake redevelopment in the future, even up to about 60 years later. Therefore the Amendment would restrict the prohibition on the use of compulsory purchase powers to the period when the development had wholly or partially taken place. But this limitation does not affect the objections to the Amendment which I have outlined. For planning reasons, authorities must retain compulsory purchase powers even when the land has been disposed of and wholly or partially developed.

It may also be the intention of the Amendment—I am not sure about this—to restrict the limitation to cases where the land had been disposed of to prior right applicants. I am not sure whether the noble Earl had that in mind, but as worded it applies to all disposals under the scheme. However, even if the Amendment applied only to prior right applicants the objections to it would still remain, because the main ones are of a much more general nature. If an authority re-acquired land that it had already disposed of, it would of course have to compensate in the normal way whoever it was to whom the disposal had been made. I hope that the noble Earl will accept this explanation. It is important that there should be this provision, even though for all sorts of practical reasons. of which I am sure anybody conversant with local government will be well aware, it will probably be very rarely used.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I think my noble friend has raised an important point. Let me take the case of, say, industrial development. If planning permission is granted, and the local authority sells to a developer, and it is then discovered that the developer, through a variety of ways, could increase that planning permission with the permission of the local authority by, say, more than 10 per cent. and it would therefore be deemed to be a development, would the local authority then have to purchase that site again? I have not followed whether or not they have the right to say that they do not wish to repurchase, or whether they have to say that they have to repurchase, as one tends to feel under the designated areas.

Baroness BIRK

I think I can set the noble Earl's mind at rest about this point. They would have to start the whole process again. They would have to repurchase and set the whole operation on the road again. This would act as a further safeguard. if the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is concerned that this might be used for any reason which is not quite honourable, I would say that this just could not take place, because they would have to start the whole process over again with, if necessary, an inquiry so that any objections might be made.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation she has given, which I have no doubt covers what is intended. But I should point out that this is bound to have the effect of frightening people away from developing once this Bill comes into force. Furthermore, I very much doubt whether people would get adequate compensation after the second appointed day. Provided that any prospective developer is fully aware of the answer to this problem—and I am very glad that I tabled this Amendment—then fair enough, but this is just the sort of case that will lose tremendous confidence in the development of land in the future by anybody but a local authority. This is something which the noble Baroness must expect to happen. But having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, because it is clearly defective.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.53 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 114A:

Page 74, line 14, at end insert— (" . Where an authority decide that land should be made available for development by persons other than any authority, they shall in determining what material interest in the land to dispose of to such persons, (a) have regard to the requirement of such persons to obtain finance on the security of the land and (b) shall unless it would be unreasonable in the circumstances to do so, dispose of the freehold interest in the land or a lease for a term of not less than 150 years.").

The noble Baroness said: In one way this is a probing Amendment, because it would be useful to find out before we reach Clause 41 what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the disposal of land by local authorities. Clearly this is an issue of enormous importance to a great many people. It is of importance to those who are building houses, who may well want to borrow money on the land that they hold, and will therefore need to know its value. It is important to industry to know in what way a local authority will dispose of land; whether it is to be freehold or leasehold and, if leasehold, how long the lease would be. It is also very important to pension funds.

The words "material interest" are defined in Clause 4 to include either a freehold or a leasehold interest. Reading the Report of the debate on a somewhat similar matter in another place, one sees that the Minister, Mr. Oakes, said on 24th June, at column 1491, with regard to the terms of leases: But with regard to the terms of years of lease this is still a matter of negotiation as to the length of term on which the best balance can be struck between community interests and industrial and commercial interests. These discussions are continuing and what I say now does not prejudice them. What it would be useful to know is whether the Government can now give any indication of their thinking on this matter. A great many organisations have said that in informal discussions with the Department and Ministers concerned a term of 60 years is being talked of. For a variety of reasons this is far too short a term to be of real use to a great number of people. I therefore tabled this Amendment with a term of 150 years to try to determine what is in the Government's mind, and I shall be most interested, as will many other people, to hear their view of this matter. I beg to move.

Lord GRIDLEY

In supporting my noble friend in what she has just said, I should like to cover the points in rather more detail. The present position in regard to the development of land in this country, so far as the private developer is concerned, is that he finances his operations on the security of the land and many big institutions which have been mentioned in that connection such as financial institutions.

What I see as being important in this Amendment is the fact that it more or less outlines what is going on at present before this Bill comes into operation, and I would go along with my noble friend Lady Young in regard to the fact that this is a probing Amendment. We should like to be sure that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to; the operations in the development industry which exist at present, regarding the financing of their operations on the security of land, and I should like some assurance from the Government that they will give sympathetic consideration to that point.

Lord HYLTON

In supporting this Amendment, I should like to recall that at an earlier stage of this Committee the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned that consultations were going on as to appropriate terms for leases and disposals of land by local authorities, and I should like to draw his attention to the memorandum submitted by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in December 1974 in reply to the White Paper, and in particular to paragraph 2.24, which touches on this question of land as an asset against which loans can be raised, and which can therefore be used for financing industrial, manufacturing and commercial developments of all sorts.

Lord MELCHETT

Paragraph 56 of the White Paper on Land said that local authorities were being encouraged to offer it to builders on licences with the plots being conveyed directly to the house purchasers. Building agreements or licences are the preferred method for the disposal of building land, as they ensure that the authorities retain the maximum control of development while giving builders the right to have the freehold of individual plots conveyed to the eventual purchaser. Discussions are at present going on between the Department and the local authority associations and the clearing banks on the sort of agreement which would be acceptable both to the authorities and to the financial institutions.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, that I will draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the remarks he made in that respect this evening. However, other methods of disposal to builders have not been ruled out. Speaking to the House Building Federation Annual Conference on 17th October this year, my right honourable friend Mr. Silkin said his mind was open to other methods of disposal to builders within the principles of the land scheme, provided these are associated with adequate provision for assuring the scheme's positive planning objectives were safeguarded. So no one's mind is closed on this matter at the present moment.

The White Paper said: The disposal of land for commercial or industrial development will be on a leasehold basis with provision for rent revisions. This policy is designed to ensure that the community retains a share of future increases in value and is basic to the positive planning aspects of the scheme. The precise length of leases to be granted raises a number of complex issues which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, are still being discussed. I mentioned this at an earlier stage. Discussions are still continuing with those likely to be directly concerned. We think that authorities should not be required to grant leases on terms unacceptable to them. However, the Government are well aware of the need to grant leases of a reasonable length, and this will be dealt with in guidance to authorities. Everything noble Lords have said this evening will certainly be taken into account while these discussions continue.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I should like to mention two points here. First, it seems to me that any question of property, whether it should be freehold or leasehold, under this Bill clearly splits into two areas. The first area is housing. It seems to me that, if the Government are seriously considering long leaseholds for housing, this will go against recent legislation on the virtual abolishment of the leasehold reform system. I should like all houses for builders to be freehold.

Lord MELCHETT

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but he seems to have misunderstood what I said. I dealt with two separate situations. I spoke first of building land and said that, in that case, we would have building agreements or licence arrangements where the freehold would be transferred direct to the house purchaser. My remarks on leases were confined to industrial commercial development.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful for that clarification. Coming to the commercial development, again what has already been said is absolutely true. The property market, the development market, at present is under extreme pressure to encourage finance houses, banks, insurance houses, and pension funds to put up funding for these developments. It is a ludicrous argument as to whether the local authority should consider 60, 70 or 80 years as a suitable period. What really matters is whether property developers can attract funds to get the developments.

I think that the Government should be far more forthcoming as to what are their intentions. They say they are consulting various bodies. So far as I know, the Government have been consulting for a great deal of time. Can the noble Lord not tell us what has come out of the consultations? Can he tell us what views the local authorities are giving? What issues are the Government thinking of at present? This is a very vital issue to the whole sphere of commercial development.

Viscount RIDLEY

Can I speak for a minute about the industrial side of this question to which the noble Earl referred? It is absolutely critical that we have some indication of where Government thinking is going. Obviously a leasehold, if it is a long one, in effect is a freehold, as we know. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would agree with that. But, if it is too short, we put ourselves into a difficult position, particularly where we are trying to attract new industries to certain regions of this country.

My experience, which is by now not inconsiderable in this sphere, leads me to think that most industrial concerns are keen to obtain the freehold, or if not the freehold, as long a lease as possible. At the moment I do not think it is good enough to say that the Government are thinking in terms of 60-year leases, or perhaps a little longer. May I press the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to give us his reaction to the figure of 150 years mentioned in the Amendment, because this may or may not be long enough. To many industrial people this figure may be too short. It is important we have some knowledge before we leave this subject.

Lord SANDFORD

I was going to raise this on the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part?, but as the debate is ranging fairly widely on this Amendment, perhaps I can raise it now. The Government have been saying all along—from the Committee stage in another place to the Report stage in another place, to the Committee stage now—that they are having negotiations. They are having negotiations on the matters referred to in Schedule 6, paragraph 2(3)(b)(i); that is the terms on which the material interest should be purchased. They are also having negotiations as to Schedule 6, paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), the terms on which the development should be carried out. We have now reached a stage when we are within a few weeks of Royal Assent, when it is not any longer appropriate for noble Lords opposite to say they are having negotiations. The terms on which these material interests can be disposed of, and the terms on which the development can be carried out should now have been settled.

Of course, it is a virtue at an early stage, a year ago, a month or so after the White Paper was published, to be approaching the matter with an open mind; but it is not a virtue any more, in that people's minds should have been made up, and their views and intentions should be made clear to Parliament, otherwise we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are being asked to approve in this Schedule matters about which the Government at the present moment are entirely vague. Before the next stage of the Bill, we must have a better indication of the terms under which the Government think that the material interests should be disposed of in relation to building land for housing, development land for industrial and commercial purposes, and the terms on which builders are to carry out the development on land which is not passing into their own ownership. These are crucial links in the whole of this enterprise, which we regard as totally unsatisfactory anyhow. At present we are devoting ourselves to seeing that the system works; but unless the Government tell us what their intentions are, I do not see how we can possibly discharge our duties.

Lord MELCHETT

I spelt out what the objectives of the Government are.

Lord SANDFORD

Objectives are one thing, but there are also ways and means.

Lord MELCHETT

I was about to say that I would not prejudice discussions going on with regard to particular figures. I have not mentioned a 60-year, 80-year, 99-year or even a 120-year period—nor do I intend to. Of course, I am well aware—and so are the Government, and we have made this clear all along—of the need for people to raise finance. That is the purpose of the discussions. Discussions are being conducted with interested parties so that arrangements can be arrived at which will be suitable to all, and which will enable people to raise finance on the leases granted. But I regret to tell noble Lords opposite that I am not prepared to prejudice the discussions which are still continuing by being drawn on particular figures.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Can the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, go further, then, and tell us how often these discussions happen? Who is in charge of the discussions? Who is being asked to discuss anything? When will the discussions come to an end? There must be a timetable. However sensitive the situation is, it is equally sensitive to the Opposition, who simply want to know the terms on which the leases would be granted, in order to make a judgment. This is a very important matter, and I hope the noble Lord will consider this, as my noble friend has said, because it seems to me—and I will repeat this again—that the funding for commercial development is quite essential for a spur to the whole of the development of the areas. If you are going to damage that through this Bill you are going to damage positive planning.

Viscount RIDLEY

May I pursue this further. Only last week I met the managing director of a very important transatlantic company who wished to purchase land from my county council—land which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be glad to know was derelict for some time. He told me that they wished to purchase land in the North of England to expand a factory to create jobs, and unless they know that they would be able to have a long lease, they were not going to develop this factory. That is why we want to know.

Lord MELCHETT

In answer to the noble Earl's question, I am advised that banks, local authorities and financial institutions are involved in the discussions. I think it would be unwise for any Government to enter into this sort of discussion with a fixed timetable. We should be accused of holding a sword over the heads of the institutions if we seta definite limit. Of course, my right honourable friend is well aware of the urgency and the need to come to some definite conclusion about this. I should hope that we would have some more information before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.

Lord SANDFORD

That is a considerable advance. It would be much better if the noble Lord would say that we have some information before we come to the Report stage, because to wait until Third Reading will make it very difficult for us to consult with the people with whose views we are having to deal. I should have thought that unless the noble Lord can give some indication before the weekend—if he cannot do it now perhaps he can write to us—it will be impossible for us to consult with the people concerned about this. My noble friend Lord Ridley has given an absolutely straightforward example of why it is important to get this clear and on the record. Perhaps my other questions to the noble Lord were not specific enough. I can make them specific.

Is the Department, for instance, in touch with the Pilcher Committee? If so, what has been the outcome? That is a question that his right honourable friend was asked last May and the Minister did not answer it then. Perhaps the noble Lord can answer it now. Onthe question of the agreements under which development will proceed when the ownership of land passes not to the builder but direct to the subsequent freeholder, are the Government relying on Section 52 agreements under the Local Government Act? If so, what assurances can we have that they will now be operative, that the builders are now put in an entirely different position? If they are not relying on Section 52, what sort of formula are they relying on? We are absolutely in the dark as to how this vital link in the operation of this Bill is going to operate. It really is not constitutionally right that Parliament should be asked to pass this legislation without having some sort of answers to these questions

The Earl of KINNOULL

I took a note of what the noble Earl said about who was being consulted. I think he said banking interests, financial institutions and local authorities. It seems that there is one gap there, and that is developers. Is there not a body which represents developers, the British Property Federation or some such body, who could be consulted? I should have thought that they should have a say in this. It is not only the financial whizz-kids in the City, but those who are actually doing the development who should be considered. Would the noble Lord consider including them in the discussions?

Lord MELCHETT

I am always prepared to consider including additional bodies in the consultations, but if I am asked on the one hand to get some information by the weekend and on the other hand to include more bodies in the consultations, I am afraid I really do not know which way to turn; I cannot possibly satisfy both the noble Lords opposite. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, have a rather better point; that is, the urgency of this matter. Certainly I will convey to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's wish to have an answer to this if possible by Report stage. The Government have, of course, been closely in touch with the Pilcher Committee and will bear their views closely in mind when coming to decisions and making representations to local authorities. I understand—and this may set the noble Earl's mind at rest—that developers have given evidence to and been in touch with the Pilcher Committee, so it may be that we are aware of their views by that means.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, reverted to the question of transferring freeholds in relation to housing. I do not think this is a question of using Section 52 of the Local Government Act. We went into this at Second Reading in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Building agreements are something which have been used for many years in new towns. If he wishes I will be happy to explain the mechanics of this to the noble Lord. It will be exactly the same as building agreements which are currently used in new towns. Of course here again there is the question of payment by the builder. It may be helpful if I said a word about that. Payment for building agreements can be phased; in other words, it can take place at the start of development or earlier or later, so there is flexibility in that area. Here again discussions are taking place with the Local Authority Associations and the clearing banks on the use of building agreements and the security that building agreements can provide for builders to raise finance for construction. So in this area, too, discussions are going on with the relevant bodies to make sure that finance is available.

Viscount RIDLEY

Does that imply that Section 52 of the Local Government Act—the noble Lord will be glad to see I have now armed myself with it—is still going to be in force after the passing of this Bill?

Lord MELCHETT

Yes, Section 52 will still be in force after the passing of this Bill.

Lord SANDFORD

If the Section 52 agreements are not going to be used, and building agreements that have been used in new towns are going to be used instead, where is there in this legislation something which empowers local authorities to use new town powers outside new towns?

Lord MELCHETT

I confess that I am not conversant enough with the Bill to be able to give the noble Lord the reference at this moment. Perhaps when we come to the passing of the Schedule he would revert to the question and I may be able to answer it then.

Baroness YOUNG

I think this has been a very useful debate. I hope that at the end of it the Government will realise that there are a number of people who are extremely concerned that at this late stage we simply do not know the Government's view of what they are going to do about the disposal of land. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, told us, it was really what was in the White Paper, which of course we knew before we came to this debate at all, and he cannot give us any more definite information than is stated there. We know that discussions are going on, but we do not know, as it were, what the parameters of that discussion are, and we do not know what the Government are saying about this.

I welcome the noble Lord's remark that we are going to have possibly something more by Report. I should have thought that that was very much in the Government's own interest. After all, the key to the success of any of this will be whether or not anybody is going to make any money out of this—local authorities in particular. They are certainly not going to make any money out of it if nobody knows what they are going to be able to do. If nobody knows what they are going to be able to do, nobody is going to buy, because they will not know what they are getting. So we shall find ourselves in a perfectly ridiculous position.

I am bound to say that I find it quite extraordinary that yesterday we could be debating at great length that local authorities would be perfectly able to produce their land acquisition and management schemes by 31st December, while the Government, on the disposal side of this bargain, which is crucial to the whole thing, can give no indication as to what they are supposed to do when they produce the scheme and start to get it into operation. when the Bill is due to become law within a matter of weeks. It is a matter of urgency, and by Report we shall expect something much more definite than we have had this evening because we shall undoubtedly return to this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Schedule 6, as amended, shall be a Schedule to the Bill?

8.21 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

I was not going to speak on this Question, but as the noble Lord has said that there might possibly be made available some advice from which he would like to answer my last question, I give him the opportunity to do that. I shall understand if he prefers to leave it.

The Earl of KINNOULL

May I ask the noble Lord two questions on the prior right procedure, and, first, about the words, "shall have regard to" in paragraph 2(2). The noble Lord will recall that when the local authorities are disposing of land they shall have regard first of all to the owner, then perhaps the developer, with written consent, and then others. The question I wanted to put to the noble Lord is whether "shall have regard to" is a strong enough phrase in the Bill. Is that phrase sufficient to implement what the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord said earlier, that the owner will always have the first opportunity to re-acquire the land? My advice is that the words "shall have regard to" are very woolly, and that it would be better to put in the words "shall afford an opportunity to".

My second question concerns white land. Where land is acquired by the local authority as white land and may not be developed for perhaps ten years, and then they decide to dispose of it, is this factor covered under the prior rights procedure? In other words, is the original owner of that land consulted, or is it only when land has attracted planning permission that the prior right procedure operates? I hope it occurs in both instances, and I should be grateful for elucidation.

Lord MELCHETT

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for giving me an opportunity to respond to the point that he made. I think that I was not quite right in what I said earlier about Section 52 agreements. They could be used as an alternative to building agreements. I was right in saying, in response to the noble Viscount, that Section 52 will remain in force, and I understand that this matter constitutes part of the discussions which are proceeding. Local authorities do not need new town powers in this Bill because the power to enter into a building agreement is part of the general disposal powers which authorities will have.

To turn to the points raised by the noble Earl, I regret that there is nothing I can add to what my noble and learned friend said—and I would hesitate to deviate from what he said; namely, that "shall have regard to" is perfectly adequate; indeed, I am advised that it is the strongest term we can import into the Bill. It means that they must do this. I hope that that will set the noble Earl's mind at rest. To the final point the noble Earl made, the answer is, Yes, the prior right will apply to white land.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am afraid that that does not set my mind at rest. I think that the noble and learned Lord went on to say that the Government would issue not regulations but guidelines to local authorities on these prior right agreements. If he was present I do not think that he would regard the words "shall have regard to" as a binding commitment to local authorities that they must on the first occasion ask the original owner to repurchase. I hope that the noble Lord will have a look at that matter again and perhaps we can deal with it on Report.

Lord MELCHETT

Maybe I was putting it a little strongly. "Have regard to" is, in our view, strong enough, and I do not feel disposed to tell the noble Earl that we could alter this wording. Prior right cannot be absolute, but there will be a very strong presumption that prior right applicants will be able to undertake the development. Even if it has taken a little time I think I am at one with my noble and learned friend here.

Lord FOOT

May I ask a question about this? I may have missed something. When the noble Earl spoke of the Lord Chancellor having earlier expressed a view as to the meaning of the words "have regard to", I do not know whether he was then referring to the question asked, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in connection with Clause 17(2). I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who asked the Lord Chancellor the meaning of the words "have regard to" in that connection. The noble and learned Lord gave his answer, and said that they meant they were to consider and bring into consideration. In this connection, where in this Schedule the words in paragraph 2(2) are: …the authority shall have regard to any application which has been so made.", they deal with a different matter. I agree with the noble Earl that those words do not require the authority to give precedence to the original owner. They require them only to consider the fact that he has made an application, and it imposes no requirement on them that I can see that they shall give precedence to that person when they come to consider the disposal of the land.

Therefore, whatever the Lord Chancellor said about the meaning of the words "have regard to", I do not think they are of much use to us in this connec tion, and they ought to be strengthened. I am attracted by the words—I have forgotten what they were—which the noble Lord used, although I think he would need to amend the further words in the sentence in order to make it grammatical. I do not think this gives the original applicant, or the original owner of the land, that precedence which it is apparently the intention of the Government that he should have.

Lord HYLTON

I think it was in reply to a question of mine that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seemed to be quite categoric that it was the Government's intention that the previous owner would have definite preference when it came to disposal by the local authority. I should like the Government to consider whether the wording in the Bill is as categoric as the noble and learned Lord said it was.

Lord MELCHETT

It is true that the previous owner will have a preference but, as I understand it, the wording deliberately does not make it an absolute right.

Lord SANDFORD

I have had an opportunity to study the powers in the 1965 Act relating to the disposal of land and the reference there is to 99-year leases. Is that the limit which the Government have in mind in referring us to the New Towns Act, or is there some other model? I am still not satisfied that the powers provided for in Section 18 of the New Towns Act 1965 can be, as it were, appropriated and used by any other local authority, but for the moment I take the noble Lord's word that that is so, although it surprises me. If he intends to lift those out and apply them for the purposes of this Bill, then a 99-year lease is what we are talking about and it would have been easier if he had said so in the first place.

Lord MELCHETT

I think the noble Lord misunderstood what I said. I understood him to be asking me about building agreements; this is where a builder builds houses and the freehold in the land is transferred direct to the eventual occupier of the house. I was not talking about disposing of leases in commercial or industrial property. That was a separate matter. As I understand it, the power to dispose of an interest in land in this way—that is, by a building agreement where the builder builds the house and the eventual occupier then has the freehold transferred directly to him—is in Section 123 of the Local Government Act.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 [Comprehensive acquisition of development land]:

8.32 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 115: Page 17, line 31, after ("may") insert ("after consulting the authorities concerned").

The noble Lord said: I am sure the Committee will be glad to hear that this is a far more straightforward point. This is the first Amendment dealing with the full duties which will eventually be available to local authorities under order by the Secretary of State, and they are very far-reaching. I do not intend to go into any of the broader arguments about the principle of the Bill, except to say that it seems to me, and I think it would seem to my noble friends behind me, unthinkable that the Secretary of State should apply an order relating to these duties without first consulting the local authorities concerned. That is so important that a provision requiring him to do so should be in the Bill at the point and in the way my Amendment provides for.

Baroness BIRK

As the note on Clause 18 explains, orders imposing the full duty on authorities will be made progressively, and they will have to be made in that way because it is necessary that authorities have the ability and resources before this can come into force. It has always been the Government's intention to consult the authorities concerned before making an order, as, of course, the Secretary of State would have to satisfy himself that they were capable of fulfilling the duty he intended to lay on them. The Amendment, by making this consultation a statutory requirement, would make no practical difference to the administrative arrangements that would in any case have been necessary in order to carry out these consultations, and it is not, therefore, strictly necessary. However, if the Committee thinks it would be helpful to have this spelt out in the Bill, the Government see no reason to object to the Amendment. But I cannot accept it as drafted because it is slightly defective; the drafting would not fit very happily into Clause 18(2) where the authorities concerned are set out in detail. But I undertake that the Government will bring forward an Amendment on Report to achieve the required effect.

Lord SANDFORD

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the more of that we can have during the passage of the night the happier and easier the proceedings will be. With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 116: Page 17, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to any necessary consents for borrowing under the Local Government Act 1972 being available to defray the cost of any acquisitions.")

The noble Viscount said: I hope the noble Baroness remains in a co-operative frame of mind. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to see that in acquiring land under the Bill local government has adequate powers to borrow the money to do so. As the Committee will no doubt be aware, the Local Government Act 1972 specifies that local authorities' borrowings for capital expenditure must be approved by the Secretary of State. He exercises this control through procedures relating to the key sector and the locally determined sector in accordance with circulars he has recently issued. There are in this Bill no special provisions at all about the borrowing to perform the functions of the Community Land Bill, and the Secretary of State has stated that such borrowing would be covered by a special key section allocation. We do not know what the special sector allocations will be, nor has there yet been any indication of how much money might be involved. It seems to me that if the community land council is to get going at all under the Bill, there will need to be this special arrangement and borrowing will be needed not only to cover the expenditure for the purchase of the land, but also for such ancillary matters as the cost of staff and so on to get the scheme under way.

It is safe to assume that it will be several years before many areas are in sufficient surplus to generate enough money to obviate the need for borrowing and there is, therefore, a vital need to link the authorities' duties to purchase with the authorities' availability of loan consents from the Government to do so. It seems, further, that in practice it is extremely likely that because of the national restraints on public expenditure, which is not the subject before us tonight, there will have to be some rationing of the special key sector allocation, which has been the pattern to date. I do not see that it will be in any sense easier in the foreseeable future for money to be borrowed for this kind of purpose. It seems, therefore, that in assuming that the Bill has unlimited capabilities conferred on local authorities to borrow to start their schemes, it would be more realistic to assume that in practice the situation will be such that the relative demands on the public and private sectors will override all other considerations and may well lead to the total available borrowing powers for the key sector being severely restricted. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is simply to say that local authorities should not be forced to purchase land when they do not have the authority to borrow money to do so. I ask the Government to give some indication of how they intend to cope with this problem.

Lord MELCHETT

I assure the noble Viscount that the Government arc fully aware of this point and, if I may tell him this, I do not think the situation has been fully thought through. I think the noble Viscount is assuming that all the necessary funds for land acquisitions will come from borrowing. That will certainly be true in the earlier years, but, after that, authorities will have funds from disposal receipts to use for land acquisition, and once an authority is in cost surplus all the funds will normally be generated in this way. So once disposal receipts start coming in, any criteria for introducing the full duty based on borrowing approval would not make sense. In any event, tying the making of the order to the availability of borrowing approval would only ensure that the approval was available at the time the order was made.

It does not guarantee that funds will be available the following year or even that the approval will not be subject to public expenditure cuts the following day. As we know, that happens all too often now. In other words, it may turn out to be so poor a safeguard as not to be one at all. The simple answer to the point is, in considering whether to bring in the duty, the Secretary of State will need to consider whether the necessary finance will be available both when it is brought in and in the future. He would not make such an order unless he considered that funds were likely to be available either from the surplus in the land account or from borrowing.

Lord HYLTON

I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has made a very interesting and rather important admission. He has implied that in the medium term—perhaps, in five to 10 years from now—the sums that are recovered by way of betterment will immediately be reinvested in acquiring more land and in continuing the process. If so, betterment will not be available for spending for other purposes. We shall never have it in the bank.

My second point arising from the noble Lord's reply is to ask him whether he can enlighten us on the Government's priorities for expenditure in the short-term between the passing of the Bill and five years ahead? What priority will the Government give to land acquisition as compared with the long list of other desirable things which everyone else wants to see done in the statutory sector, including housing, education, health, and so on? Where, in the Government's priorities, does land acquisition, which will require borrowing in the immediate two, three, four or five years ahead, come?

Viscount AMORY

My noble friend Lord Ridley setout clearly the anxieties of local authorities on this point. I listened attentively to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said and I was glad to note that he admitted that there were problems in this field and to hear that his right honourable friend was very conscious of those problems and that local authorities would not be pressed to go ahead if the money was not likely to be available. Can I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree, having said that these problems might occur in the earlier years but that they would not occur later on—and that may well be true—that there will be wide variations between local authorities as to the time when the money will come in and that in some cases it may be quite a time before that happens and they are in a position to finance these schemes? The timing is always difficult because local authorities have no idea yet what the key sector allocations are to be for next year and it is difficult to make positive plans until they can see at least some way ahead in this matter.

I believe that I was right in detecting that the noble Lord was saying that his right honourable friend was conscious of these difficulties and I very much hope that he will bear them in mind because, in my opinion, they are real difficulties for particular local authorities in enabling them to feel that they can push ahead with these schemes with confidence that they will not be frustrated in the short-term through lack of borrowing facilities.

Lord MELCHETT

I do not feel that it would be right for me to try to preempt the publication of the next public expenditure White Paper, which will normally be published at the turn of the year. The size of the key sector borrowing so far as the land scheme is concerned will, as my right honourable friend has more than once said in another place, be settled in the context of public expenditure as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is quite right to say that disposal receipts will be invested in new purchases to achieve positive planning, which is the aim of the scheme. I am not certain that I said that all the surpluses achieved by all authorities in the next 10 years would automatically be reinvested and that there would therefore be no surpluses for distribution in any other way. We shall have to wait and see what happens as the scheme progresses.

In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, there will of course be differences from area to area, and that is the great advantage of the flexibility which is built into the scheme. The duty can be imposed to a different extent by area. Different areas will have different levels of duty at different times and this will of course take account of the financial situation of the authorities at the time in question.

Lord SANDFORD

I should like to raise a question not about the general position, but on the position in one area where the Secretary of State introduces an order. When he does that, the local authority concerned will be under an obligation to set about making acquisitions in accordance with the first year of its published rolling programme. It is conceivable—and the noble Lord has already instanced this—that, shortly after issuing an order that a particular local authority was to set about acquiring particular bits of land in accordance with the first year of its five year rolling programme, there might be some development in the national economic situation which would lead to cuts in what had been intended to be available to local authorities. Can the noble Lord assure us that, in those instances, those owners of property who at that point would be in a position to serve blight notices and to require local authorities to purchase property which had been affected will receive priority? It will be bad enough if local authority programmes, having been approved and set forward, have to be reined back because of the national economic position. It would be quite unfair and unacceptable if private owners who were in a position to serve blight notices and had had such notices accepted were not able to sell their properties to the local authorities. It would be helpful if we could have an assurance that, at any rate, borrowing to cover that would be available in all circumstances.

Lord MELCHETT

It might be going a little far for me to commit all future Governments to make funds available in all circumstances, however deserving the cause. I certainly feel that the Secretary of State would have regard to this matter and of course it will always be open to the Secretary of State, in exceptional circumstances, to remove the duty from an authority if the financial situation gets so bad that the authority is not in a position to carry out the functions it is obliged to carry out. If the owner is in a position to serve a blight notice, he can make the local authority acquire the property, so I feel that this point is adequately covered.

Lord SANDFORD

I put the question in a strong and direct form and I appreciate that the noble Lord could not accept it. May I put it this way? Will the guidance be that, in cases where local authorities do not have consents sufficient to carry out the programme approved, priority will be given to the acquisition of property in respect of which blight notices have been served rather than the prosecution of a programme of acquisition in accordance with their rolling programme? I believe that, if we knew that the guidance was that private individuals affected adversely by the cutback would have precedence over the public acquisition programme, we should be satisfied.

Lord MELCHETT

I have dealt with the position where the private owner can serve a blight notice. If the private owner can serve a blight notice he can force the local authority to acquire, so that automatically takes precedence. I am reinforced in my view that that is the correct opinion to give to the noble Lord.

Viscount RIDLEY

I should like to thank the noble Lord. I am sure he appreciates that the Bill as it stands on this matter could be extremely expensive and extremely worrying for local authorities, and I think he has the point clearly. Opinions differ as to how long may elapse before an area might come into surplus. Some people think that it may be a very long time, not even within the lifetime of your Lordships' House perhaps. I should like to make it quite clear, and I withdraw the Amendment on the assurances I have had from the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.52 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 118: Page 18, line 5, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").

The noble Earl said: According to the Bill, the authority is not under a duty in respect of land which is not needed for relevant development within 10 years from the time at which it is acting. On every occasison that I have had anything to do with local authorities I have found that their long-term forecasts have been worse than weather forecasts; and that is saying something! Furthermore, I should like to remind your Lordships that under Part I of Schedule 7—which is concerned with planning permission for relevant development—the authority abandons its power to purchase for a period of only five years; and planning permission holds good for only five years. We should work on a five-year cycle, remembering that planning can be added to that development every year but it should not be put at more than five years ahead.

Again I ask your Lordships, please, to bear in mind that every time lands come within this provision—particularly in the case of agricultural land—those lands are no longer eligible for agricultural grants of any kind, and in many ways they are frozen. I also ask noble Lords to realise that planning ahead more than five years very often means that a piece of land becomes nothing more than a glorious rubbish dump. It can become a frightful sight with all sorts of rubbish. On the basis that this is not a duty, I recommend working on a period of a five-year cycle. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

As my right honourable friend explained in response to a similar Amendment moved at the Committee stage in another place, 10 years is regarded as the maximum period needed to ensure orderly development and to create the required degree of certainty in the development industry and in agriculture, which the noble Earl mentioned, as well as forestry. This 10-year period is a limitation on the scope and the duty and does not mean that an authority must immediately set out to buy all the land needed for designated relevant development within that period. I have made that point previously during the Committee stage.

However, in putting forward their acquisition proposals authorities will work on the basis of a five-year rolling programme, and the Secretary of State will not normally give consent for acquisitions of land needed beyond this five-year period. But to restrict authorities to looking only five years ahead at any time would preclude them from dealing with many major schemes where the assembly of the land, and its disposal for development, might well take more than five years to accomplish. I hope that with those assurances and explanations the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

The only reason why the Government wish to have a 10-year programme is for major schemes, because they have already said that they will not normally give local authorities consent to purchase beyond a five-year programme. Would the noble Lord agree that when the assembly of major schemes is carried out by a private developer it does indeed take ten years? It could take longer because a private developer does not have any powers. He has to negotiate, he has to wait and he has to plan. Surely in regard to local authorities with compulsory purchase powers—and indeed their very speedy powers under this Bill—this argument about how long it takes to assemble a major development site does not hold water. Would the noble Lord look at this again? Perhaps he could give examples of what he has in mind, and why it would take 10 years. Such examples might help us.

Lord MELCHETT

Certainly, we on this side have tried to emphasise that wherever possible, we should like—as I am sure would all authorities—to proceed by agreement. We do not see the compulsory purchase powers as something which authorities will go around brandishing, like a big stick, which I am afraid may be the view which the noble Lords opposite take. We should like authorities to have time to assemble land for a major development by agreement, just as a private developer does. I confess that I am not entirely at one with the noble Earl in thinking that private developers have absolutely no powers, but this probably is not the time for a philosophical discussion about the powers of wealth and other matters.

I hope that that has answered his question. We hope that local authorities will proceed by agreement and, as the noble Earl says, it may be that the 10-year period is a little short. If he would like me to consider extending it I will do so.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should have thought that if a local authority was able to acquire land by agreement—which I am all in favour of—as part of a development which will not be developed for 10 years, the ratepayers might consider what is going on, because it all comes into the costs of the development.

Lord MELCHETT

Yes, it comes into the cost of development, but the cost does not fall on the rates. It is borrowed in the land account.

The Earl of KINNOULL

That has completely floored me!

Lord HYLTON

The whole Committee should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for putting down this Amendment. There has been a useful debate on this question of how long the period of years should be. If it could be shortened it might help to take out the unpredictable and always debatable matter of the opinion of a local authority. It might help to relate the land acquisition programme much more closely to existing proven needs.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am grateful for the explanation given and for the support I have received from my noble friends. I do not at this time particularly want to divide the Committee on this matter, but I wish to take up a point with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Although a local authority acquires the land by borrowing from the land bank, or whatever it may be, it still has to meet the interest on the money borrowed. Your Lordships can take it from me that land never earned anything by just being there. It is not until it is developed or something is done with it that it earns a penny. Large capital expenditure is involved in buying land. Not only is it the most expensive thing in the world to buy, but it gives an extremely small return when one buys it. That is the point I want to stress. Otherwise, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.0 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 120: Page 18, line 13, leave out from ("land)") to ("or") in line 15.

The noble Earl said: Subsection (3)(c) reads: …land a material interest in which has been disposed of by an authority…,and in which immediately before the disposal there were no material interests outstanding". If there had been "a material interest outstanding", the authority could not have disposed of it. You cannot dispose of something that does not belong to you. Here we are not dealing with "under any duty". But let us go through it again: The authorities…shall have regard to any relevant land acquisition and management scheme and shall not be under any duty as respects…land a material interest in which has been disposed of by an authority…". I cannot see the relevance of the words: …and in which immediately before the disposal there were no material interests outstanding…". Even if they let it, they still cannot dispose of it. I feel that, unless there is some sound reason for it, the words, if left in. are misleading particularly to anybody acting on behalf of the local authority. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I can assure the noble Earl that there is a good reason for keeping these words in the Bill. Clause 18 is based on the principle that once the full duty is in operation, the authorities in an area will be able to exercise their powers to plan positively because all relevant development will take place on land which is in or has passed through, public ownership. The only exceptions are where the land is not needed within 10 years, where all the authorities have lost their compulsory purchase powers by virtue of the procedures in Clauses 19–20, or where the land is the operational land of statutory undertakers.

Thus the Amendment is unacceptable in principle, because it attacks the principle of the Bill. It would disapply the duty even where the land had not passed through full public ownership. It would mean that the requirement of public ownership could be satisfied where an authority had only a relatively minor interest (provided that it was an interest that came within the definition of material interest). This could mean, for example, that a substantial amount of development value could accrue to the private sector.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has it right. Here is a case where we are dealing with land which has been disposed of by an authority. It is not simply let. I think there is a distinct defect here, unless the authority can dispose of land of which they were the tenant at some time. At this stage, I must leave that, but I think the drafting of this provision is not right. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.5 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 121A:

Page 18, line 15, at end insert— ("( ) Land which is the subject of a written agreement between an Authority and a person having a material interest in it where—

1. (i) The person having a material interest in the land has planning permission for its development.
2. (ii) The written agreement provides for the land to be developed in accordance with the planning permission within a period acceptable to the Authority and for a bond to secure its enforcement; and
3. (iii) The Authority has satisfied the Secretary of State that there is a good reason to allow land to be developed without the Authority first having to acquire it.")

The noble Earl said: The Committee will recall that when it comes into effect Clause 18 imposes a duty on all local authorities to acquire all development land within their area subject to the definition of development land, except those as specified in subsection (3) of the clause. The exceptions to this duty are very limited. They consist of land not required within the 10 year period for designated relevant development; land already owned by a statutory authority or land which has been abandoned by another authority.

There has been a great deal of criticism of the rigidity of this clause; a word which has already been used many times and which the noble and learned Lord has countered many times. I think the case under this clause is very strong. There may be times when it would not be in the interests of the local authority to be bound to purchase a property and then to have to resell it, possibly to the owner, to get development under way. There may be times when it would be a lossmaker to the local authority and against the interests of the ratepayers. The cases I have in mind would be old type property which would come within the definition of development land and has to be refurbished. It is very specialised and skilled work which perhaps the particular owner may have the skill and the requirement to do. As I see it, under this clause the district valuer would have to advise the authority what the value of the old property was. The authority would then purchase it and would then have to resell it and the district valuer may find it difficult to resell at the purchase price already given when all the time the owner was prepared to proceed with development.

I have given that example to show the sort of anxieties that have been expressed. This Amendment, which has been very carefully drawn and is by no means a wrecking Amendment, would allow an authority flexibility to reach written agreement with an owner and to keep within the principle of the Bill. In the Amendment this written agreement would be conditional: first, that in the agreement between the two parties (that is, the authority and the individual) the individual would be the person who owns the land and has planning permission for the development. The second condition is that the development will be carried out in accordance with the conditions of the planning permission, that it will be completed within a period of time which is acceptable to the authority and that, what is more, there is a bond to secure its enforcement. Finally, the authority will have to satisfy the Secretary of State that there is a good reason to allow this land to be developed without the authority having first to acquire it. I do not think the Committee could consider this an unreasonable Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will be as convinced as I am that it would give very valuable flexibility under this clause in regard to the future powers and duties of the authorities. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment, as the noble Earl has indicated, would remove the full duty where there was a written agreement between an authority and the owner of a material interest, subject to certain conditions, which are mentioned in the Amendment, and to the approval of the Secretary of State. There is a technical difficulty about the Amendment which I should mention. It would not achieve its objective. Although it would remove the full duty from an authority in the circumstances set out in the Amendment, it would still be impossible for the land to be developed, because the Amendment does nothing to lift the automatic suspension of planning permission which would occur under Clause 21. However, no doubt that could conceivably be remedied, and I would turn to the objections and issues of principle that arise on the Amendment.

I should make clear at the outset of my observations on this matter that there may well be circumstances in which, even where the full duty is operating, it may be right for development which is within the duty to proceed without public acquisition; for example, where a compulsory purchase order is made and some overwhelming grounds of hardship arise. But we believe that cases of that type will be very limited. This is because the full duty will be carefully phased in, taking account of the ability and resources of the authorities concerned. So authorities will never be put into the position of holding up development because the full duty has been introduced and they cannot cope with it. Given the basic philosophy of the scheme that all development land should pass through public ownership, it will be very rare for development which has been designated to go ahead without public ownership.

Secondly, the procedure that is suggested is too loose and open-ended. It does not make clear why and in what circumstances the proposed agreements should be used, and it gives very wide and discretionary powers to the Secretary of State. In effect, it enables him to decide without any procedure of any kind whether or not the full duty should apply to a particular development proposed, without regard to the fact that it was within the scope of a duty which had been brought in by an order subject to Parliamentary procedure—and that goes very wide, even in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. In the very exceptional case where there may be a case for letting development out of a duty already imposed, the Government's Amendments Nos. 157 and 158, which we shall reach in due course, appear to provide an answer. These enable the Secretary of State to allow development to proceed without public acquisition if he decides not to confirm a compulsory purchase order. But this can happen after all the issues have been considered through the normal compulsory purchase procedures.

These Government Amendments provide a proper framework for the exercise of a very limited discretion, and in the light of the existence of these proposals and the room for a very limited discretion to meet, I think, the kind of cases that the noble Earl has in mind, perhaps he will be disposed to withdraw the present Amendment. We shall have an opportunity to consider the Government's Amendments in due course. If he is then still displeased, we can revert to the matter again.

Baroness YOUNG

Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I could say that one sees the point of the Government Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 which we shall debate later; but, as I understood the noble and learned Lord, he said that my noble friend did not explain the circumstances in which this Amendment might be applied. But that was exactly what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull did explain. He showed that there could be circumstances in which a local authority might find, for one reason or another, that it was uneconomical for them to develop the land and that therefore it would be better for somebody else to do so. This was the kind of circumstance that he was describing. He felt that it could arise and that if it did, and there was not this Amendment, all that would happen would be that either the taxpayer or the ratepayer, or both, would have to pay for the loss on the development.

It seems to me that this is a matter of some consequence in that it has identified a gap in the provision. As I listened to the noble and learned Lord describing how he thought this section of the Bill would work and that in a sort of continual and steady flow, without any difficulties at all, land would be acquired and development would take place, I am bound to say that it seemed a triumph of hope over experience. I should have thought that anybody who has been in local government and who knows the difficulties of combined development by local authorities and developers would realise that there are constant troubles in the nature of things. To imagine that the scheme will flow into the indefinite future without difficulty is really stretching the belief of this Committee too far.

All that we are seeking in this one Amendment is that this one precise difficulty that has been identified clearly by my noble friend, who is an expert in this matter, should be considered by the Government. I think that to brush it aside because it may be technically faulty is not good enough.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I certainly did not do that. The noble Baroness does me less than justice; because, having mentioned the technical difficulty and indicated that the technical difficulty can be brushed aside, I then turned to what seemed to be the most important matter. I hope that at this hour the noble Baroness will not permit herself to succumb to temptations of the kind to which she is so unhappily submitting herself at the moment. Her expression about the "triumph of hope over experience" was the way in which, I believe, the great Dr. Johnson described a second marriage. He called that a triumph of hope over experience. I have no personal knowledge of that situation; but what I say is that we believe that this marriage of bringing the land to the community and good planning at the same time, will be a happy one. But we have provided in this Bill for the contingencies that I have referred to in the later Amendments and certainly we are willing to look at this whole problem again in the light of discussions on the matter when we reach that point.

The Earl of K1NNOULL

I should like to thank my noble friend for her support on this. I would decline to say that I am an expert I am certainly not so. Without prejudging what the noble and learned Lord may be saying on Amendments Nos. 157 and 158, would I be right in saying that the Government's Amendments under Clause 21 would do precisely what one is trying to achieve under Clause 18? Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord accept—and this I think is the most important part of this Amendment—that there may be cases in the future when a local authority should not enter into this duty and have to purchase knowing that it may lose money in doing so, when it need not do so, because it could be developed by the owner?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

On the second point, that contingency, if it should arise, will be provided for. I shall check my answer on that. I would hope that the later provisions would he relevant to the point that the noble Earl has raised. If I am wrong, I will immediately indicate a correction. I am now advised that I am able to stand, for better or for worse, on what I have just said.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful for that assurance and for the patience of the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.20 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 122:

Page 18, line 16, at end insert— ("or (e) the operational land the material interest in which was vested in an industrial undertaking before the commencement of this Act.").

The noble Earl said: Clause 18(3) says: The authorities in acting under this section shall have regard to any relevant land acquisition and management scheme, and shall not he under any duty as respects—(d) the operational land of statutory undertakers.

I am asking about those words the operational land the material interest in which was vested in an industrial undertaking before the commencement of this Act. We went through the Industry Bill and the Scottish and the Welsh Development Agency Bills this year and stressed the importance of public sector and private industry. If private industry is to expand on land which they already own, then at least this may give them a small safeguard. I certainly did not think that in Amendment No. 122 I was asking anything beyond what is perfectly reasonable or was not in the interests of that industry. May I remind your Lordships that if industry is not developed time will leave it behind. I feel that under the provisions of this Bill, where an industry may perhaps be able to acquire nothing more than a lease of seven years, it would be only just enough to prevent that industry from developing or improving its production. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

On this occasion the noble Earl, who has initiated a number of interesting and illuminating debates during this Committee stage, is being unduly pessimistic. Clause 18 is based on the principle that once the full duty is in operation, the authorities in an area will be able to exercise their powers to plan positively, because all relevant development will take place on land which is in, or has passed through, public ownership. We are back to one of the two important principles underlying the entire Bill. The only exceptions are where the land is not needed within ten years; where all the authorities have lost their compulsory powers by virtue of the procedures in Clauses 19 to 20, or where the land is the operational land of statutory undertakers. On this point we have had a number of debates during the Committee stage.

The Amendment is unacceptable in principle because, as I have already indicated, it attacks the fundamental principle of the Bill. Industrial development—and I stress "development"—on land owned by an industrialist on White Paper day would be outside the full duty by virtue of the treatment proposed for such development in the excepted development regulations, to which I have drawn the noble Earl's attention in previous Amendments which he has moved. Again, as has been explained—and I had the opportunity to do so in earlier debates—we do not have to exclude land, as opposed to development, from the scope of the power or the duty. As the noble Earl is aware, there is of course no definition of an industrial undertaking in the Bill, nor any concept of industrial or operational land except in respect of statutory undertakings.

I suggest that this issue is straightforward and clear. I do not foresee or expect the gloomy consequences which the noble Earl prognosticated when he moved his Amendment. Perhaps now that I have cleared up a few of the doubts and explained it more clearly, he will be more satisfied with the situation.

9.25 p.m.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

May I ask what is to be the criteria? We are putting a duty on local authorities which are not particularly experienced or equipped to deal with these matters. If the land is about to be acquired by a far-sighted industry, and if there are competitors to obtain that land, on what criteria will the local authority decide whether the sitting firm or some other firm will be allowed to develop it? This is a highly important matter for industry and exports, and for the whole background of industry. A prudent industry that may feel it will expand and go ahead will find that its land is on a short lease or even that it has to fight several local competitors for the land, with the decision being made by a local authority which is not well-versed in the industrial potential and value of the undertakings. I am very concerned that the prudent firm which wants to look ahead and do the very thing which this Government are asking them to do—invest and expand—are now to have a lease at the choice of local authorities which may have no knowledge of their company or industry.

Lord GRIDLEY

I cannot follow my noble friend entirely in her arguments about local authorities. My experience is that when developers are developing in an area they are in constant touch over many weeks, months and even years with local authorities. Local authorities come to know the people who are carrying out the developments in an area. From the knowledge they have obtained over a considerable time, they will be in a position to judge the people with whom they are dealing. I do not say that in any derogatory sense, but that is the position from my own experience.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I do not think I have had an answer that entirely satisfies me. First, I must explain that this Amendment would concern only land belonging to an industrial firm before the commencement of this Act, which could be in three weeks' time. If a miller producing flour owns a piece of land before the commencement of this Act, he is likely to be able to hang on to the land until he puts in for planning permission and decides that instead of having one grinder he will have two. He then has to go through the full provisions of this Bill, and before he is granted planning permission the land has to be sold to the local authority and then acquired back again, which may be on nothing more than a lease.

I am arguing that he may have planned a development for many years, but did not go ahead with it until he obtained the best machinery available. Unless he is unfortunate enough to have the machinery on order, the very fact that he will never own the land upon which he is to put this expensive machinery may put him off bothering to develop at all. If the local authority wants to acquire the land, that is fair enough—it can do what it likes with it. Industries which have planned years ahead for their own development should be allowed, before this Bill becomes an Act, subject of course to planning permission, to build on what will remain their own land. If they dispose of it, then that is another matter. Therefore I should like to have a few more words from the noble Baroness.

Viscount HANWORTH

It seems to me that, as with a great part of this Bill, we are putting tremendous faith in the local authorities. I am sure they are very efficient, but one knows something about bureaucracy and it seems to me that this Amendment highlights the fact that we really should not put too great a burden on the decisions of the local councils. One has to get an interplay between commercial interests and those of bureaucracy. If not, one is simply going to end up in the kind of situation one has in Russia.

Baroness BIRK

What has been said seems to lead to one conclusion which is manifestly untrue—that industry, running in the way it is today, is absolutely perfect and that it works perfectly on all occasions. This is one of the false undertones of what has been said on this particular Amendment. We all know that this is not so and therefore we are not "rocking"a perfect situation, if we were talking only about industry—which we are not, because it is part of the whole scheme. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who took up one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. The noble Baroness referred to somebody on the spot having to deal with competitors. I find the idea of this dislike or fear of competition coming rather oddly from a Member of the Party opposite. Nevertheless—

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

I am sorry, but I think the noble Baroness has, perhaps unwittingly, misread what I said. I was maintaining that, while in open competition they might have got the land, thenceforward the new scheme could lead to people perhaps getting land from the local authority which the prudent company had already provided for their own use, which is a very different thing. When they have taken land or sought to take land from their own development and the local authority can then override them and give it to somebody else, that is quite different.

Baroness BIRK

With great respect to the noble Baroness, it may not be what she intended to say, but in fact she used the phrase, "to come up against other competitors". But that is by the way. The local authority will need to have regard to prior right applications; they will also need to have regard to the factors in Schedule 6, and also the requirement to get the best price. In any case, we have discussed earlier at great length and very exhaustively the point that statutory undertakers are required by Statute to carry out their public duties whereas industrial concerns are not.

Running through many of these Amendments is this differentiation between statutory and industrial undertakers. On the point made by the noble Earl, I think he overlooked the fact that the duty applied only to land needed for relevant development. All industrial development on land owned by an industrial undertaking on White Paper day will be excepted, because this will not come within the definition of "relevant development". Indeed, I am possibly right in saying that the example of the mill extension given by the noble Earl would probably be excepted. In any case, if it contained less than 15,000 square feet of floor space, it would certainly be excepted. It seems to me—

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am sorry, but I must interrupt the noble Baroness. What must be taken into consideration is whether on the one hand the land was owned before White Paper day and, on the other, whether planning permission has been sought. Both things come into the question of an industrial development. They may have owned it long enough, but the question arises when they seek planning permission to be able to develop the land they own. That is the point I am trying to get at.

Baroness BIRK

They have the right to seek planning permission, and then it goes through the usual procedure which has been outlined. If I understand what has been said, the concern is that industrial undertakings should take place on land that is leased but not owned. Nevertheless, this situation has worked extremely satisfactorily in new towns, and there is simply no reason why it should not work that way doing it through the local authority. In fact, in many ways there have been a great many advantages for the industrialist in knowing where he is in the situation and being able to work it out; and also knowing, because of the planning, which is one of the linch pins to this Bill, exactly what are the planning requirements and what will be the planning structure of the area in which he is operating. Many of the fears which have been raised on this Amendment are needless and are really, if I may say so, taking up rather small points which it is not necessary to be concerned about in this context.

Lord HYLTON

If the Government can assure the Committee about an industrialist who owns freehold land on White Paper day, who has not yet applied for planning permission and who wishes to extend his premises by more than 15,000 square feet—that is what we are worried about—then the Amendment can be forgotten. If the Government cannot give that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment, even though it may be defective in the form in which it is drafted.

Baroness BIRK

Yes. I can give that assurance. What the noble Lord said is quite correct, the answer is, "Yes".

The Earl of BALFOUR

In view of that answer, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.38 p.m.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

I should advise the Committee that if Amendment 123 is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendment 124.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 123: Page 18, line 17, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 124, and make it clear at the outset that these are two small probing Amendments. Through the medium of the first one, I should like to question the necessity for this subsection to be in the Bill at all. Is it not a matter which should be included in the original land acquisition and management schemes? Am I not right in thinking that these have to be sent to the Secretary of State not for his approval but so that he can look at them and, if he thinks necessary, to ask that they be revised. Could he not at that stage secure what is being sought under this subsection? Could he not at that point make sure that arrangements are being made between the authorities for one of them to mop up the outstanding material interests?

That is the first point. Secondly, could he not also at the same time make sure that the arrangement that he wants, whatever it is, conforms with the land acquisition and management scheme? Or, the other way round, if he can foresee that he wants to have one authority that is responsible for mopping un the outstanding material interests, could he not see that the land acquisition management schemes are revised accordingly when they are first submitted to him? It is not that I object to having it in the Bill, but it does not seem to me very sensible to ask for land acquisition and management schemes to be made, and at some subsequent stage to upset them or take powers which could upset them in the way that is proposed in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

The noble Lord is quite right. The LAMS have to be submitted to the Secretary of State, as he said, but of course they are not approved by him. As I understand it, it would be quite possible for authorities to put in their LAMS who is to be the residual authority. As I think the noble Lord acknowledges, there must be one residual authority with the duty, as he put it, to mop up any land which is not occupied and where there is a duty in that area to acquire the land. The provisions are in the Bill, first of all, because it will not necessarily be usual for this to he set out in the land acquisition and management scheme. Secondly, we feel that it would be desirable for the Secretary of State to be able to see, once a scheme is working, which authority is doing most of the acquiring in an area, if there is one authority, and where it would make sense for that authority to be designated as the authority to do this mopping-up operation.

Lord SANDFORD

We must not spend too long on this matter, because we have a long way to go. But I do not think that is very satisfactory. I should have thought that it was much better for the Secretary of State, who is to have the opportunity of scrutinising these schemes, to make sure that they conform with his intentions initially. It will not be very good if the authorities produce schemes, send them to the Secretary of State, start off on the assumption that they correspond with his wishes, and then, after they have been operating for some time, receive an order which runs counter to the whole basis on which they have been working. But I do not want to make a great fuss about it now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

I spoke to Amendment No. 126 with No. 78. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 28, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount SIMON

May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whether there is a misprint in line 4 of page 18. Should not the word "it" be "is"?

Lord MELCHETT

The noble Viscount may well be right. I am grateful to him for drawing this matter to our attention and we will see that it is put right at a later stage.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

9.44 p.m.

Lord CASTLE moved Amendment No. 129A: After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:

Agreements for development or use of land

"(1) Without prejudice to the exercise of their functions under any other enactment, an authority may enter into an agreement with any person—

1. (a) for the purpose of securing the carrying out of works on any land in the area of the authority; or
2. (b) for any other purpose which involves facilitating, restricting or regulating the development or use of any land within the area of the authority, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement: or
283
3. (c) for any other purpose which, in the opinion of the authority, is calculated to facilitate or is otherwise connected with or conducive to the exercise of their functions under this Act;

and any such agreement may contain such financial or other provisions as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

(2) Where an agreement entered into under this section is made under seal, section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 shall apply in relation to that agreement as it applies in relation to any such instrument ac is referred to in subsection (1) of the said section 126 and as if the definitions of "local authority" and "principal council" in the said section included any authority within the meaning of this Act."

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will realise that I am understudying for someone who could present this Amendment with much greater knowledge of the implications of its contents than I have, but unfortunately my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead is away ill. Therefore, at very short notice, and with very little briefing, I have undertaken to move an Amendment with which I entirely agree, but I trust that your Lordships will accept my apologies for the inadequacies of my presentation of the case. I shall be as brief as I can be, in the hope that the noble Lord who replies from the Front Bench can satisfy some of the real doubts that exist in the present arrangement.

Those who are more able than I am to analyse and distil legal verbiage will recognise that the effect of this clause is to seek to establish the right of an authority to enter into an agreement with a person to facilitate or restrict the development of land, and to enter into the appropriate financial arrangements. This includes an authority taking shares in a company or joining in the promotion of a company. Noble Lords from nearly all quarters of the House, together with those who have been following the proceedings on this Bill and who are acquainted with the modern tendency of collaboration between Government and private industry, will recognise that there is nothing reprehensible in this aim.

The question I ask is whether such powers exist in the present legislation. I am assuming that it would be the will of the Committee that they do, but there is a difference of opinion among those who advise local authorities and local authority organisations on legal matters as to whether or not the provisions of this Bill do exactly what I am asking. There is an assumption, for instance, that the powers already exist in present legislation, and cited in defence of that assumption is Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This section certainly enables the "local planning authority" to do so, but not all authorities, as defined in the Community Land Bill which we are now discussing, are local planning authorities for the purposes of the 1971 Act.

Strangely enough, among those who are aggrieved is the mammoth, very powerful, Greater London Council, a number of county councils in Wales and England and joint boards which would be unable to operate the provisions of the existing Act. The Greater London Council is the planning authority for its comprehensive development areas and for certain isolated kinds of large-scale development. I am advised that they are not catered for by the provisions of this clause. Surely it would be advantageous and would promote the underlying intentions of the Government in their approach to the ownership and development of land, if all authorities had the kind of powers which are at present provided for—so it is said by Government legal advisers—in Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act. However, even those powers provide only for agreements—that is, agreements between local authorities and developers or individual companies —for the purpose of restricting and regulating, "the development of the use of land".

Your Lordships will recognise, and I am sure our Front Bench will recognise, that this is a negative form of control, whereas the major objective of this Bill is to encourage and promote development. It is because this seems to me to be a desperate need in the reorganisation and amendment of this Bill to make it function in the way the Government have in mind that I recommend this Amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sure noble Lords will be very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, is ill and we would all wish our noble friend an early recovery. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Castle, on his magnificent performance as a stand-in for the noble Lord. He has dealt with high technicality with great force and clarity, but I regret to say that my answer will not fully meet his wishes.

The Amendment that has been proposed raises a number of legal issues relating both to the interpretation of existing provisions that local authorities like the Greater London Council have and the drafting of the new clause, but I think the principles which are involved here come down to two main issues. First, the proposed powers in the Amendment are intended to be very wide-ranging indeed. They are intended to cover all agreements relating to the development or use of land; in particular, purely financial agreements. It is this point that is unacceptable in principle. It would allow authorities to take a financial share in any development project for no reason other than to make money out of it. In the view of the Government there must be serious doubts about allowing local authorities to enter into attempts at commercial money-making, using ratepayers' money in this very generalised way without it being tied to any clearly defined and clearly desirable objective. But even if there were not these doubts it would be wrong to deal in the present Bill with what is essentially a general matter of important local government policy.

However, the Government full accept that local authorities must have power to enter into agreements to facilitate or be conducive or incidental to the discharge of their functions; this, of course, includes their new functions under the present Bill. But the Government's view is that authorities do not need any new powers for this purpose. They already have them, first, in the form of Section 111 of the Local Government Act of 1972, which is in broad terms. Section 111 reads: Without prejudice to any powers exercisable apart from this section but subject to the provisions of this Act and any other enactment passed before or after this Act, a local authority shall have power to do anything (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions. My noble friend has mentioned a power to take shares. A power to take shares exists under the terms of that section if the shares are taken for the purpose of facilitating the discharge of the authority's functions. That applies not only to the Greater London Council, but to other authorities. Then, there are the powers which exist under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That enables local planning authorities to enter into agreements and I quote: for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of land. Agreements can include financial provisions, and Section 52 is, in fact, used by authorities to require, for example, the making of payments by developers towards the cost of infrastructure. The Greater London Council itself is a local planning authority for the purpose of Section 52, so are all county councils and the joint planning boards.

Therefore, I hope that my noble friend, and those for whom he has so ably undertaken the heat and burden of this matter, will be satisfied in the light of the assurances I have given that the powers which are really needed already exist, and that what is now sought is not necessary for the performance of the duties and functions which this and other legislation imposes on local authorities.

Lord CASTLE

I am very much obliged for my noble and learned friend's reply, but I ask him to accept the fact that the inspiration of this Amendment is to enable local authorities fully to function in the way that the Government intended in their legislation. This is not like some other Amendments which have preceded it, where there was an attempt to restrict the operation of the Bill and its intentions.

I must once more direct the attention of my noble and learned friend to Section 111, which of itself, in the view of high legal authorities, does not confer new substantive enabling powers, and it should not be looked upon as having done so. There is the possibility that if, in pursuing this Bill, such authorities as the Greater London Council, some county councils, joint boards and some Welsh authorities act as though they had powers within this provision of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971, they are liable to court proceedings, and councillors are open to surcharge. If I could be satisfied on those matters, with the greatest pleasure and no reluctance whatever I should be prepared not to pursue this.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I should be inviting trouble if I were to give a broad general immunity. All I can say is that the best legal skills that the Government can bring to bear—I will put the claim no higher than just stating that they have applied what they are pleased to call their minds to this matter—lead us to the opinion that the powers that presently exist are adequate. If there is any particular aspect of the matter, or any part of the provisions which worry the authorities, of course we would be able and willing to look at it again. But I give the assurance, with the best of my judgment of the matter, that what I have said previously ought to reassure them.

Lord CASTLE

My noble and learned friend will recognise that, despite the high authority with which he speaks, it may be that in the absence of the Amendments which I am proposing it may be incumbent upon a local authority to test in a court of law whether or not this is a valid argument.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

No doubt the wide-open doors of the courts will be available for that purpose, but I do not really recommend it.

Baroness YOUNG

Before the noble Lord, Lord Castle, withdraws his Amendment, if that is what he proposes to do, I should like to comment on what is, after all, the very first Amendment to come from the Government Back-Benches in the long Committee stage we have had. We are really, as I understand it, centring on a legal dispute between two sets of lawyers, those no doubt advising the Greater London Council and those advising the Government on this matter. I have read with great care the similar debate which took place in another place, and I have tried to seek the opinion of the local authority associations, who are also divided upon this matter. I think the only comment I would make on it, as I do not intend to take sides, tempting as it might be to do so, is to say that it does give point to the extreme complexity of this Bill. It gives added point to my Amendment yesterday about legal aid on just one small part of it. It goes to show that this scheme, and the Bill, which is just a framework, is very difficult to understand. I think we need all the time to have spelled out in much greater detail than we have heard, the Government's intentions.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

If this does present a complexity it is certainly a refreshing one, because it is caused by even greater enthusiasm and zeal than the Government have shown, to fulfil even further than the Government have in mind the full functions and purposes of the Bill. To that extent its inspiration is welcome, and it is a matter of great regret to me that I have to give the view that I have expressed. The argument is really not so much about the Bill at all; it is not the complexity of this Bill that is presenting problems, it is doubt about the width of the 1972 Act; and I am not the sort of politician to remind noble Lords that that was passed by the previous Administration.

Lord CASTLE

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 [Permission before relevant date: applications before first appointed day]:

10.3 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 130: Page 19, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("or under the Act of 1971 or the Scottish Act of 1972").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 130, to Clause 19(4). That subsection gives a most desirable and important assurance to the private owners of land, that where local authorities with power to acquire their land abandon their power to acquire their land, those same local authorities cannot again exercise that power conferred by this Act in respect of that land for another five years. Let me say straight away that we welcome that provision and we strongly endorse it. But we want to go on and make that effective. I would put it to the Committee that it will not be effective because, without our Amendment, a local authority that changed its mind about the exercise of that power to acquire that land and decided afterwards that it wanted to proceed with the acquisition, could do so by applying the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act for exactly the same purposes as granted under this Act.

There was an Amendment moved in another place which used the words, "any other Act" in place of the words we have chosen. That, of course, would make the assurance doubly sure. But we appreciate that that would be going too far because that would deprive the local authority of a power to acquire that land for something such as highways, which was a different purpose from the purpose conferred upon them by the Community Land Bill or the Town and Country Planning Act, each of which gives the power to acquire land in order to promote the better planning of the area. I hope that this makes clear the purpose of our Amendment, and that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

10.6 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

The procedures in Clauses 19 and 20 give authorities an opportunity to consider whether or not to acquire land in certain circumstances; in particular under Clause 20, when they are dealing with a planning application for relevant development. Given the fact that the Bill gives authorities an opportunity to do this, and to suspend a planning permission where they do wish to acquire, it is reasonable that where they do not pursue acquisition, they should lose their powers under the Bill for five years.

The abandonment of powers under the Bill is particularly important as a means of giving certainty to developers. When an authority are considering an application for private development they must make up their minds at that time, whether they intend to buy the land, or whether they are prepared for the development to take place without the land coming into public ownership. If they decide not to acquire, it is essential that there should be an abandonment of powers; otherwise the owner will be in a perpetual state of uncertainty, and will not know whether to carry forward his or her plans, and I think that that state of affairs is welcomed by the noble Lord.

However, it does not follow from this that failure to pursue acquisition under the procedures in the Bill should lead to abandonment of powers under the planning Acts. There is always the possibility of an owner's land being required for public development, and there are well-established procedures for dealing with the issues that then arise. There is no reason why the coming into operation of the Community Land Bill should remove a flexibility which local authorities already have in operating their existing powers.

I should emphasise, however, that if a local authority seek to buy land under their existing powers the normal procedures for consideration of objections will apply, and it will be possible for the Secretary of State to consider whether it is reasonable for him to confirm a compulsory purchase order in respect of land which a local authority have quite recently said they did not wish to acquire. Abandonment of powers under the Bill is an essential corollary of the new opportunities which the Bill gives local authorities to consider whether to acquire development land (and if they do, to suspend a planning permission). There is no reason in logic for extending the abandonment of powers beyond the power contained in the Bill, as this could mean that local authorities would be put in a more difficult situation than exists at present when they are seeking to acquire land for their own development, perhaps to meet a need which has arisen suddenly and which could not have been foreseen.

Lord SANDFORD

I am afraid that I cannot accept that. The local authorities have plenty of powers to acquire land for their own purposes, such as highways. I have already said that I see the force of the argument used in another place when the noble Lord's right honourable friend sought to resist an Amendment which, in place of the words we have used, used the words, "any enactment." That, I agree, was asking too much. But I believe that we have struck the right balance here between the private individual owner of land affected by one of these schemes and the local authority which cannot make up its mind as to what acquisition it wants to pursue in the next five years.

The assurance which is conferred by the operation of subsection (4) is, in my view, not worth the paper it is printed on—that is, unless this Amendment is accepted—because a local authority will have no difficulty whatever in getting exactly what it wants by resorting to the powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I should have said at the outset, to save the time of the Committee, that my remarks on this matter apply to Amendment No. 153 and I hope that I shall not have to repeat them again. In view of the noble Lord's reply, I feel that I shall have to press the Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

I accept the distinction which the noble Lord is making between the Amendments moved in another place when the words "any enactment" were included. We have, of course, made it clear that the Secretary of State would not normally confirm a compulsory purchase order made under other powers following the loss of powers under the Bill, unless there were exceptionally good reasons. As the noble Lord indicated—and I think this is something which we could accept—such exceptionally good reasons would usually be the need to buy under legislation other than the planning Acts, and I think that is the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment. As the noble Lord said, it may be that he has struck the right balance here. I can undertake to consider this with the view possibly to coming forward on Report with an Amendment of our own.

Lord SANDFORD

That is fine. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance and I am sure that it will be all the better for having been scrutinised by the Government. I look forward to them producing an Amendment in this sense, but I must make it clear to the noble Lord that we will not be content with leaving things as they are. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State will be able to consider a compulsory purchase order brought forth under the exercise of Section 112 of the 1971 Act, but it is asking too much for an individual private owner to be subjected to all this twice over when the local authority has decided to abandon its power in the first instance. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.13 p.m.

Lord GRIDLEY moved Amendment No. 130A: Page 19, line 27, after ("election") insert ("for the period of three months from such date during which period the authorities bound by the election shall notify the person making the election whether or not the authorities bound by the election intend to purchase the land and (in the event of a decision so to purchase)").

The noble Lord said: This Bill confers on local authorities considerable powers to do certain things. The object of this Amendment is to protect the development industry. In the ordinary course of their business they acquire development land. The powers given to authorities include bringing into operation all development land in this country, eventually bringing it all into public ownership. At present there are various areas of land which the building industry has acquired, and it is relevant to note that Clause 19(2)(a) and (b) says: A person who—

1. (a) has a material interest in the land covered by the planning permission, or
2. (b) has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such an interest and is entitled to possession of that land,

may make an election under this subsection by notice in the prescribed form served on any of the authorities…

This is the election of his interest by notification. My Amendment would insert after the word "election": …("for the period of three months from such date during which period the authorities bound by the election shall notify the person making the election whether or not the authorities hound by the election intend to purchase the land and (in the event of a decision so to purchase)").

I shall not press the Amendment, for I do not wish to delay the Committee. We want to get on as quickly as possible, but the whole intention of bringing this to the notice of the Government is that if it could be written into the Bill this would avoid any dispute between people in the building industry and local authorities when we want them to work amicably and—though we dislike the Bill—we want them to make it as great a success as possible in the interest of producing houses. It is in that light that I propose the Amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am sure that it is the view of all of us that the Bill should be made to work as well as possible and, in particular, to encourage more house building. I confess that what the noble Lord said about his Amendment did not make it very much clearer to me. It seemed to be aimed at ensuring that the suspension of planning permission in an election case under Clause 19 ends after three months, unless one of the local authorities notifies its intention to acquire the land. However, that is precisely what the Bill provides at the moment. The Amendment is therefore defective, hut maybe with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness YOUNG

Before my noble friend replies, can I seek a clarification because this is a rather technical point? Doubt has been expressed as to whether or not the Bill makes it quite clear that the suspension of the planning permission following upon the election under this clause would come to an end three months after the election if the authority had not decided within those three months to proceed with the purchase. As I understand it, that is what the document which the Department of the Environment issued last March indicated would happen, but some doubt has been expressed as to whether that is what the Bill means. From what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, I understand that this is exactly the same as the document, but perhaps he would confirm that so as to clear up any misunderstanding?

Lord MELCHETT

I am happy to give the noble Baroness that confirmation.

Lord GRIDLEY

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 131:

Leave out Clause 19, and insert the following new clause—

"19.—(1) A person (in this section referred to as the owner) who has a material interest in land covered by planning permission (granted after 12th September, 1974 and before the first appointed day) for relevant development and is either entitled to possession of that land or has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such land may after the first appointed day serve on all or any of the authorities a notice in the prescribed form—

1. (a) specifying the land in which that interest subsists (in this section referred to as "specified land") and the planning decision in consequence of which the notice is served, and
294
2. (b) requiring all or any of the authorities to elect whether or not to acquire the specified land.

(2) Within three months after the date on which the owner has served on all or any of the authorities a notice under subsection (1) above, they shall serve on him a counter-notice stating either that they do or that they do not propose to acquire the specified land: Provided that a counter-notice issued by any of the authorities under this section stating that they do not propose to acquire the specified land may, if that authority think fit, be expressed to be subject to the condition that the relevant development for which planning permission was granted is begun or completed within such period as may be specified in the counter-notice or to such other conditions as may be so specified.

(3) Where a counter-notice under this section states that one of the authorities propose to acquire the specified land, then—

1. (a) that land shall be suitable for relevant development; and
2. (b) unless before the end of the period of twelve months from the date of service of the counter-notice that authority have entered into a binding contract to purchase the owner's interest in that land the authority shall before the end of the period prepare in draft a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of the specified land under this part of this Act.

(4) Where any one of the authorities are required to serve a counter-notice under this section and either—

1. (a) they serve a counter-notice stating unconditionally that they do not propose to acquire the specified land, or
2. (b) they serve a counter-notice stating that they do not propose to acquire that land but the counter-notice is expressed to be subject to one or more conditions specified in Schedule 7 to this Act and those conditions are complied with, or
3. (c) the authority do not serve a counter-notice as required by this section,

the authority shall not have power to acquire the specified land, or any part of that land, compulsorily in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order made before the end of the period of five years from the date of the service of the counter-notice or in the case falling within paragraph (c) of this subsection from the date on which the time allowed for serving the counter-notice expires.

(5) Where under this section any one of the authorities serve a counter-notice stating that they propose to require the specified land, and have not, before the end of the period of twelve months from the date of service of the counter-notice, entered into a binding contract to purchase the owner's interest in that land, then, unless notice that a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of that land has been prepared in draft by that authority before the end of that period subsection (4) of this section shall have effect as if the authority had served a counter-notice stating unconditionally that they do not propose to acquire the specified land."

The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will note that I am suggesting at the beginning of the Amendment that Clause 19 should be left out, and I ask your Lordships to look at the wording of that clause. The best way to understand it is to look at subsection (2), which starts off: A person who…has a material interest in the land covered by the planning permission, or…has entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of such an interest and is entitled to possession of that land, may make an election under this subsection by notice in the prescribed form served on any of the authorities; and the authority on whom the notice is served shall as soon as practicable send a copy of the notice to each of the other authorities. So far so good. There is no indication whatever in the clause as to what on earth this notice is about. Subsection (3) goes on: No notice of election shall be served…before the first appointed day and…before the grant of planning permission. There is absolutely no indication what the notice is or what is being referred to. Subsection (1) of the clause says: If an election is made under subsection (2)"— that is obviously by the person who owns the land— this section applies to planning permission for relevant development which is granted…before the first appointed day…and…after 12th September 1974. What on earth is the person electing to do? There is absolutely no indication here as to what he is supposed to be doing, or what this is about.

We can go a little further into the clause; it still obviously has something to do with planning permission. There is a reference to paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, and so we disappear into the Schedules. But before we do that, I should like to remind your Lordships that this is not a legal point; it is not a matter which will involve a number of lawyers. It will concern ordinary people who may have planning permission, and this clause will apply for a very short period of time. It will become obsolete within a very short time.

Therefore, I argue that, before this Bill becomes an Act, it should, at least where it applies to individual people, be clear and precise. Individual people should not be expected to delve into the Schedules. I can see what will happen to an unfortunate individual when he looks at subsection (5) where it refers to paragraph 2 of Schedule 7. He will wonder whether the reference is to paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 74 or paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 75 of Schedule 7. He will get himself into a thorough mess. He will first probably get hold of the point about the expiration of a period of 12 months beginning with the service. That will make him thoroughly worried. Then, on looking at paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 75, he will see that the suspension of planning permission applies to both Clauses 19 and 20 of this Bill.

There is all the difference in the world between the two, and the Government, in the process of this Bill, have made the position even worse. If the individual turns over to page 76, he will see that at long last there is a tiny indication as to what this matter is all about, where it states: It shall be the duty…of the authorities to serve on the person making an election under section 19 of this Act a notice stating that the authority intend, or do not intend, to acquire the land to which the planning permission relates. In the first place, what is the individual electing to do? He can go to the local authority and ask whether or not it wants the land, but at no point within the provisions of the Bill is he told to do that. There is not a word about that. It is not the person who elects what he is to do; it is the local authority. It is the local authority which elects whether or not it will take over a piece of land. Where does the word "elect" appear in legislation? It appears in some of the Finance Acts, where a person can elect to pay his income tax one way or another. But in such cases he has a choice, which is binding on the income tax authorities, as to what he does.

The only other case that I have managed to discover of where the word "elect" appears in legislation—and it is relevant in this case—is in Section 22 of the Land Commission Act 1967, Chapter 1, which, as your Lordships will be well aware, was repealed. It was from that section that I decided to rewrite this clause, to try to make the matter specific to cover all the relevant points. Let me explain again what Amendment No. 131 seeks to do. A person who is the owner of land covered by planning permission, granted between the 12th September 1974 and the first appointed day, for relevant development"— and that is what we are talking about here— and is either entitled to possession of that land or has entered into a binding contract for the …land"— that is taken straight out of Clause 19— may after the first appointed day serve on all or any of the authorities a notice"— and here is what is needed— …specifying the land in which that interest subsists…and…requiring all or any of the authorities to elect whether or not to acquire the specified land". Subsection (2) of the clause I am recommending should be inserted is almost exactly the same as paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 7, but I have added the proviso, which is exactly the same as appears in the Land Commission Act, that where the authority does not acquire the land at least the owner must proceed with the development for which he has planning permission. This new clause also provides for the position where a counter-notice is served by the authorities; and it is as tightly and as clearly worded in this one clause as I could find words to cover it. But one thing I hope I have satisfactorily proved to all your Lordships is that Clause 19 of the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

As I understand it, the noble Earl's Amendments are by way of drafting Amendments: they are not attacking the substance of the clause, but merely the way it is drafted. I must say that I am extraordinarily impressed by the care and trouble which he has taken over this very difficult task. However, I must tell him, as I suppose might be expected when redrafting a fairly lengthy new clause, that there are drafting errors in what the noble Earl has produced. For instance, the new clause covers only planning permissions granted between the 12th September 1974 and the first appointed day, thus excluding someone who has made an application before the first appointed day but does not receive planning permission until after that day. The clause would also prevent a freeholder with a tenant in possession from being able to make an election, and would require a notice to be served on each authority if the person wished to cover all eventualities. These last two errors, I should immediately admit, were in the Bill as it was first introduced, but they were corrected by the Government as a result of pressure from the Opposition in another place.

I accept that the noble Earl has copied this new clause from one of the provisions in the Land Commission Act, but unfortunately it simply does not fit in with the concepts in this Bill. The main deficiency in the new clause is that it does not provide at all for the suspension of planning permission, which is of course quite unacceptable to the Government. The noble Earl may feel that there are some criticisms of Clause 19, and that his own new clause is simpler, but I think that may be because his new clause does not cover quite as much ground as the existing clause in the Bill.

I accept that the noble Earl does not like the way that Clause 19 and Schedule 7 go together. However, there are many provisions which now appear in Schedule 7 which are required for both Clause 19 and Clause 20. If we were to set out Clauses 19 and 20 in full in the way that his Amendment sets out Clause 19, the clauses would be unnecessarily long and repetitious. The noble Earl has not set out Clause 20 in the same way. I am not for a moment suggesting he should undertake that major task; but I have to tell him that if his Amendment were accepted it would cause considerable anomalies between Cluases 19 and 20.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am not at all satisfied with that answer because Clause 20 applies to planning permission for relevant development which was granted before the relevant date. Here we are talking about planning permission granted before the first appointed day and after September 12th 1974. That is the first point. There is a considerable delay here. Development is suspended for three months under subsection (2) of my new clause. I should have thought that, if the local authorities could not indicate within that period what they want to do, there is something wrong. Furthermore, the proviso says: Provided that a counter notice issued by any of the authorities under this section stating that they do not propose to acquire the specified land may, if that authority think fit, be expressed to be subject to the condition that the relevant development for which planning permission was granted is begun or completed… This is encouraging development to take place. My drafting may not be absolutely perfect, but it does make more sense than Clause 19. Can the noble Lord explain exactly what is meant by "election" in this clause? What is the person electing in the clause as it stands and exactly what notice is supposed to be served? I have been through the Bill quite thoroughly but it is not indicated there.

Lord MELCHETT

The noble Earl may include people between September 12th and the first appointed day; but, as I pointed out, he does not include in his new clause someone who made an application before the first appointed day and who does not receive planning permission until after that day. This is one of the points his clause leaves out.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Will the noble Lord look at the first part of Clause 19 where it says: …the application was made before the first appointed day and…the planning permission was granted after 12th September 1974. I have not tried to change anything in my new clause.

Lord MELCHETT

I accept that the noble Earl has not tried to change anything. I am trying to convince him that in practice, inadvertently, and quite unintentionally he has changed the clause in a very substantial way. This is one small example. I have said that the main deficiency in the clause is that it does not provide at all for the suspension of planning permission. That is my legal advice on his new clause.

The noble Earl asked two specific questions. One was about the form of a notice. I think that in the clause it says that it will be prescribed. That means that we will prescribe the form of the notice. The other question was on the meaning of "election". I can say that "election" means that the owner elects to bring himself within the procedure as set out in the Bill. I do not think that there is much I can add. This is a drafting point and I must rely on my advice from Parliamentary draftsmen on this matter. I have to tell the noble Earl that, whatever his dissatisfaction with Clause 19 as it stands, his attempt to redraft it is quite unacceptable to the Government because of the minor and major technical difficulties.

Lord HYLTON

I wonder whether the noble Lord can see his way to agree to take away my noble friend's Amendment and, while excluding its defects, incorporate its good points into Clause 19, and maybe into Clause 20? It seems that my noble friend's Amendment has the great merit of making clear who has to serve a notice and who has to make an election.

Lord MELCHETT

Another of the problems of this attempted redrafting of the Bill is that it tackles Clause 19 but not Clause 20, and it is to both those clauses that Schedule 7 applies. Again my advice is that if we were to attempt redrafting on such lines both clauses would have to be much longer. I will certainly examine Clause 19 to see whether, as it is now drafted, its content can be made clearer, but I could not consider redrafting it on the lines suggested by the noble Earl. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Earl's redrafting may appear to be clearer, but that is because it tells only half the story of the contents of the present clause.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Will the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explain one point? Under Clause 19 as printed, how long would planning permission be suspended (a) in the case of the local authority who acquired the land, or (b) where it decided not to acquire?

Lord MELCHETT

I confess that I am not certain about the answer to either question. If the noble Earl will raise the matter on whether the clause shall stand part? I might then have a chance to study his questions and give him an answer.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Then I shall answer the point myself. Looking at the bottom of page 74, it is at the end of a period of 12 months. I believe that is an appalling period for anybody to have to wait to find out the local authority's intention. It states clearly: Planning permission to which Section 19 applies. I am not arguing about Clause 20. It is quite a different point applying to different times and procedure. I think that the drafting of Clause 19 is such that perhaps one is entitled to ask—and this is the only additional question I want to put to the noble Lord—was it the intention in drafting Clause 19 to make certain that nobody took advantage of its terms? That could well be the case.

Lord MELCHETT

I resent that suggestion. It is unfair of the noble Earl. I am doing my best to help him. He must not impugn us with those kind of motives. As I understand it, Clauses 19 and 20 are complementary. Once a notice of election is served the procedure is then the same for either clause. The noble Earl is also straying on to ground which we shall cover shortly in further Amendments. We have Amendments specifically to reduce the time period of 12 months to three months, and it might be better to leave that discussion until later in our proceedings.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am sorry to return to the point, but I must repeat that a person has a chance of election under Clause 19 while under Clause 20 he does not have a choice of any election.

Lord MELCHETT

Perhaps I should say again that once a notice of election is served, the procedure is then the same for either Clause 19 or Clause 20 cases.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I reserve the right to come back to this on Report. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to look at this again, because it is not clear and people will not understand it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Planning permission for relevant development]:

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 132: Page 74, line 23, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").

The noble Earl said: Having allowed the local authorities 10 years in which to plan ahead, to allow a developer, where land has passed through the hands of the local authorities, five years' security of occupation appears to me to be a most unfair and short period of time. The developer may have gone through all the trouble of acquiring the land from the local authority for development and then, so far as I can see, a mere five years later the authority can decide to take it over if he has not finished his development. This is limiting the chances of development to a very great extent. I beg to move.

Lord SANDYS

Your Lordships will be well aware of a previous Amendment, which was moved on Clause 18 by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which was somewhat similar in content but related to a totally different matter—where authorities acting under that clause shall have regard to any relevant land acquisition and management schemes. In that Amendment we dealt with a totally different point where the noble Earl wished to strike out "ten years" and insert "five years". We have now the inversion of this principle, and when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke to this Amendment, he was speaking in regard to a five-year rolling programme. What we should like to know is whether this five-year rolling programme, which we assume is relevant in this case, is what the Government have in mind. We feel that 10 years is the minimum period which should be accorded to that person who has an interest in this case.

Baroness BIRK

The noble Earl has made clear the motive of his Amendment and I will not waste time by explaining it again. There are three circumstances in which an authority lose their powers of compulsory purchase under the Bill. These are as follows. First, when they state (under paragraphs 4 or 5 of the Schedule) that they do not intend to acquire the land—or fail to serve a notice within the time laid down, or subsequently withdraw an earlier notice of intention to acquire; secondly, when, having stated an intention to acquire, they fail to acquire the land or to make a CPO within 12 months; thirdly, when, a CPO having been made and confirmed, they fail to serve a notice to treat within 12 months of the CPO becoming operative. The Bill provides that the loss of compulsory purchase powers in these circumstances should last for five years and it is this period which the Amendment seeks to extend to 10 years.

The reason for providing for their loss of powers is to enable an owner or developer to have certainty that, once the authority have decided not to acquire the land, he will be able to implement the planning permission and get on with the development without fear of acquisition. The period of five years is thought to be ample, even in the case of a major project, to enable development to get under way. Indeed, if it were not started by the end of that period the planning permission would generally lapse anyway, by virtue of Section 41 of the 1971 Act.

The argument that if the authority are looking up to 10 years ahead they should acquire the land if itis likely to be needed within that time and, if not, there is no reason why they should not lose their powers for a similar period is one which overlooks one important factor; that is, that authorities will not be buying at once all the land needed up to10 years but will phase their purchases in accordance with their five-year rolling programmes. It would be quite wrong for an authority to be unable to step in for ten years where, perhaps because of a change of circumstances, the land was found to be needed for development by, say, the seventh year and the owner had taken no steps to develop it.

My noble friend Lord Pargiter who has great experience in local government, as your Lordships will know, has on several occasions previously made the point that one needs to have this amount of flexibility: otherwise one can get tied down by plans which may have to be changed. Once rigidity of the kind suggested is written into the Act, it is extremely difficult to adjust things over this period of time, and to tie this down to 10 years is far too much. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, this is not an inversion, because he really was not comparing like with like. I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 133A: Page 74, line 38, column 2, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("three").

The noble Earl said: Clause 19 deals with the initial period that any owner will find himself in when the Bill becomes an Act. The situation one is looking at is one where an application for planning permission is made before the first appointed day and planning permission has been granted after 12th September 1974. Under Clause19 of the Bill an individual may elect to serve a purchase notice on an authority, and the authority then has 12 months in which to apply, whether or not it is to purchase. The Amendment seeks to reduce that period from 12 months to three, as this is a blight on the property and 12 months is far too long, whereas three months is quite realistic. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

As the noble Earl knows, the steps leading up to the making and publishing of a compulsory purchase order are complex and, in cases of multiple ownership, can be extremely time consuming. First, the authority have to decide whether the use of compulsory purchase powers will be necessary or whether the acquisition can be achieved by agreement; hopefully, of course, it can be. Then they have to identify all the owners, occupiers and lessees of the land. The exact extent of the land has to be ascertained, and its component parts indentified and referenced. Arrangements have then to be made for the publication of the making of the order, if acquisition is to proceed by compulsory purchase, and notices have to be sent to the owners, occupiers and lessees. Where the acquisition is to be by agreement, negotiations must take place with all the owners, occupiers and lessees, and binding contracts must be signed. Clearly, it would be impossible to achieve all this within the period of three months, as suggested by Amendments Nos. 133A and 133B. Indeed, in many cases even 12 months will create a very tight timetable for authorities if they are not to lose their compulsory purchase powers.

On the suggestion that the period for the issue of notices to treat following on a compulsory purchase order becoming operative should be reduced from 12 months to three—and that is Amendment No. 134A, which it might be convenient to deal with at the same time—this Amendment would also face authorities with a very short time in which to act. The compulsory purchase order becomes operative when it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State and the authority has published notices of such confirmation, which they must do as soon as possible. The period normally allowed for other purposes is three years, but an Amendment was made at Report stage in another place reducing this to 12 months for the purposes of this Bill only. So in this respect there has already been a reduction for the purposes of this Bill. I have to tell noble Lords opposite that any further reduction would be quite unacceptable to the Government. In addition to all this, a period of three months would produce severe problems if an order were challenged in the courts, because, as I understand it, there is a period of six weeks available for somebody to challenge an order in the courts, and at least half the period of three months might be lost in that way.

The Earl of KINNOULL

As regards Amendment No. 134A that is a different point from the one I am making in No. 133A. Perhaps I have got it wrong, but what I am saying in No. 133A is that where a person elects to serve a notice on the authority to ascertain whether or not it will purchase—I am not suggesting that at this stage it should be a compulsory purchase order—the authority has 12 months in which to decide whether or not it intends to proceed with the compulsory purchase order. That is very different from the point I wish to make in No. 134A. What I am saying is that the authority should reply, make a decision, within three months rather than 12. I am not saying that the service of a notice to treat should be three months on this issue. I am saying that the authority should reply and give an undertaking that it will proceed. I am not sure whether the message which is coming to the noble Lord is on that point, but I would ask him to answer.

Lord MELCHETT

It may help the noble Earl if I say that I understand that the local authority has three months in which to serve a notice.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I do not see that in this Part of the Schedule. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me where this is. As the noble Lord says it is three months, I will have to accept it and beg leave to withdraw.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, one can accept the judgment that three months is not long enough, and it ought to be at least 12 months. All the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, gave are very interesting, because the first half-dozen of the reasons he gave, as to establishing ownership and all the general conditions applying to the land, are invariably in the hands of the authorities concerned long before they contemplate wanting to make use of them themselves. I would accept the judgment of what is the right length of time.

Lord MELCHETT

Before the Amendment is finally withdrawn, may I ask the noble Lord to look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, and I think he will find the answer he seeks.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am much obliged.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 134: Page 75, line 17, leave out ("or later period").

The noble Earl said: On page 75 of the Bill it is said, regarding planning permission to which Section 20 applies: The expiration of— (a) a period of 12 months…unless the authority have completed the first step towards acquisition of the land before the end of the period…". The words I want to cut out are, "or later period". It really must not be allowed to delay things indefinitely. This is the reason behind this Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I am advised that the removal of the words "or later period" would only give rise to ambiguity. They do not in any way extend the time beyond the 12 months allowed in the case. I can give the noble Earl an extremely technical explanation of why the phrase "or later period" is needed, if he would like me to.

The Earl of BALFOUR

It is a late hour, but perhaps we might meet outside the Committee at some time, on a friendly basis. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 134A: Page 75, line 21, column 2, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("three").

The noble Earl said: This is a probing Amendment. Under paragraph (4) it is said in regard to the making of compulsory purchase order: Completion of first step towards acquisition of the land by making and publishing notice of a compulsory purchase order. Am I right in saying that completion of the first step is service of notice to treat, because until that has been served I think I am correct in saying that the local authority have no obligation to proceed. In other words, it is by that time an unconditional contract. It is not clear in my mind on reading this provision what completion of the first step means, and I should be grateful to have an explanation.

Lord MELCHETT

I think the answer to the noble Earl's question may be contained here. A compulsory purchase order becomes operative when it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State and the authority has published notice of such confirmation, which they must do as soon as possible after the Secretary of State has confirmed it.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Before I beg leave to withdraw, may I ask whether that is correct?

Lord MELCHETT

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me a chance to correct myself. Probably the first step towards acquisition is either a contract or the making of the compulsory purchase order. I may have been telling the noble Earl something on a slightly different point.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful and beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.58 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 136:

Page 75, line 40, at end insert— ("(6) Where in respect of any land notice is served by an authority of its intention to purchase that land under the provisions of this Schedule and the first step towards the acquisition of the land has not been taken the provisions of Part X of the Act of 1971 or the Scottish Act of 1972 shall apply to such land as if that land were included within one of the classes of land specified in Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 or 181(1) of the Scottish Act of 1972.").

The noble Earl said: I am afraid there has been a slight misprint here. The Amendment should refer to Part IX of the Act of 1971, not Part X. Part IX deals with acquisition; Part X concerns roads. The object behind this Amendment is that where a local authority serves notice of its intention to purchase land under the provisions of this Schedule, and the first step towards the acquisition of the land has not been taken, the provisions of Part IX of the 1971 Act or the Scottish Act of 1972 shall apply to such land as if it were included in the owner-occupier provisions of Section 192(1) of the 1971 Act.

I feel there is far too much vagary here where the authorities have not taken action, have not done anything about it. I apologise for the drafting error here which may have upset the noble Baroness. If she feels she cannot answer the point, I understand. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

I will not upset the noble Earl; he does not upset me. However, his Amendment contains another error. It should read "Schedule 7, page 75. line 41", not line 40. It is a quite minor point, but I thought that I should draw it to his attention.

The effect of the Amendment would be to provide that where an authority had served a notice of intention to purchase any land, under the provisions of Schedule 7 the blight provisions of the 1971 Act would apply. This would allow an owner-occupier to serve a blight notice on the authority forcing them to acquire in advance of requirements rather than to wait for the authority to take the first step towards acquisition.

As the noble Earl is probably well aware, an identical Amendment was tabled by the Opposition at Report stage in another place. It was pointed out then that a Government Amendment had also been tabled which would meet the point. This provision is now to be found in Clause 22(6), and it applies to all cases where planning permission has been suspended. By contrast, the Opposition Amendment, which is very similar to that of the noble Earl, would not apply where planning permission was suspended under Clause 21 because suspension there does not depend on the service of a notice of intention to purchase. Therefore it would provide less protection to the owner-occupier. The Opposition Amendment was therefore withdrawn in another place. I very much hope that the version of it which has been moved by the noble Earl will also be withdrawn since it achieves nothing that is not already covered by the provisions of Clause 22(6).

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am informed that so far as line 40 is concerned my Amendment is perfectly well drafted, but that is by the way. I apologise for having missed Clause 22(6), and clearly realise that this Amendment is unnecessary. I am, therefore, grateful for that reply and to learn that this provision is included in the Bill. When one is drafting Amendments for oneself it is sometimes very difficult to know exactly where they should go. However, I see that the Government have done it for me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 138: Page 75, line 44, leave out ("when (a)") and insert ("(a) when").

The noble Lord said: The noble Earl and I have had our differences on drafting matters this evening. I am happy to toll him that should 1 obtain his assurance that he will move his Amendment No. 139, which strikes at exactly the same point as my Amendment No. 138, I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment. I fully accept that he has drafted his Amendment in a better way than I have drafted mine. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 138.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am sure that we can co-operate over this matter, and I shall be very happy to move Amendment No. 139. To save time, I shall move it formally.

Lord MELCHETT

With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 138.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 138A: Page 75, line 45, leave out ("all the authorities") and insert ("the authority").

The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment for clarification of this subsection. I am not absolutely clear about what is meant here. I appreciate that we are talking about the suspension of planning permission when Clause 19 or 20 of the Bill comes into force, but the definition that all of the authorities have abandoned their power to purchase land means that under the duties contained in Clauses 18 and 19 there would be more than one local authority with the option of buying land and that an indefinite number of authorities could decide to acquire the land before the matter was settled. I want to know whether that is the understanding of this or whether I am not right. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

The noble Baroness is right: it is fundamental to the scheme that all the authorities concerned in an area should have powers under the Bill. It is therefore necessary that all of them should have an opportunity to consider whether or not to acquire the land, and consequently the suspension needs to run until all of them have made up their minds, or of course until the time allowed for them to do so has run out.

It is true that by virtue of Schedule 5 the authorities concerned will be making arrangements between themselves in their land acquisition and management schemes as to the service of notices and which of them will normally be the acquiring authority; but LAMS are essentially concerned with the exercise of functions and do not in any way affect the powers of authorities, which are exercisable concurrently. So it is necessary to allow for this situation by providing that the suspension of planning permission must remain in force until all authorities have abandoned their powers. The suspension can, of course, come to an end when only one of them has purchased the land.

Baroness YOUNG

I should like to thank the noble Lord for that explanation; not, I may say, that I feel any better as a result of it. I should like to ask him further whether there is any time limit set on when the authorities must make up their minds whether or not they are to purchase the land and whether this is the time limit of one year.

Lord MELCHETT

I will correct this if I am wrong, but I think for all the authorities the time limit is the 12 month period.

Baroness YOUNG

I should like to thank the noble Lord and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I beg to move Amendment No. 139.

Amendment moved—

Page 75, line 47, leave out ("when")—.(The Earl of Balfour.)

11.7 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 139B:

Page 75, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("purchase") and insert— (b) when the authority specified by the relevant Land Acquisition and Management Scheme".

The noble Baroness said: Again this Amendment is designed to make clear what this sub-paragraph actually means. We have had a definition of sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 2, and I now understand that any of the authorities in the land acquisition and management scheme can consider purchasing the land in question and the owner must wait until they have all decided whether or not they want to purchase before the planning permission reverts. On sub-paragraph (1)(b), is not the authority in question the one that would be specified in the relevant land acquisition and management scheme, or is it another authority outside the scheme? I do not understand how it could be, but perhaps the noble Lord would explain to me what the difference would be. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

May I first correct something that I said in response to the noble Baroness on the previous Amendment? I was wrong about the 12 months period: it is in fact three months. The notice of intention to acquire has to be served by all the authorities within three months. I think I covered this point in responding to the previous Amendment. It is three months unless it is a Clause 20 case, in which case it is two months. So we are going down all the time: if I stay on my feet long enough we might get something less!

The land acquisition and management schemes are essentially concerned with functions and they do not affect the powers of the authority in that area. There may well be an authority designated in the land acquisition and management scheme, but that will merely be a matter of dividing the functions between the authorities and it cannot have the effect of depriving any of the authorities of their power to acquire the land.

Baroness YOUNG

I am grateful for that explanation. I think I had better study what is in Hansard, for my own education at any rate, to see whether I have further questions to put down. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.10 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 141A: Page 77, line 27, after second ("land") insert ("within 3 months").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the sub-paragraph in which it is the duty of an authority to notify a change of intention. The Committee will have seen that an authority can, indeed, change their mind; having issued a notice to say that they wish to proceed with a purchase they may change their mind. Apparently there is no time limit—but, of course, there will be a time limit under certain provisions—as to when they can change their mind. Indeed, what they are saying is, "as soon as practicable".

This Amendment seeks to put in a time limit of three months from the date when the authority has served a notice that they wish to purchase, and a subsequent Amendment seeks to delete "as soon as practicable". One has to recall that in the event of an authority changing their mind, they are offering—as it appears from the sub-paragraph—no compensation to the owner of the land who might well have made other plans by that time. The owner may have entered into a contract to purchase other property. There is no compensation at all and, indeed, it seems that unless there is a time limit which is binding on the authority so that they cannot change their mind, the position seems totally unreasonable.

Lord MELCHETT

I was a little unclear about the purpose of this Amendment. May I just make clear with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that he is taking Amendment No. 141B with this one? I had thought that Amendment No. 141A was intended to be consequential on Nos. 133A, 133B and 134A. Those Amendments sought to reduce the period within which an authority must make a compulsory purchase order, or enter into a binding contract to acquire the land. As I understand it, the wording of the Amendment that the noble Earl has now moved ties the three months to the decision not to acquire, and not to the original intention to acquire.

Moreover, I am advised that the Amendment could be read to mean that if the authority decided initially that they would not be acquiring the land within three months, then they would be under no obligation to notify a subsequent change of intention, and that is clearly not what the noble Earl intends. I do not think the Amendment would be of advantage to anyone. If I may just deal with Amendment No. 141B, as the noble Earl was kind enough to say he was taking that with this one, the effect of that Amendment would be to give the authority an unlimited amount of time within which to serve a notice of change of intention, and that, I should have thought, was also clearly undesirable.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The purpose of this Amendment is that an authority can decide that they wish to proceed with the acquisition, and serve a notice on the owner to say that that is their intention. Then we have a certain time period in which the compulsory purchase order provisions will operate. It may be within three months or two months under Clause 21, but up to that period there is no time specified in this sub-paragraph when the authority can change their mind. What I am not clear about is that we may be dealing with situations of agreement; not of compulsory purchase. If the authority led the owner to believe that they wished to acquire under this part of the Bill, and then changed their mind, there is apparently no compensation and no time limit. I think there should be a time limit. Could the noble Lord address his mind to that?

Lord MELCHETT

On the time limit point, I think we are striking at a point we covered in an earlier Amendment. Local authorities have always had a right not to proceed with a compulsory purchase order once it has been made. Under the present law the time period during which that operated was three years, and for the purposes of this Bill it has been reduced to one year. As I said, I do not think we could possibly envisage it being reduced any further.

The Earl of KINNOULL

So the local authority under this part of the Bill, where they can change their intention, would have 12 months in which to do so. They could serve the notice on the individual; the individual then takes it upon himself to make other arrangements, and 11 months and three weeks later the authority serve a notice to say that they do not intend to proceed. There is no compensation at that stage. Surely the noble Lord would think that would be reasonable over what is really quite a long period of time.

Lord MELCHETT

The compensation point is something I should like to take advice on, if I may, and possibly we could come to it on the question that the Schedule be agreed. It may be helpful if I say that the authority would also have to acquire by agreement within one year or they would lose that power, so the one year period applies in that case as well.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.17 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 142:

Page 77, line 37, at end insert— (3) Where an authority decide to abandon a compulsory purchase order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, any person who has made an objection under this part of this Schedule shall be entitled to recover his costs of and occasioned thereby as between solicitor and client from that authority.

The noble Earl said: What I am concerned about is the case where a person has gone to an awful lot of trouble in connection with a compulsory purchase order and then the local authority decides to withdraw. I must draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 7, just below the Amendment we are talking about, and particularly the top of page 78, where a person may be involved in going to the High Court or the Court of Session. I feel that in this case the person concerned should certainly be entitled to recover some of the expense involved. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The effect of the proposed Amendment which the noble Earl has moved is somewhat uncertain, because it is. I think. defective. The only thing approaching a right of objection in this part of Schedule 7 is the right contained in paragraph 7(3) to question by application to the High Court a condition imposed by the authority in their notice of intention not to acquire the land. This is not connected with the making or subsequent withdrawal of a compulsory purchase order, but what may be intended is that when someone has objected to a compulsory purchase order which the authority then decides to withdraw he should get his legal costs of objection reimbursed.

A similar Amendment to Schedule 4 was moved by the Opposition at Committee stage in another place, and was withdrawn on the basis of an assurance given by the Minister that he was prepared to look generally at the whole question of costs of public inquiries; but he could not accept the Amendment because it would cause anomalies if it were to apply to the limited circumstances of compulsory purchase orders arising out of the land scheme and not generally across the whole planning field.

In relation to compulsory purchase proceedings, the only circumstances in which costs are paid are where an inquiry has been held, and then in circumstances which I shall indicate. I am delighted to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is back full of freshness and vigour after a temporary absence and ready to give us assistance on these matters within his experience. The Minister normally makes a favourable award of costs on application by an owner, lessee or occupier (on whom statutory notice of the making of the order has to be served) and who, following an inquiry, had his objection sustained by the Minister's refusal to confirm the order, or to do so in respect of the whole or part of the objector's property which was in question at the inquiry. The award is made against the authority who made the compulsory purchase order.

Where a successful objector receiving costs has been legally represented, then if agreement cannot be reached between the objector and the authority the Minister makes an order for the payment of the objector's costs at the inquiry, such costs to be taxed in the High Court in default of agreement. The Report of the Council on Tribunals on the Award of Costs at Statutory Inquiries in 1964 dealt with the position of parties who have no legal right to appear at the inquiry. The Council came to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable, save in exceptional circumstances, to award costs against a third party, with the logical consequence that third parties should also not be eligible to receive costs. It may be helpful to deal with this matter generally at this stage, because it arises in other parts which are relevant under this Bill. The Amendment proposes that any objector (that is, without any qualification at all as to his status) should be entitled to recover his solicitor's costs of making an objection on his behalf. This would mean that if the Secretary of State should not hold an inquiry such costs would still be recoverable. Furthermore, such costs would be recoverable, inquiry or no inquiry, even if the objection was not sustained.

The Amendment must be resisted in so far as it would cover solicitors' costs of third parties and of objectors whose objections are not sustained. The remaining question is whether statutory objectors (owners, lessees and occupiers) whose objections are sustained (by the Secretary of State's refusal to confirm the order) without an inquiry or hearing being held should be entitled to an award—provided the objection was not one which the Secretary of State was entitled to disregard.

The first point here is that it would be unprecedented to provide a statutory entitlement to recover the costs of making an objection to a CPO where there has been no inquiry. The second is that it is the choice of the objector whether he employs a solicitor (or other professional agent) to formulate grounds of objection, and there is no logical distinction between the objector who does so and the objector who makes his objection unaided.

On these points it might be argued that, because of the possibility that an inquiry might not be held, it will be all the more necessary for an objector to ensure that his case is stated fully and effectively, and that for this reason he may feel that professional advice is essential. But if it is accepted that costs should be awarded only to successful objectors, an objector always takes the chance that he may have to bear his own costs of professional representation; if he is successful without an inquiry being held he would probably consider the expense of professional advice as money well spent, and he will not have to make a decision about laying out further money on professional representation at an inquiry. The fact remains that it is entirely for the objector to decide whether to employ a solicitor; and all objections will be given the same consideration, whether made by the objector direct or through a solicitor.

For the reasons I have indicated—which will, no doubt, require reading for their full significance to be appreciated —and because as I indicated at the outset of my observations it is technically defective, the Amendment should be resisted; that is, unless, in the light of what I have said and the Minister's assurance in another place that he is prepared to look again at the whole question of costs at inquiries—and I have given a rough idea of what the problems and circumstances are—it is felt that it would be appropriate to withdraw the Amendment.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

The noble and learned Lord is right; I come refreshed. I have been to the land of the noble and learned Lord's fathers, which is a very refreshing place to be. I hope the Committee will appreciate that there is in fact a real problem about the circumstances when an acquiring authority decides to abandon its compulsory purchase order. I have had this happen and I have been asked by the acquiring authority, "What are we going to do?", because the authority appreciates that the person from whom it thought it would acquire land has expended a considerable amount of money and the authority has thought it fair and proper that he should be reimbursed. The difficulty is that there are singularly few powers under which it may do so.

The noble and learned Lord said that his right honourable friend in another place gave an assurance that he would look at this question again. What rather worries me is whether, if he does look at it and decides that the thing should be dealt with as it is now—by a circular setting out the criteria on which costs will be awarded—there are powers in Statute law which would enable that circular to be given effect to. My recollection of this, and I may be wrong, is that for the purposes of most of these things we have attracted the provisions of what used to be the Local Government Act 1933, but which I think are similar provisions in the 1972 Act, and they give certain powers to award costs but only, as the noble and learned Lord said, when there has been an inquiry. That does not, of course, meet this point, and however much the Government may like to reconsider this matter they will not be able to give effect to the assurance because, so far as I know, there are no legal powers to enable them to do so. I appreciate that it is difficult and that a quite major consideration of the matter should be given, but would it not be right for us to consider whether enabling powers should not be provided somewhere, perhaps in this Bill, to allow the Government to give effect to the undertaking after they have had that consideration of the matter?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

That raises an important though rather different point, but I certainly think it should be considered, and I give an assurance that that will be done, along with the general consideration which the Minister has undertaken to give to the problem of costs and inquiries generally.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

I do not think my noble friend Lord Colville of Cuirass raised a new point. He raised precisely the point of this Amendment. Is that not the case?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Viscount raised a new point in that he was asking the important question whether, assuming the maximum of good intent and good faith, there was still in existence a statutory power to give effect to what the Minister might have in mind. To that extent it was a new point, but it is a point that will be considered.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say that he hoped he would be able to extend the undertaking given in the other place to cover this point. If so, we should be perfectly happy; if it is not so, I feel that the special circumstances of this point ought to be borne in mind and should be on the Record.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I have said that I will look into this, and see that it is looked into by the Minister.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.32 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 143: Page 78, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

The noble Earl said: I should like to come back again, and first thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his excellent explanation, which has certainly helped me. I am just about as mystified as I could be here and this is purely a probing Amendment. Sub-paragraph (4) reads: Except as so provided a condition shall not be questioned on that ground in any legal proceedings whatsoever. I feel that, in respect of the High Court and the Court of Session, this leaves anyone who wants to do anything without a hope. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Paragraph 7 of the Schedule provides that notices stating that an authority do not intend to acquire the land may be expressed to be subject to conditions, and paragraph 8 sets out the kinds of conditions which may be imposed. This Amendment would remove the provision in paragraph 7(4) that a condition shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings.

Paragraph 7(4) is a standard provision in situations of this kind and is to be found, for instance, in Schedule 1, paragraphs 15 and 16, of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946. It is designed to give certainty to both authorities and the persons receiving conditional notices. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable a person to challenge a condition imposed in strict accordance with the Statute (for instance, paragraph 8 of the Schedule) and to do so at any time—even after land had been acquired under a compulsory purchase order made after powers had been restored following breach of a "condition ". As I say, this is a standard provision, and I hope that, in the circumstances and in view of that explanation, the Amendment will he withdrawn.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

With the greatest respect, it is not a standard provision in this context. It is a standard provision where one has the sort of circumstance in which one can only appeal to the High Court on the grounds that there was a procedural inaccuracy or some other technical failure; or, alternatively, where there is a completely different appeal procedure set out, such as in the case of enforcement notices. Even then, one is only debarred on certain grounds from questioning the decision on a later occasion in the High Court.

The difficulty is that the noble and learned Lord is talking about a series of things which look to me uncommonly like planning conditions. They are in many ways attracted to the planning condition procedure and they are remarkably similar in their contents. It has never been standard procedure under the planning Acts that one should be debarred from questioning the validity of a planning condition. Indeed, there has been some very rich litigation on this subject—and when I say "rich ", I mean rich in terms of the learning which has been deduced from it. There have certainly been three cases which have come to this House sitting in its judicial capacity and it is a question which is not yet solved. We still do not know what happens in some cases when ordinary conditions attached to a planning condition are found to be invalid. It is certainly not standard that one is debarred from questioning it in any legal proceedings, unless one takes out an appeal within six weeks.

If the noble and learned Lord will look into this, he will find that he has been misadvised about the parallels that he has been given. If these are indeed conditions of the kind in paragraph 8, then I suggest to him that he ought to consider whether there is some other method to get over what I think is a practical difficulty of this matter being re-opened at a much later date, when the process has proceeded a good deal further and land has been sold, or changed hands, or something of that nature. I ask the noble and learned Lord very seriously to look at this. Of course there are precedents for the provision, but if the noble and learned Lord looks at them he will see that they are not really apt to be used as analogies for this set of circumstances.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The conditions that are set out in this paragraph are not planning conditions as such. The noble Viscount recognises the difficulty that I have mentioned that, unless there were some time limit for questioning, a subsequent compulsory purchase order might be invalid. But I am very willing to look at this matter. It is a piece of high technicality which certainly I ought to look at. I am always very nervous of calling in aid the fact that something is a technicality, since the occasion when I appeared before the House of Lords judicially and I observed that the matter raised was a mere technicality. I was told by one of the noble and learned Lords: Ah, yes. A technicality is a point of principle that your opponent has remembered and you have forgotten. I will certainly look at the point, and return to it at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.36 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 144: Page 78, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph 2.

The noble Earl said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 145 as well as Amendment No. 144. This is a much different matter from that contained in the last two Amendments and is much more in my field. I invite your Lordships to look at paragraph 8(1) 2; that is, at page 78, line 12. I argue that the second condition is identical to the first. I ask your Lordships to look at the first condition while I read out the second, until we find a difference: A condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with"— so far that agrees with the first— a planning permission specified in the notice (being permission granted before service of the notice). I argue that that must have been the originating planning permission; it could not possibly have been anything else. Hence I wish to move that this condition be left out.

We are talking here about notice, and so let us consider the third condition as set out in the Bill at this point. It reads: A condition that the development is begun not later than the expiration of a period specified in the notice. I am not sure that "notice "is right there; it should be the originating planning permission, because that surely would have included the notice. These are technical points of drafting, but I argue that conditions 1 and 2 are identical. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

As we observed in dealing with the last Amendment, paragraph 7 of the Schedule provides that notices stating that an authority does not intend to acquire the land may be expressed to be subject to conditions, and paragraph 8 sets out the kinds of conditions which may be imposed. This Amendment would remove the second condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with a specified planning permission granted before the notice was served. Condition 2 in paragraph 8(1) would be appropriate when an authority, while content that development could go ahead without its intervention, nevertheless wished to ensure that the development should be in accordance with an earlier (specified) planning permission, rather than under the permission they were presently concerned with. There can be two or more planning permissions in force for the same land. If this condition were removed it would mean that many authorities, in order to achieve the sort of development they wished to see on the land, would feel obliged to acquire the land, though in all other respects they would have been content to allow development to proceed. It may well be, therefore, that the noble Earl will think that it is not desirable to force an authority into such a position as that which this provision is intended to prevent. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I think I am beginning to see some of the answer, but the problem is that the originating planning permission must have been withdrawn at some stage before the next planning permission in connection with the notice was in existence. Otherwise, I have a feeling that one could have two or three planning permissions virtually covering the same thing. I know that this happens; it is one of my criticisms of the planning law. I certainly should not like to press this Amendment further at the moment—the position seems to be highly technical, anyway—but I just wondered whether, in this case, we were quite clear as to which planning permission we are talking about at which time.

If we go on to line 22 we see that it says: A condition that the development permitted by the originating planning permission or other planning permission specified in the notice is completed within a period specified in the notice,…". That is all right; but when you get something which is dealing with the beginning of the development, as you do in paragraph 3, that is something that should have been put in the planning permission rather than in the notice. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.43 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 145C: Page 78, line 27, leave out ("to").

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 145A go together, and I may say that I am grateful to the assiduous Clerks of your Lordships' House for pointing out that I had made a mistake and for allowing me to put down Amendment No. 145C to correct it in the drafting. The noble and learned Lord said just now that the conditions in paragraph 8 are not planning conditions. I appreciate that they are not planning conditions pure and simple, but I can tell the noble and learned Lord this—and I am sure he knows it already—that No. 1 is in a form which is commonly imposed upon planning permissions, so is No. 2, so is No. 3 and so is No. 4, and No. 5 is, I think, rather unusual but might occasionally be. My quarrel is with No. 6. I should be very grateful to know—I have not seen this explained anywhere—how this is to work. Could the noble and learned Lord give us some examples of the sort of circumstances where the Secretary of State would give his consent to some other condition—not one of those listed here but some other condition? What sort of condition?

There are various problems about this. First, if we allow paragraph 7(4) to stand as we have just been discussing, then you cannot challenge this sort of condition at all unless you do so within the requisite time of six weeks. But how are you to know that the Secretary of State has given his consent to some condition which is not one of those listed as Nos. 1 to 5? And if you do know that he has given his consent to it, are you then allowed to challenge it on the grounds that it is ultra vires; or can he give his consent to just any other condition, whatever it may be? Has it to be connected with planning? Has it to be connected with the Bill? What has it to be connected with; and what are the criteria that the Secretary of State is to bear in mind when he decides to give these consents?

Thirdly, will he give them individually or will he give them by way of some circular which can then be referred to, so that the local authorities can apply such one or other of them as they think fit and the Secretary of State's consent will be deemed to have been given by the circular? The whole thing is terribly strange and vague. The ordinary rules whereby you can impose conditions require that they shall be connected with the function of the local authority as a planning authority. With what function are these to be connected? Apparently they are not pure planning although they look like it. We have no guidelines to see whether or not they are within the terms of what is proper. Therefore we are faced with a situation where not only are you tied down to six weeks as the period within which you can object but you are given absolutely no guidance as to the grounds on which you can object within that period.

I think the Committee is entitled to a little explanation of this. I have seen none. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would give us a little more information about this so that we may be satisfied that this power is one that can be given by the Secretary of State as a mere matter of consent. Rather than to leave it out—for I do not believe that would be helpful the Government must have something in mind here—we should have it done by regulation, so that everyone can see what were the extra kind of conditions which the Secretary of State decides to give consent to. Everyone would then know, it would be public knowledge and it could be tested for validity in that you could take the regulations themselves to the High Court. This, I think, would do for most people. You would have some certainty. At the moment it seems to be a completely unfettered power and one where protest is going to be very limited. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The intention of adding the six conditions listed in paragraph 8(1) is to provide flexibility and to deal with a situation where the authorities concerned may think that further acceptable conditions, in addition to conditions 1 to 5, will emerge with experience. The conditions at 1 to 5 are already identified as being acceptable but it may be that when there has been experience of the scheme in action further acceptable conditions will emerge. Condition 6 will enable the Secretary of State to extend the list as necessary. That would normally be done by promulgation in a circular after consultation with the local authority associations and others concerned.

I cannot be more specific than that at this point of time, but certainly it does not seem necessary to provide that if such additional conditions are deemed to be useful and necessary to add, that that must be made by regulations. There is plenty of precedence for the indications of a Secretary of State's consent being given without the necessity of regulations to give effect to it. There is the Local Government Act 1972, for instance, where the Secretary of State's consent is required to the appropriation or disposal of land in certain circumstances.

I gather that that is not really the point that the noble Viscount is on. On the point of the lack of precision and identification of what the new condition might be in condition 6, as I have said, the intention of including that general provision is to provide for the contingency where the local authorities and associations concerned might require another condition to be added which the Secretary of State in those circumstances would then be empowered to add by the inclusion of condition 6.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

That is most unsatisfactory. Could the noble and learned Lord apply his mind to two specific points? First, if the Secretary of State gives his consent by circular, is that consent going to be admissible in the High Court in the case where somebody wishes to challenge the condition on the grounds, say, that it is not within paragraph 8? Can one produce a circular in the High Court and say that this constitutes the consent of the Secretary of State, and therefore the matter is intro vires? I should have thought that was unusual. The High Court might be surprised if the learned Treasury junior were to come along with a circular in his hand, saying, "Here is the Secretary of State's consent. "All he has to do is publish a circular and produce it to your Lordships. I think your Lordships might be perplexed about it.

Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explain a recent case about a planning condition imposed by a local authority? It granted planning permission for residential development of land and imposed a whole string of conditions. Their last condition for this private development was that all the houses should be made available for occupation by people on the local authority's housing list; in other words, they were constituting the private development to be a council housing development.

It may be that that was a good idea; it may be that it was not. I do not very much mind. What the High Court said was that the conditions were ultra vires, because it had nothing to do with planning. But under the provision of paragraph 8 of this Schedule the Secretary of State could say, "I hereby give consent to any condition which allows one of these developments to go forward in private hands, provided all the houses built are made available for council tenants." Perhaps that is what he wants to do. But is it legal? Can it be challenged either on the ground I have just mentioned, or on the ground that that is not the type of condition that is in line with the general type of those listed as conditions 1 to 5? I will try to avoid using the Latin phrases and the noble and learned Lord will know what I mean.

Are we to try to collect from those listed conditions the kind of genus of conditions outside which the consent of the Secretary of State cannot go? This is the issue I seek to raise. Otherwise, we give absolutely unlimited powers to the Secretary of State to impose any kind of condition. I should not think we ought to do that in quite the debonair way in which the Bill is drafted today. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will apply his mind to this serious point.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Of course I will consider the point as to the effective legal force of the condition. I would anticipate that such a condition could be imposed if the Secretary of State consented to it. The initiative in the matter would emanate from the local authorities concerned. There is no genus that I can identify. I suppose the alternative is that the local authority would acquire the land. I am willing to examine the point to discover whether there are any further safeguards that need to be imposed. I should have thought, as I have indicated, that what is set out here is precedented in earlier legislation like the Local Government Act and other provisions. But I will examine the matter in case something has been missed.

The Earl of ONSLOW

My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross used the words "unfettered power" in moving the Amendment. As I understood it, the noble and learned Lord said in reply that the Secretary of State could impose conditions which he had not thought of when he drafted the Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope I did not say that; I am sure I did not. What I said was that circumstances might emerge where local authorities might think it desirable that a further condition should be added.

The Earl of ONSLOW

Not being a lawyer, that was how I interpreted what the noble and learned Lord said. Therefore it would almost be possible to redraft the whole of paragraph 8(1) as meaning any condition to which the Secretary of State has given his consent. That seems to me to be a perfect definition of unfettered power. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has calmed my doubts on the subject. I had no intention of intervening, but that seemed to me to be what he said.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not want any air of mystery or of new tyranny here. These powers exist for Secretaries of State. There are plenty of precedents for this in measures like the Water Act 1973, which has many examples of the Secretary of State being given power to give directions without any specific Parliamentary control. These powers are necessary to enable measures of this kind to become effective. There must be room for flexibility. I am surprised from that point of view that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is finding what is proposed offensive. I agree that there may be legal problems involved in giving effect to it which I am willing to look at. But this is part of the machinery of statutory supervision in areas where public authorities have to operate.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

In this case, is it not a question of whether it is flexibility which any reasonable person would want to give to any Government, or whether it is unfettered power? I should have thought, in the absence of having it clearly defined, that it has to do with planning and has certain boundaries. Any other condition which goes beyond flexibility becomes unfettered power. In this instance, affecting so many people in so many detailed ways, past precedents which do not cover such a wide front make it different.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

The difficulty is that the Water Act is not the best point to take, because at the present moment your Lordships' House sitting judicially are considering whether a major set of regulations made under the Water Act, under exactly these powers, were or were not ultra vires. I do not know what their noble and learned Lordships will say about it, but perhaps we could have chosen a better ground on which to battle. In the Amendments which I have put down I have attempted to be constructive and have tried to make this Bill, in so far as we have to have it, a workable one. I dislike it very much, but if we arc to have it, then let us make it workable. The difficulty is that we are not dealing with general powers of Ministers to give consent to all local authorities to dispose of land for certain purposes under Section 123, or whatever it is, of the Local Government Act; we are dealing with individual sets of conditions which are to apply to individuals carrying out individual development on individual pieces of land. There is nothing general about this; it will be tailor-made for the individual case in point.

I think I heard the noble and learned Lord say that there was no genus that he could find in the set of conditions in conditions 1 to 5 in paragraph 8 of the Schedule. If that is so, I am surprised. I started off my remarks by saying that they were familiar to those who deal with the planning world. If the noble and learned Lord says that there is no genus to them, that is of course the intention of the Government—there is no genus. If the local authorities attempt to impose conditions which are wholly unfamiliar to people who are used to dealing with planning, which bring in completely different concepts, completely different powers, completely different functions of local authorities—"Yes, you can carry it out so long as you build five miles of dual carriageway adjoining the site" or something like that (to take an absurd example)—people will complain and litigate.

Unless we can get some certainty into what the range of material that these extra conditions are to be bounded by, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, there will be interminable litigation. The noble and learned Lord does not want that—none of us does. We want to find out the bounds of the powers that this Bill is giving to the Secretary of State. I would ask him most earnestly to look at this again to see whether he can make it more clear; otherwise, we shall be laying up trouble which none of us wants. I do not ask him to reply again, because he has said very kindly that he will look at this. But I would reinforce my remarks about this, because I believe there is great substance here.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

The noble and learned Lord is very kind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel)

Before I call Amendment No. 147, I must point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 147A.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 147: Page 78, line 43, leave out head (b).

The noble Earl said: If I might, to some extent, join my noble friend Lady Young on the following Amendment, I would argue here that, A condition may at any time be relaxed— is fair enough, but not, a condition cannot be relaxed after a failure to comply with the condition. I am sure your Lordships are well aware that occasionally the developers of land meet an unforeseen snag so that the persons carrying out the development may have, unwittingly and unintentionally, broken one of the conditions. This can arise because of all kinds of strange circumstances. An excellent example which springs to mind was where a new school was being erected not so very far away from my home. They dug the foundations for the buildings and were all set to pour in the concrete after the weekend, but when they came back again they found one of the foundations had sunk 6ft. because of the mine-workings underneath. This is the kind of snag which can upset timetables. Therefore, I recommend that sub-paragraph (5)(b) at the bottom of page 78 is very unkind. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Subparagraph (5) is needed to give flexibility to the operation of conditional notices. It allows an owner who has received such a notice to come to the authority and ask for the condition to be relaxed. This might be appropriate, for example, where a developer has been unable to comply with a time limit imposed by conditions 3, 4 or 5, owing to circumstances outside his control.

In considering the Amendment, it is important to bear in mind that the breach of a condition imposed on a notice of intention not to acquire leads to a revival of the powers of the authority which they abandoned when they served the notice, but it does not mean that the authority necessarily have to exercise those powers. The planning permission remains unsuspended, so the position remains the same as it is now where a wide range of CPO powers are available. Breach of a condition is, however, an important matter, and it is reasonable to expect a developer who has received a conditional notice to see that he complies with the conditions. If he can see it is likely that he will not be able to comply with the condition—for example, because a time limit is running out—then he ought to go to the authority in good time with a request for a relaxation of the condition.

Allowing conditions to be relaxed after they had been broken would. I submit, be wrong in principle, and could open the way to evasion. That danger does not arise so much on the conditions concerning time limits, but in relation to conditions 1 and 2—the condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with the originating planning permission, or the condition that no relevant development is carried out on the land except in accordance with a planning permission specified in the notice—a developer could, unless there were some control of this kind, deliberately start development which was not in accordance with the original planning permission, or the second type of planning permission I have indicated, and then seek a relaxation of the conditions substituting a different planning permission for the one allowed by conditions 1 or 2.

It is felt, therefore, that this provision in (5)(b) is a necessary protection. As I say, if the developer is in difficulty, he can have conditions relaxed on application, but to seek to treat the imposition of conditions as something of no real significance, which could be relaxed after a failure of compliance, would really be wrong in principle and in practice.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply, but I hope that the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, is accepted because here they are asking for only a few words, "except with just cause". From all that has been said, I feel that a little protection needs to be given here, and I hope that that Amendment can be considered. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.7 a.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment 147A: Page 78, line 44, after ("condition") insert ("except with just cause").

The noble Baroness said: After what my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, I hope the Government will look favourably on this matter. Unless I have misunderstood sub-paragraph (5)(b), it seemed to me on looking at this that, a condition cannot be relaxed after a failure to comply with the condition", is a statement which does seem very hard, and I should have thought that the words, "except with just cause" are commonly inserted into these kind of conditions because something may have arisen which had not been foreseen to cause the developer to break one of the conditions. This is not unknown. In those circumstances, it seems very hard that this paragraph should apply where it might not be the developer's fault.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I think I indicated in my earlier observations on the previous Amendment that paragraph (5) allows an owner who has received a conditional notice to come to the authority and ask for the condition to be relaxed. That is provided for in sub-paragraph (5): A condition may at any time be relaxed by a subsequent notice served in the same manner as the previous notice… So that if there is, to use the phrase, "just cause", then the matter can be rectified in that way.

What is suggested is that even if there has been non-compliance which could be aningenious way of effective evasion of planning control, it would be wrong to permit that to happen. But even if the use of the words were acceptable in principle, the Amendment is, I submit, defective as it introduces the concept of just cause but does not provide any means for establishing what should constitute just cause as between the parties. Therefore, I am afraid that I find this Amendment as unacceptable as the previous Amendment. I am sorry.

The Earl of ONSLOW

On the previous Amendment, the noble and learned Lord was saying that the Secretary of State might find things that had arisen on which he could impose planning permission which had not been dealt with in paragraph 8(1), 1 to 5. Surely, what this Amendment is doing is saying that if a private developer, a private builder, is building something and something arises in exactly the same way as was arising to the Secretary of State on his original imposition of conditions, the Secretary of State is allowed an "out-wriggle" but the private developer or private builder is not, even though his failure to comply with the planning condition may be not his fault and completely beyond his control. There is an element of truth in what I am saying. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be happy to contradict me.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

There is no parity between the two situations at all. Here we are considering a developer who has obtained planning permission to carry out a development on terms which are set out by the planning authority. He defies and breaches that condition and then when it is discovered he seeks a relaxation of the condition. Well, it is not "on". Planning control would disappear. If he finds himself in genuine difficulty, for instance on the time aspects, that is a circumstance where, if he goes straight to the authorities to apply for relaxation of the condition, it would be permissible. But a generality of permission of conduct of defiance of conditions would render planning control impossible.

Baroness YOUNG

I am not sure that we have had an answer to the point I raised. I quite see that it is possible for a developer to apply for relaxation of conditions; and that is quite right. I entirely accept that if a developer or owner has deliberately broken the planning conditions then of course that ought not to be accepted. We are speaking about an occasion when he may not have applied for a relaxation but nevertheless he has failed to comply with the planning conditions through something which has occurred in the meantime which could not have been foreseen and for which he could not have been blamed. It was with that particular situation that I was concerned. I cannot see that the question has been met. However, this is not a matter that I intend to press, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.14 a.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 148A:

Page 79, leave out lines 21 to 36 and insert— 10.—(1) A notice under paragraph 4 or 5 above stating that the authority intend to acquire the land shall be a local land charge. (2) If the authority subsequently serve a notice under paragraph 6 above stating that they have decided not to acquire the land, then, if they are not a local authority keeping a local land charges register, they shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, send a copy of the notice to every local authority keeping such a register whose area comprises any part of the land. 10A.—(1) In relation to any time before the coming into force of the Local Land Charges Act 1975, paragraph 10 above shall have effect subject to the following modifications.

(2) For sub-paragraph (1) there shall be substituted— (1) As soon as practicable after serving a notice under paragraph 4 or 5 above stating that they intend to acquire the land, the authority shall send a copy of the notice to the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority whose area comprises any part of the land; and as soon as practicable after receiving the copy of the notice, the proper officer shall register the notice in the local land charges register in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) the words "then, unless they are a local authority keeping a local land charges register" shall be omitted and for the words "every local authority keeping such a register" there shall be substituted the words "the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority".

(4) At the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph— (3) In this paragraph "local authority" does not include a county council or the Greater London Council.".

The noble and learned Lord said: This group of Amendments—and there are a considerable number of them—taken together simply take account of the fact that the Local Land Charges Bill, which is at present before Parliament, will make certain changes to the procedures concerning local land charges registers and that these changes will need to be reflected in this Bill. This situation has led to my putting down Amendments Nos. 148A, 148B, 181D, 181E, 183A, 183B, 185A, 185B, 187A and 187B. Dealing with them together will at least have the merit of clearing the decks a little, in view of the fact that we are already after the witching hour of midnight.

Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B make the changes needed in respect of notices served under Schedule 7 planning applications. Amendments Nos. 181D and 181E make the necessary changes in respect of disposal notification area resolutions under Schedule 8. Amendments Nos. 183A and 183B do the same for notices by the Secretary of State in respect of disposal notification areas under Schedule 8. Amendments Nos. 185A and 185B deal with the notices required on the termination of a disposal notification area. Amendment No. 187A deals with the transitional situation concerning DNA notices before the Local Land Charges Bill comes into force by replacing the existing provisions until that time. Finally, Amendment No. 187B is a consequential drafting Amendment.

There are several references in Schedules 7 and 8 to the Bill to notices being registered in the local land charges register. As the law now stands, the provisions in the Bill relating to the registration of notices in the local land charges register are standard provisions. However, when the Local Land Charges Bill which is at present in another place comes into force it will introduce technical changes affecting the registration of local land charges, which in turn will affect the drafting of this Bill. As it is not yet clear which of the two Bills will come into force first, it is prudent to make provision in this Bill to cover either eventuality, and this is what the Amendments do. If I may say so, there is nothing sinister in what is proposed. It is purely machinery for the registration of these matters in local land charges registers. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of all these Amendments. I feel sure he is correct in saying that we need not worry about them. It is bad enough having to consider one Bill without having to consider a second that interlocks with it! I am, therefore, most grateful for that explanation.

The Earl of BALFOUR

The Local Land Charges Bill is, strictly speaking, a Bill that deals only with England. I am wondering whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would consider providing for similar registration in the Register of Sasines in Scotland.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The registration of sasines is a most fascinating idea! I do not know whether the procedure for registering local land charges in Scotland is similar to that in England. It may be that the piece of paper that the Chief Whip has happily presented to me in the nick of time is the answer.

The Register of Sasines is solely a register of proprietoral or possessory rights; in other words, ownership. As these notices do not confer ownership, they cannot be so registered. We have provided for them to be registered in the planning register. At present, it is common practice in land transactions for searches to be made of planning registers —indeed, it would be an unwise conveyancing solicitor who did not do so—and these registers are freely available to the public for inspection. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Earl. If it does not, I do not know what the answer is.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.

12.20 a.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move Amendment No. 148B.

Amendment moved—

Page 79, line 38, leave out ("paragraph 10(1)") and insert ("that paragraph").—(The Lord Chancellor)

Lord MELCHETT

In moving Amendment No. 149 I will speak also to No. 151. These two drafting Amendments simply bring the wording in subparagraph (1) into line with the rest of the paragraph. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 4, after ("to") insert ("applications for")—(Lord Melchett)

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 150:

Page 80, line 4, leave out ("(for development of any description)") and insert ("for relevant development").

The noble Earl said: Here we are talking about planning permission for development of any description. I feel that we are still to a great extent dealing with planning applications for relevant development, and as we have been mostly dealing with relevant development in Schedule 7 I should like an explanation as to whether this covers all types of planning permission, or whether the relevant development under Schedule 1 and Clause 3 is also included. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

The reason for providing that authorities receiving planning applications should send copies of all such applications to the other authorities concerned is that each of the authorities has to decide whether or not the proposed development is relevant development, and thus whether they should seek to acquire the land. It is not sufficient, therefore, for the receiving authority to decide which application should be transmitted and which should not.

Paragraph 12(3) however, provides that the other authorities can direct that they do not wish to see all applications, and we expect that the LAMS will contain a provision that only relatively few copies will need to be sent in this way; that is to say, normally the ones where the other authority is likely to be interested in acquiring the land. As I take it the noble Earl was moving this as a probing Amendment, I hope that the explanation has satisfied him and that he will now withdraw his Amendment.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am still a little concerned about the householder, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 151.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 5, leave out ("granted in pursuance of an application").—(Lord Melchett.)

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 151A:

Page 80, line 12, at end insert— ("( ) An authority receiving an application for planning permission shall as soon as may be after receipt of the same notify the applicant and the owner in writing if that authority is not the authority specified in the relevant Land Acquisition and Management Scheme as the acquiring authority for the area to which the application relates and shall supply the name and address of such acquiring authority within one month.")

The noble Baroness said: This is a relatively small point, but it has been put to me that this kind of procedure would be a great convenience, particularly to some developers for housing. I hoped that it might be considered as something which would be helpful both to the local authority and to the prospective developer. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

Although authorities will have concurrent powers of acquisition under the scheme, in practice the land acquisition management scheme for an area will define at least in broad terms which authority is normally to be the acquiring authority. We also expect that authorities will make provision for the issuing notices under the scheme by one authority on behalf of the others, thus avoiding a multiplicity of notices being sent to the applicant. These and other matters will become public knowledge, as there is provision in sub-paragraph (5) of Schedule 5 for LAMS to be made available for public inspection.

In addition, the Department will be giving guidance to authorities on the way in which applicants for planning permission should be informed of the effect of the Bill, and this will include advice on the handling of applications, and the procedure for giving notices to require authorities to send out additional notices —as would the Amendment of the noble Baroness—specifying which authority was the acquiring authority, would not only give rise to a substantial increase in work, but would also give rise to considerable uncertainty. The vast majority of planning applications will not be concerned with relevant development, and there will be no question of the land being acquired, or the planning permissions being suspended. Therefore, it will not concern most applicants whether or not the authority receiving the application is the acquiring authority, and it may cause unnecessary alarm and despondency if applicants for planning permission are given this information when it is not strictly necessary.

Baroness YOUNG

I do not know that anybody would necessarily feel despondent if they had some information they did not feel was strictly necessary. At the end of the day, they might be glad to have had it. However, I am glad to have had the explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Permission before relevant date: applications on or after first appointed day]:

12.27 a.m.

Lord SANDFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 153: Page 19, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("or under the Act of 1971 or the Scottish Act of 1972").

The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment to confirm that this is something we want to see in the Bill. I will not press it now, because the noble Lord has already given an undertaking to look at this in respect of Clause 19. I imagine that assurance goes for Clause 20 as well. With that assurance I do not propose to move this Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 155: Page 20, line 1, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 2 and insert ("Where planning permission to which this section applies is granted before").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 en bloc. Clause 20 and Schedule 7 are based on the principle that where a planning permission is granted for relevant development, the authorities concerned should have the opportunity to consider acquisition of the land before the development covered by the permission is started. In the normal course of events it is expected that the decisions on acquisition and on the planning application will be made at the same time. But it could be that a decision not to acquire is made before the permission is granted: and where this happens there is no need for the suspension ever to take effect. But it is arguable that the Bill as drafted would bring about suspension m these circumstances.

The Amendments cure this flaw by re-drafting the wording of subsection (3) so that the suspension operates only where planning permission is granted before acquisition has taken place or before all the authorities have abandoned their power to purchase. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 156.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 3, at end insert ("it shall be suspended, when granted, until the end of that period").—(Lord Melchett.)

Clause 21 [Permission granted on or after relevant date]:

12.30 a.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 157:

Page 20, line 12, after ("subsection") insert ("(2A) or").

Page 20, line 12, at end insert— ("(2A) This subsection applies where—

1. (a) an authority make a compulsory purchase order as respects the land on which the relevant development covered by the permission will be carried out, and
2. (b) the Secretary of State serves notice on the authority that he does not intend to confirm the order as respects that land, and
3. (c) that notice contains a direction that this subsection shall apply.")

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will now move Amendments Nos. 157 and 158. These Amendments provide that where the Secretary of State decides not to confirm a compulsory purchase order made after the relevant date for designated relevant development—that is, when the full duty is in force—then the suspension of the planning permission covering that relevant development shall be lifted from the land in question if the Secretary of State so directs.

Once the full duty is in operation, authorities in an area will have to acquire between them all the land needed for designated relevant development. The exclusions from this duty set out in Clause 18(3) are deliberately very limited since the whole purpose of the Bill is that all land needed for relevant development should pass through public ownership. Therefore, any widely drawn exclusion is unacceptable in principle, though there might be very limited circumstances in which, even when the full duty is operating, the authority ought not to acquire land even when they consider it is needed for designated relevant development. For example, there could—true, very exceptionally—be a case where the Secretary of State might decide that when an authority made a compulsory purchase order, the owner of the land had made a special case—for example, on grounds of hardship—for saying that the development should go ahead without public ownership.

Therefore what is required here and what these Amendments provide is a very limited power to cover special situations and not a general provision of the kind proposed by the Opposition in their Amendment No. 121A. The Amendment, therefore, works by enabling the Secretary of State to remove the automatic suspension of planning permission where he refuses to confirm a compulsory purchase order. The procedure associated with an order will enable the Secretary of State to consider any special circumstances which might justify refusing to allow development to proceed without his confirming the order. Thus where the full duty is operating, relevant development without public acquisition can occur only after full consideration of all the issues. Given the principles of the land scheme, this must surely be the right approach.

The Earl of KINNOULL

May I put a question to the noble Baroness, because she did refer to Amendment No. 121A. It is a little late to be asking this question, but am I right in saying that the broad principle or the purpose of the Amendment the noble Baroness is moving is that it relaxes this duty under Clause 18, and that with the consent of the Secretary of State local authorities will not be bound always to purchase as a duty where it is in the interests of the local authority and of the owner not to do so?

Baroness BIRK

I think the point is that there may be limited circumstances, even when the full duty is operating, where the Secretary of State will intervene and decide that the owner of the land had made a special case. This is really in the interests of the owner of the land. I think the noble Earl will agree the point goes wider than Amendment No. 121A, and therefore gives, in the sense in which he was proposing No. 121A, rather more protection.

The Earl of KINNOULL

In that case I very much welcome it.

Baroness BIRK

I beg to move Amendments Nos. 162 and 164. I spoke to these Amendments on Amendment No. 6 at Clause 1.

Amendments moved—

Page 20, line 43, leave out from ("authority") to end of line.

Page 21, line 2, at end insert— ("(10) Any reference in this section to an authority of a given class means the authority of that class whose area includes the land.").—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Whether Clause 21, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SANDFORD

I wonder whether I could draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the note on subsection (6) of this clause. This is the note issued by her own Department, which has been so helpful to us. The comment reads: The giving of the certificate effectively lifts the suspension from the Planning Commissioner and enables the development to be carried out. However, the primary function of enforcing planning control rests with the district councils except where county matters are involved, in which case either the district council, after consultation with the county council, or the county council may act. Where the district council are not the acquiring or disposing authority they will not have issued the certificate. They will however wish to know whether or not a commission is still suspended, and the subsection therefore requires the disposing authority to send them a copy of the certificate. I think the Committee will see that that is a sensible provision. But it relies on the assertion that the primary function of enforcing planning control rests with the district councils—and so it does in most cases. But I think the noble Baroness will agree that it does not do so in the case of the 10 National Parks where development control is in the hands of the National Park committees, which are committees of county councils or, in the case of the Peak Park, is in the hands of the Peak Park Planning Board.

Therefore, would she agree that there should be provision for districts disposing of land in the National Parks (which they might easily be doing) and counties, too—six counties with territory in the else of the Peak Park—to be required to issue certificates to the National Park Committees and to the Peak Park Planning Board? If she could agree that an Amendment to provide accordingly was required, I should be happy. I much prefer that she did the drafting of it, because although the point is simple the drafting may be rather intricate.

Baroness BIRK

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is quite right, and he has made a valid point. In the case of a National Parks board, the planning control function rests with the board and not with the district council, so it is necessary to provide that where an authority, other than one of the boards, issues a certificate it shall send a copy of the certificate to the board. He will be pleased to hear that we propose to bring forward an Amendment on Report to try to put this right, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out this omission.

Lord SANDFORD

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She used the word "board" several times, which of course is right in so far as the Peak Park goes. I hope she means the National Park committees in respect of the other nine National Parks.

Baroness BIRK

Yes.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [Suspension of planning permission: supplemental]:

12.39 a.m.

Lord GRIDLEY moved Amendment No. 165A:

Page 21, line 13, after ("land") insert ("(unless the relevant development or part of it is utilised by an authority or its successor in title)")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved in the interests of the development industry. Clause 22(1) deals with the suspension of planning permission. This Amendment is designed to prevent this subsection—which enables local authorities to acquire development carried out while a planning consent is suspended at a price which disregards the value of the development—from applying in those cases in which the relevant development, or part of it, is subsequently utilised by the authority. Such an Amendment is obviously desirable on grounds of fairness to developers who might be affected in this way.

Lord MELCHETT

I am afraid I cannot accept that the Amendment is desirable on grounds of fairness. The provisions of Clause 22(1) to (5), are intended to provide a means of backing up the suspension of planning permission which is provided for in Clauses 19, 20 and 21. They do this by providing that development carried out on the basis of a suspended planning permission is to be treated in the same way as development carried out without planning permission for the purposes of the enforcement provisions of the planning Acts. Thus, any development actually carried out while permission was suspended will not be reflected in the price paid for the land if it is publicly acquired. These provisions are, of course, designed to provide an effective penalty where the suspension of planning permission achieved by the Bill is ignored. They do this by building on the enforcement provisions of the planning Acts. Development carried out without planning permission would not, at present, generally be reflected in the value of land on public acquisition, because the market would not necessarily pay for development which was within the scope of enforcement action.

It may be argued that it is wrong to provide a valuation penalty in the new situation created by suspended permissions under the Bill. In general, when local authorities enforce against development carried out without planning permission, it is because they are opposed to development of the land and they wish to see the offending development removed. This may also be true where development is carried out on the basis of a suspended planning permission; for instance, an authority may have granted permission for housing development which was not in itself objectionable on planning grounds, but they may have suspended the permission not with the intention of buying the land for the development in question, but in order to acquire the site for inclusion in a more comprehensive housing development.

Of course, an authority may suspend a planning permission and then acquire the land and make it available for development in accordance with the planning permission. In these circumstances, it might be argued, the authority would be benefiting from the development carried out in terms of the price that it gets for the site and it ought, therefore, to pay the developer for it. This argument would be based ona misunderstanding of the purpose of Clause 22. Clearly, if planning permissions are to be suspended there must be a credible sanction to prevent development being carried out on the basis of a suspended permission; otherwise, the whole purpose of suspension is lost, and it is that which the provisions in the clause are designed to achieve.

Lord GRIDLEY

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I assure him that we will study it very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.44 a.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 165:

Page 22, line 11, at end insert ("or (c) land where the material interest belonged to an industry before the 12th September 1974 and that industry is granted an industrial development certificate under section 67 of the Act of 1971 or 65 of the Scottish Act of 1972 for the further development of that industry").

The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will be aware that in many cases there are Government grants for industrial developments. Are they, too, to be held up for the same length of time as planning permission is suspended under the provisions of this Bill? I feel that these industries run a serious risk of losing the benefit of these grants, for in many cases they are payable only if the development is started before the end of the financial year, and it is in this context that industry could be extremely detrimentally affected.

Baroness BIRK

It appears to me that the Amendment is based on two premises: first, that industrial expansion generally ought to be encouraged and not impeded; secondly, in particular, that where an industrialist has prudently and in ignorance of the Government's intentions acquired land for his own future expansion before White Paper day, then he should normally be allowed to carry through the plans that he had made on this basis. We have discussed this on other Amendments so the Committee should be aware that the Government would not only entirely support both these premises, but would go further and say that any bona fide industrial development on land owned by an industrialist before White Paper day should normally be allowed to go ahead without public ownership, whether the development is for the use of the industrialist who owned the land on White Paper day, or for another industrialist. This further provision is necessary so as to ensure that an industrialist who, on White Paper day, owned a factory together with land for expansion should be able to sell to another industrialist with the benefit that development of land held on White Paper day would be excepted development.

However, the present Amendment is not the right way to achieve this policy. First, it works in a rather curious way. It removes industrial development on the land from the mechanism for suspending planning permissions, thus ensuring that the industrialist can obtain an unsuspended planning permission and be free to undertake the industrial development. But it does not remove such development from the full duty under Clause 18 once that has been introduced. So although the development could go ahead without public intention, an authority would still be under a duty to acquire the land where it was needed for relevant development. This could only lead to grave uncertainty, as I believe the noble Earl will agree, and is presumably not what the Amendment is intended to achieve.

Secondly, the restriction to cases where there is an industrial development certificate is undesirable. Small extensions do not, of course, need an industrial development certificate and would not, therefore, benefit under the Amendment. More important, industrial development certificates are not required in development areas. It was presumably not the intention of the noble Earl in drafting this Amendment to give a benefit to industry in the South-East and West Midlands, but not in Scotland. I do not feel he could possibly have meant to do that.

The Government's view is that the right way to achieve what is required is to include industrial development on land owned by an industrial undertaking on White Paper day within excepted development, and this proposal is included in Annex A to the document on the scope of the community land scheme setting out the content of the proposed regulations as it intends to do. I shall not take up the Committee's time by reading it out, as I presume the noble Earl has it. This will get over the problems I have mentioned and will ensure that the development can normally go ahead without public intervention. On the basis of this explanation and assurance, I feel sure that the noble Earl will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I should just like to ask the noble Baroness one question. She said that land which belonged to an industrial undertaking, and which was sold to another industrial undertaking after 12th September 1974, was also excluded from these provisions. On that point, I do not believe she is right, because that is surely a change of ownership and the new person acquiring the land would then apply for the planning permission. I should be very interested to know whether what she has said is correct, but I believe that there is a difference here.

Baroness BIRK

As I understand it, the further provision is necessary. That is the provision which I said we needed to ensure that an industrialist who owned a factory on White Paper day, together with land for expansion, should be able to sell to another industrialist with the benefit of the exclusion. With regard to the other question raised, concerning the timing of grants, this is not immediately connected with the suspension of planning permission, and I should like to consider this and write to the noble Earl.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Perhaps the noble Baroness would let me know about that. I should be very much obliged if she can let me know. The matter will obviously concern industry quite considerably, but I will not press it any further now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Disposal notification areas]:

12.52 a.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 167: Page 22, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to the arrangements established under section 16 above.")

The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 23 which contains one of the more pernicious provisions in this Bill which we dislike so much. At this stage, due to the fact that we have much ground to cover, it is our general intention to deal fairly gently with the clause as a whole, merely asking some questions here and there; with perhaps a little more in one or two places. But I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite will not assume that we are going to leave it at that. We are reserving our position for the next stage in the interests of making some progress tonight.

This Amendment is not very formidable. Its object is merely to ensure that the designation of disposal notification areas should be done in conformity with the land acquisition and management schemes. The terms of subsection (2) to which it refers are broadly drawn and do not confine any one authority in any way at all. It seems to us that where there is a land acquisition and management scheme the resolutions declaring disposal notification orders ought to con form to them. I should like at this stage to have an assurance from the noble Lord who is to answer that this is the Government's intention. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I think that I will be able to satisfy the noble Lord about this. The general intention behind the Amendment is broadly acceptable to the Government. LAMS must contain arrangements for the co-ordination of action by the authorities in each county area, and that is set out in Schedule 5, paragraph 3(1)(a). I do not know whether that alone is enough to satisfy the noble Lord. I can go into some considerable detail on the effects of his Amendment, if he wishes.

Lord SANDFORD

I do not think that there is any need to do that. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State will get these land acquisition and management schemes, and if, in the course of scrutinising them and, where necessary, revising them, he will give a sufficiently strong indication that the powers Ito be exercised under Clause 23(2) are to be exercised in accordance with the land acquisition and management scheme, that —speaking for myself—will be satisfactory. I beg leave to' withdraw, the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness YOUNG had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 167A: Page 22, line 22, at end insert ("provided that no dwelling-house occupied as such at the date of the resolution shall be included in any such area unless the occupier at that date has first given his consent in writing to such inclusion").

The noble Baroness said: In view of what I believe to be Amendment No. 185, a Government Amendment, which almost meets the point that I am raising here, I shall reserve any remarks that I want to make until we reach that Government Amendment. I therefore do not propose to move Amendment No. 167A.

12.57 a.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 167B. Page 22, line 22, at end insert ("provided that in the case of land on which there is at least one dwelling-house such resolution shall not be passed unless the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a)-(c) of section 12(1) of the Act of 1971 (publicity in connection with the preparation of plans) have in the opinion of the authority been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority.")

The noble Baroness said: As my noble friend Lord Sandford has already said, we on this side of the Committee find Clause 23 one of the most objectionable clauses in this Bill. It introduces a totally new concept, that of the disposal notification area, and, as is the case with so many of the things which we dislike, we know so little about the real reason for wanting to give local authorities these powers. The only reason that is given is that they may obtain information about disposals of development land in these areas. The idea of a disposal notification area is something which is quite new, and this is the only reason that is given for it.

Unlike a housing action area under the 1974 Housing Act, which is, I am told, one of the comparisons that may be made with it, where of course a great many reasons are given, virtually no reason is given in this Bill. Indeed, sweeping powers are given to local authorities. Subsection (2) says: An authority may pass a resolution declaring any land in their area to be a disposal notification area". We are not even given any limit on its size. So far as I can see, it could be the entire area of the authority, or just a very small area indeed. We simply do not know what is meant by it.

It therefore seems to us only right that there ought to be much more consultation about this, and not just the provisions which are written into Schedule 8 concerning the publication of notices about an area. On looking further at this, we believe that the provisions which are contained in Section 12 of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act would afford the kind of opportunity which would be helpful to people in the area by letting them know what is going on.

These provisions suggest, first, that there should be adequate publicity given to any relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area; and, secondly, that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity to make representations should be given an adequate opportunity to do so. These seem to me the kind of basic safeguards that ought to be written into such a clause as this. They are the kind of matters which I should have thought any Government interested in promoting public participation, and making public participation a reality, would accept.

It may well be argued that, because of a later Government Amendment which will, as I understand it, take out from a disposal notification area owner-occupiers, this Amendment is totally unnecessary. But, of course, the fact is that even if the owner-occupiers are not included in the disposal notification area, they will inevitably be affected by what goes on around them. So I do not think one can say that simply because their properties are not to be included they need not be consulted about what is to happen, and that therefore this Amendment is quite unnecessary, because I simply do not think that that is the case. We on this side of the Committee think very much that in order for there to be any public understanding at all about what this concept is to be, let alone any hope of making it work effectively, the local authority must carry members of the public with it, and if it is to do that it must go through the kind of procedure laid down in former Acts of Parliament. With that, I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in an appeasing mood, indicated that this Part of the Bill would be dealt with cursorily and gently, but he could not refrain from the adjectival attack in describing it as "pernicious", which does not sound exactly like a gesture of appeasement to me; and it is obvious that the process of attempted education which was undertaken in another place on the significance of disposal notification has to be re-attempted in the course of our deliberations on this clause. I understand that Amendment No. 167A was not moved and we shall probably return at some later stage to consideration of this. At the moment we are discussing only Amendment No. 167B and a consequential Amendment No. 181C.

Amendment No. 167B provides that an authority could not declare a disposal notification area which would include any dwelling house unless they had first carried out adequate public participation, as defined in the 1971 Act which deals with publicity in connection with the preparation of local plans. Schedule 8 to the Bill provides for the publication of a notice of a resolution declaring a disposal notification area and this, in itself, will enable all those with an interest in the area to know what is afoot. In view of the limited functions and purposes of the disposal notification area provisions which are primarily to enable an authority to safeguard the position in an area where they are considering an acquisition and the key purpose of which is to identify the land in a planning sense, in our view this publication of the notice of a resolution declaring a disposal notification area would bring the matter to the attention of the public.

Public participation on the lines specified in Section 12 of the 1971 Act is relevant only where there is some important decision to be taken either by the local authority or by the Secertary of State; but the declaration of a disposal notification area is not an important decision in that sense. It is simply a mechanical decision which follows from planning and acquisition decisions which will already have been made before there is any question of declaring a disposal notification area.

In the light of those facts and those circumstances, it is not felt that the procedures recommended under the 1971 Act would be appropriate in the circumstances of DNAs.

Baroness YOUNG

I was very surprised to hear that reply to my Amendment. To say that the publication of a notice as set out in Schedule 8 would be enough is to misunderstand entirely what people who are going to be affected by this would think. Then to go on and say that passing a resolution to declare an area to be a disposal notification area is not an important decision, I should have thought ran counter to all that the Government are saying: that this is an important provision in the Bill. If it is an important provision, it is obviously of importance to the people in the area who will find themselves in a disposal notification area.

The noble and learned Lord has said that it is only of limited function. I am bound to say that I am deeply suspicious of the limited function because it is easy

to see in effect how this could work. A local authority could declare an area a disposal notification area; and I am glad that the Government have seen fit to say that the owner-occupied houses in that area will be excluded from its provisions. Nevertheless, as soon as one is declared, every owner-occupier (although they are to be excluded) will immediately wonder what is afoot. As the noble and learned Lord said, the local authority are considering acquisitions in that area. The first move will be to unsettle everybody who may not have thought of moving at all. But they will now wonder whether the local authority are considering acquiring their property, although the Government have said that this will not be the case.

It is a kind of softening-up process. Should anybody doubt what I say, I recommend them to read an interesting document called The Hillingdon Experiment. I will not take up the Committee's time in reading some of the letters that have resulted, but clearly in that case the local council has taken to writing a sequence of letters to people asking whether they would sell property to the council, unsettling everybody in the area. Eventually somebody decides to sell. other neighbours follow, and the entire area is taken over.

It is misleading the Committee to suggest that this is a minor provision in the Bill about which we should not be concerned. It is an important provision. The Government regard it as important. Because they do, we regard it as important that the people affected should know what is going on. For that reason we request what we believe is a reasonable provision, that the application of the 1971 Act should apply and that people should be consulted before they find themselves in a disposal notification area.

1.7 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 167B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Balfour, E.	Cork and Orrery, E.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Belstead, L.	Cottesloe, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Campbell of Croy, L	Cowley, E.
Arbuthnott, V.	Carrington, L.	Crawshaw, L.
Atholl, D.	Clinton, L.	Cullen of Ashbourne, L
Auckland, L.	Colville of Culross, V.	de Clifford, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Sandford, L.
Digby, L.	Hylton, L.	Sandys, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Kindersley, L.	Savile, L.
Effingham, E.	Kinnaird, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Elles, B.	Kinnoull, E.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Elton. L.	Long, V.
Exeter, M.	Lyell, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Falmouth, V.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Stuart of Findhorn. V.
Ferrers, E.	Middleton, L.	Sudeley, L.
Gainford, L.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.	Swansea, L.
Greenway, L.	Monk Bretton, L.	Teviot, L.
Gridley, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]	Vickers, B.
Hanworth, V.		Vivian. L.
Harvington, L.	Newall, L.	Wise, L.
Hayter. L.	Nunburnholme, L	Yarborough, E.
Hereford, V.	Onslow, E.	Young, B.
Hives, L.	Ridley, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ardwick, L.	Gardiner, L.	Melchett, L.
Arwyn, L.	Goronwy-Roberts, L.	Morris of Kenwood, I
Bacon, B.	Greenwood of Rossendale, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Bernstein, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.	Paget of Northampton, L.
Beswick, L.	Hoy, L.	Peddie, L.
Birk, B.	Hughes, L.	Raglan, L.
Brown, L.	Jacques, L.	Segal, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Kirkhill, L.	Shackleton, L.
Castle, L.	Kissin, L.	Stedman. B.
Champion. L.	Leatherland, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Collison, L.	Llewelyn-Davies, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Crowther-Hunt, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]	White, B.
Cudlipp, L.		Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]
Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Willis, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Lyons of Brighton, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.(L. Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

1.16 a.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 167C: Page 22, line 22, at end insert ("Any area so declared shall not exceed 2 hectares in size").

The noble Baroness said: I put down this Amendment to see whether the Government can give any indication as to what size they think disposal notification areas are likely to be. It seems to me, as I said previously, that they could be the size of a whole authority, or they could be much smaller. I should like to know the Government's views on the matter, and I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

I take it that when the noble Baroness said she was putting down the Amendment in order to ask about these areas, she accepted that it was totally unrealistic to limit the size to an area as small as 2 hectares, or approximately 5 acres. There may be many cases where a wider area would be affected by a development or redevelopment programme. The purpose of having DNAs is to enable authorities to find out about impending private transactions in areas where they are considering acquisition. It would be ludicrous if an authority could apply these provisions only within a site of 2 hectares, even if they were contemplating the acquisition of, say, 10 hectares. This difficulty could, of course, be overcome by an authority declaring five DNAs of 2 hectares each; but this would nullify the Amendment, and if noble Lords opposite were to carry their point they would presumably want to try to stop up this loophole—assuming that it would be possible to draft a provision to achieve this. Secondly, the limitation of a disposal notification area in this way would limit the area within which owners had the benefit of the blight provisions in subsection (9).

The other principal reason for having disposal notification areas is to provide a way of protecting the interests of owners in an area where acquisition by an authority is imminent, by attracting the blight provisions. The Amendment would deprive some owners of such protection, for even if it were public knowledge that an authority were contemplating the acquisition of 10 hectares, they would be able to apply the DNA procedure to only 2 hectares, subject to the point about evasion of the Amendment made above. It would be grossly unfair if those owners with land within the 2-hectare area were able to invoke the blight provisions through subsection (9), while those owners with land outside the 2-hectare limit were not able to do so. Therefore, I think even the noble Baroness will agree that this is not a very viable Amendment.

Baroness YOUNG

I should like to have an answer to my question as to whether or not the Government believe that a disposal notification area could be the entire area of a local authority.

Baroness BIRK

No. As I understand it, it would never be the entire area of a local authority. The Government Amendments which I shall shortly be moving specify the areas that are reserved for dwelling-houses; but as far as the DNA is concerned, it would not be the whole of the authority's area.

Baroness YOUNG

Could it be the whole geographical area, except the dwelling-houses? And if it cannot be the whole area, where does the Bill say that it cannot be the whole area?

Baroness BIRK

As I understand it, the Secretary of State would not allow a whole area to be declared a DNA, because in any case we are discussing areas which would be ripe or ready for development to take place. The whole area of an authority could not possibly qualify for that. It would be quite impossible for this to happen on practical, geographical and every other ground. It just would not make sense.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

Is the noble Baroness saying that if a local authority sent under Schedule 8 a copy of a resolution declaring the whole of their area to be a DNA, apart from the dwelling-houses, what they would do would be to send a notification under paragraph 2(3)(b), excluding a great deal of the local authority's area? It would be as well if we knew what as a matter of policy the Secretary of State was going to do about that. Is that what he is going to do?

Baroness BIRK

They could send it forward, the Secretary of State would then examine it, and it is very unlikely that the whole area would he acceptable. They would have to be able to prove their case, so it is not a question of whole are as everywhere being DNAs.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

Is that right, that the local authority, therefore, will not only have to send a copy of the resolution, and a copy of the map under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 8, but also a full argued case why they want the area to be a DNA? It does not say so in the Bill. At the present moment, I have no idea what will go on behind the scenes. I do not suppose any of the public will ever find out what goes on behind the scenes, and we are going to set up this apparatus. It would be useful if the Government could tell us now.

Baroness BIRK

If the noble Viscount will read further along that same paragraph, he will see that the area declared to be a disposal area is no longer such an area, that some land can be excluded from the disposal notification area, and that the Secretary of State may require more time to consider the authority's resolution.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

That was exactly the point I drew to the noble Baroness's attention a few moments ago. I am now asking about paragraph 2(1). In addition to sending a copy of the resolution and of the map, has the local authority also to send a fully argued case? What she told us a moment ago is that if the Secretary of State received notification whereby the whole of the local authority's area, apart from dwelling-houses, was to be a DNA, he would be very unlikely to confirm it or fail to use his powers to modify it, unless the local authority put forward a very strong case. Will they have to argue this case? If they are to have to argue this case, the next thing I want to know is: are the public going to be allowed to see the argument?

Baroness BIRK

As the noble Viscount knows very well, the DNAs have to he examined against a planning background. Therefore, although it need not be a fully argued case at that stage, the Department will already have received a great deal of planning information and will have also received the planning programmes.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

It does not say that it will be dealt with against a planning background. Is this another piece of administrative advice? I am sorry if I am not following the noble Baroness very well. I do not think it says anywhere in the Bill that a DNA has to be based on a planning background. It may be that I have missed some statement that has been made somewhere, though I do not think I have. Can the noble Baroness tell us what the planning background is to be? Is it land that is allocated as an action area in a local plan? What sort of planning background has she in mind?

Baroness BIRK

If the noble Viscount will turn back to the original clause which we are discussing, Clause 23(1), it says: An authority may exercise the powers conferred by this section for the purpose of obtaining. information about disposals of development land", and all this lays the background for the development and the planning concepts. It does not actually spell out the details that the noble Viscount is asking for; it is true that those are not spelled out word by word in the Bill. As I understand it, the background will be spelled out in guidance which will emanate from the Bill itself.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I do not want to pursue this, but development land takes us back to Clause 17(4) —land needed for development, and relevant development, if I remember rightly, takes us back to land considered suitable by the local authority. So one does not have to have planning permission, or anything in the development plan, or anything in the structure plan, or anything in the local plan. All one has to have is an opinion by the local authority. That is not a planning background, so I do not think Clause 23(1) helps the noble Baroness on this point.

Can the noble Baroness tell us this? If the local authority are in certain circumstances—say, where they do not have a planning background already decided —going to have to satisfy the Secretary of State that there is good reason to set up a DNA, will the public be allowed to see the argument?

Baroness BIRK

Yes, as I understand it, they will. But what the noble Viscount is doing is taking out one part and, as he knows perfectly well, not putting it in the context of the whole Bill which is concerned both with acquisition and with positive planning. DNAs are a mechanism by which a private seller informs the local authority of his desire to sell whatever it is. This is a mechanism and certain things follow from it.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Am I right in saying that she has now confirmed that the public in the area will be able to see the submission that the local authority sends to the Secretary of State with the notification of the DNA? If so, will she please tell us how the public gets hold of it and where it is provided in any of the illustrative material? It is a very great advance. I am extremely grateful to her. Will she confirm that this is definitely so? And how do we get hold of it when one of these DNAs occurs?

Baroness BIRK

The noble Viscount knows perfectly well that they will have the opportunity to see the land and also the other planning procedures as the plans are being worked out and developed. They will not see this particular argument, but they will have the other information. This matter was dealt with in paragraph 13 of the Planning Background Paper, a copy of which was put in the Library of the House. This point was covered and it has, I am quite sure, come up before. Maybe the noble Viscount was not here at the time.

Baroness YOUNG

What started off to be, as I thought, a relatively straightforward question that the noble Baroness could answer, has obviously led to a great deal of other information which I think we find it most useful to have on the Record. It is obviously a matter to which we shall be returning on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.29 a.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 168: Page 22, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 28 and insert ("apply from").

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 have to be taken together. Once again I ask your Lordships just to consider what is being said in subsection (3) of Clause 23. This subsection reads: The resolution shall specify a date as the effective date for the disposal notification area, and that date shall not be earlier than—

1. (a) the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the passing of the resolution, or
2. (b) the first appointed day."

So far as I can see from the wording, it could be either at the end of the period of three months after the passing of the resolution or the first appointed day, whichever is the earlier. What I am seeking to do in my Amendment is to change it round.

If my words were accepted, this part would read as follows: The resolution shall specify a date as the effective date for the disposal notification area and that date shall apply from the end of the period of three months beginning with the passing of the resolution or the first appointed day, whichever is the later". I feel that people require a reasonable amount of warning. I feel also that as this part is drafted, it could be "whichever is the earlier". I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I do not think that it could. Taken together, the Amendments do not alter the substance of Clause 23(3), nor do they improve on the drafting which I am advised is quite clear and unambiguous as it stands. I am also advised that to say a date shall apply from another date is not English. It may be Scottish, but I am advised that it is not suitable language to include in the Bill. If the date is not earlier than either (a) or (b), it is quite unnecessary to add the words "whichever is the later". With that additional clarification, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw these Amendments.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Is it the Government's intention that if a resolution were passed by the local authority a disposal notification area could be brought in without any interval after the first appointed day? That is a question which I must ask.

Lord MELCHETT

I said that the noble Earl's Amendments did not alter the substance of the clause, so what he intends to achieve is already achieved in the Bill. I should have thought that would satisfy him.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I shall study this point carefully and will reserve the right to come back to it at Report stage if I am not satisfied. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie)

If Amendment No. 170A is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 170C, 170B, 170D or 170E.

1.34 a.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 170A: Page 22, line 34, leave out subsection (5).

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment which once again gives us an opportunity to find out what are the Government's intentions with regard to this clause. Presumably as they now intend to exclude owner-occupiers from it, this subsection will not apply to any owner-occupier. Does that mean that every other owner of land who is now in the disposal notification area has to notify the local authority of his intention to dispose of a piece of land? I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain this to us. I beg to move.

The LORDCHANCELLOR

The position of the owner-occupier is that owner-occupied houses are not totally excluded from the provisions of the clause. Owner-occupiers can give notice of intention to dispose of the property if they want, and they need not do so if they do not wish to do so. But from their point of view it could probably be the case that they would be well advised to do so from the point of view of their own interest and benefit. The machinery of disposal notification areas, so far from being a pestilential loss to those affected within the area, will benefit them in the various ways which perhaps before the morning is out we shall be able to explain.

There is clearly a failure of understanding of what the function of intention of the disposal notification area proposals are which we hope we will be able to put right before the night is out. As it stands, this Amendment is clearly a wrecking Amendment. The whole purpose of the clause is to enable authorities to publish information about intended disposal of development land within a disposal notification area, and the requirement as to notification is contained in this subsection. There are references to it in most of the other subsections to the clause. Without it the clause is meaningless. Naturally, this Amendment must be opposed, but we shall be coming back in greater detail to some of these general propositions I have just made before we part with all the Amendments.

Earl FERRERS

I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain one thing. If you are in a disposal notification area, and if you are the owner of a house, or the owner of a smallholding, or the owner of a small farm, and you wish to divest yourself of the ownership of that property and pass it on to your wife or to your son, are you not in fact disposing of a material interest? In that case, would you not be obliged to offer it to the local authority first before disposing of it to your son or to your wife?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

In that precise, limited disposition, from one member of the family to another, I do not know whether that would apply. I would like notice of that question. I do not know. We are thinking of a sale and a disposal which should be notified. A transfer of that kind I should not have thought was a disposal within the meaning of the provisions of the clause, but I should certainly like to look at it.

Earl FERRERS

The noble and learned Lord will, of course, appreciate that this is a very important point, because nowadays, where a disposal of interest to another party, or to another generation, involves liabilities to capital transfer tax and so forth, if a person is going to dispose of his interest he may wish to do so by passing it on. But if it so happens that his property falls within a DNA, if he has to offer the property first to the local authority, this will put severe limitations on his ability to pass on what is his own property.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

On that point, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might like, in his researches, to look at the definition of "disposition"—I know it is not quite the same word, but it comes from the same verb—in what used to be Section 99 of the Land Commission Act, because that I think covered the point that my noble friend raised. The effort of the last Labour Government at dealing with disposals and dispositions would deal with what my noble friend Lord Ferrers was afraid of. It may not be that the word can be interpreted in the same way as in this Bill, but there is at least a precedent for the use of a similar word to cover something that would probably be a gift.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I am bound to say that my thinking on this matter was that the Bill was concerned with the transfer for value, but if I am asked, What is the position of a transfer from husband to wife or from parent to the children?", or whatever, I should like to see what the implications are of that. I should not have thought that that was the kind of transaction that was contemplated, but I will look at the point.

What we are principally concerned with is the owner of property who is proposing to sell it, and we require him in those circumstances to give notification of it so that it may be acquired by the local authority for the saving of all concerned, giving to the owner of the property precisely the same amount of money as he would get from the ordinary sale which he was contemplating. But I will have a look at the point. I must say that it is a new one so far as I am concerned, but we will consider the relevance and the effect of a transfer not for value of the kind the noble Earl has mentioned.

Earl FERRERS

While I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will look at it again, he did say that he considered that on the whole this referred to the case where a property was sold; that was the intention. But one of the aspects of the Bill which causes concern is what is written in the Bill, and as it is written at the moment it seems that disposal of a material interest would seem to mean disposing of it by sale, or by passing it on to another. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will reconsider this. I hope that if we return to it at Report stage he will be able to give some very definite facts as to what this means.

Baroness YOUNG

Again, I am glad that I introduced this Amendment, which has provided this much-needed information. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord will look at this matter again. We shall, of course, be returning to this clause on Report, and if this matter is not covered we shall be putting down an Amendment on the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.42 a.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 170C: Page 22, line 35, after ("of") insert ("or acquire")

The noble Baroness said: Again, this Amendment is really to look at the other side of the question, at somebody wishing to acquire a material interest in a disposal notification area. Is this to be possible at all, or may no one acquire a material interest in a disposal notification area? If, as we have heard, this could be almost the whole area of an authority—not quite, because the Secretary of State would not approve thewhole area; but it could be a very large area—would this mean that no one could acquire a material interest in any land in that area? I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

These Amendments would provide for double notification of an impending land transaction within a disposal notification area, so that not only would a person intending to dispose of a material interest in land be required to give notice to the authority, but also a person intending to acquire a material interest in land would be undera similar statutory obligation. The Amendment is thought to be unnecessary, and would merely complicate the land scheme procedures. The purpose of enabling an authority to find out about impending private transactions in areas where they are considering acquisition—and that is the key matter, of course, in this domain—is fulfilled by notification from the vendor, since one of the purposes is to buy land at the time when the vendor is willing to sell. The blight provisions are not relevant to proposing to acquire land, and no further purpose is fulfilled by such notification. For that reason we oppose this Amendment.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

As a matter of fact I ought to declare my hand. I think I drafted Nos. 170C, D and E and they were all intended to go together. It was intended to be a relaxation whereby either the purchaser or the vendor could, if they wanted to, ask for the information to be given, whether or not the property was in the disposal notification area. Am I right in thinking that the purchaser will now be able to get the necessary information as a result of Amendment No. 181E, because when a solicitor puts in the local search he will find that the wretched thing turns up on it and he will go and find a house somewhere else?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like notice of that. I will come back to it in a moment.

Baroness YOUNG

This is a matter to which we can return on clause stand part. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 171: Page 23, line 1, leave out ("to (a)") and insert ("(a) to").

The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 171, and also speak to Amendments Nos. 174, 176 and 185.

These Amendments exempt from the requirement to notify an intended disposal of land in a disposal notification area, the case of the disposal of a private dwelling-house on a plot of up to one acre, which is the owner's only or main residence. The disposal can be notified voluntarily if the owner-occupier wishes. Amendments Nos. 171, 174 and 176 pave the way by adding to the existing exclusions from the notification requirements a new category of transactions which is set out in Schedule 8. Amendment No. 185 inserts a new Part HA to Schedule 8 which defines the type of disposals—that is, of owner-occupied houses on plots not exceeding one acre—to which the notification requirements need not apply.

Clause 23 enables an authority to declare any land in their area to be a disposal notification area. As the note on the clause explains, this is to enable them to obtain information about development land in an area in which they expect to be active in acquiring land under the scheme. As the note on the clause explains, one aim of disposal notification areas is to enable an authority to endeavour to buy land at an early stage, so that the cost to them is not increased by the building up of high base values for development land tax purposes. It should be emphasised that this does not mean that the original vendor gets less. He gets the same as he would have got, after tax, if he had sold privately. But the local authority benefit from cutting out the "middle man", because the original owner may well have a low base value for tax, whereas the middle man will be able to use as his base value the price that he pays to the original vendor.

At the same time, the declaration of a disposal notification area can be helpful to owners of land in an area where an authority are proposing to acquire, because it provides them with an opportunity, if the land is "blighted" and if they qualify within the terms of Section 192 of the 1971 Planning Act, to require the authority to purchase. If an owner does this the amount that he gets is protected, as in other blight situations, by Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1931, which provides that the compensation in circumstances of this kind is not to be reduced by the fact that values on the open market may be affected by the threat of compulsory purchase.

Now that substantial progress has been made with the drafting of the Development Land Tax Bill it is clear that it is unlikely to be any benefit to authorities, in terms of avoiding the building up of high base values, if they are informed of sales of owner-occupied houses which are the sole or main residence of the owner and which stand in up to one acre of ground. This arises because such sales are to be exempt from development land tax. At the came time it would not be right to take away from the owners of such houses the potential remedy for blight that is inherent in the declaration of a DNA. It is therefore proposed to exclude from the mandatory notification provisions the sale of such owner-occupied houses, but to leave the owners of such houses the option of notifying if they wish to do so. This will not only provide them with the opportunity of serving a blight notice if acquisition is intended, but also enable them to reassure a prospective purchaser where an authority does not wish to acquire, even though the property lies within a DNA, and serve a counter-notice accordingly in response to a disposal notification.

Amendment No. 185 to Schedule 8 defines the extent of the exemption from notification. It follows the proposed exemption from DLT as set out in draft Clause 12 of the DLT White Paper of August 1975 and covers, first, the disposals by an individual of a material interest in land which is the whole or part of his sole or main residence—material interest is defined in Clause 4 as being the freehold or a lease with seven years or more to run; and, secondly, the disposals by trustees of such an interest held in trust for a person who is entitled to occupy the house as his sole or main residence. The exemption extends not only to the house itself but to the garden or grounds occupied with the house up to an area which, including the house itself, does not exceed one acre. This, at least in part, answers the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

One of the main reasons for having the DNA procedure is to enable an authority to step in and buy undeveloped land, which is about to be sold, before a new owner establishes a high base value for DLT purposes. In the case of the owner-occupied houses covered by the Amendment, there would be no DLT payable anyway, so there would be no advantage to the authority in buying at that point in time. There is, therefore, no need for such sales to be notified under the DNA procedures, so these concessions should be welcomed by noble Lords opposite.

Baroness YOUNG

We welcome this concession and are grateful that it has come about. During these Committee proceedings, we have been criticised on a great many occasions for stirring up trouble—that is the way it has been but —but the fact remains that we were quite right to be apprehensive about the owner-occupier, particularly in disposal notification areas, and we are grateful that the Government have recognised this point and have moved this Amendment to exclude the owner-occupier, if he so wishes to be excluded, from the disposal notification procedure. It would be churlish of me not to say that we are glad that this concession has been made —somewhat late in the day, but nevertheless it is a concession—though I would not like to say that we are entirely satisfied with it. It has, as I say, come rather late and one has not had time to make all the inquiries and consultations that one would have wished.

For example, it seems to have an area which is now delimited by one acre which may just catch some houses and not others—those which may be just outside that area—and that is unfortunate, particularly as these DNAs could be very large areas indeed and could seriously affect a number of people. Further, it seems that the problem of blight will remain. Once a few people decide to sell to the local authority, not necessarily because they wish to leave their houses but because, for one reason or other, they feel that pressure is being put on them to sell to the local authority, we will soon find that the local authority, if it intends to redevelop, will let the property go. That is the first thing that happens and we get the spectacle of this all over towns where local authorities have acquired properties for redevelopment and do not do them up. Although one has the right to remain in one's house in a disposal notification area, in fact it becomes blighted simply because of the effect of the property around it.

I do not feel that the Government have met this point at all, so I cannot say that we are in any way satisfied with the provisions on the disposal notification areas. This, again, is a matter which we shall want to look up in the Official Report to see exactly what the noble Baroness has been saying in her explanation, because some of it was rather complicated and I should not wish to comment on it without having had the opportunity of studying it.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I am sure that it is very rash of me to comment on it, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness could tell us a little more, because, while I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lady Young has said and welcome the new Amendments which have been put down, I am interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, describe them as a concession. According to the enlightened view of DNAs held by those on the Government Benches, which is to be further explored by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is to tell us more of their glories in the hours before morning comes, I understood that they were wholly beneficial to all those who owned property within them.

The noble Baroness has said that there are advantages to two sets of people. First, there is an advantage to the local authority, in that somebody will not do something evil about increasing base values. I am sorry that, at the moment. I have not entirely followed how this would happen or what the effect would be, but the noble Baroness will tell us in a moment, because that is one of the things we need to know. The other type of person who will be greatly benefited by the disposal notification area and the process of finding out whether the authority is to buy the property is anybody who happens to own property in that area, because he will immediately be able to get rid of that property not to the person who actually wants to buy it, but to the local authority.

Dealing with the second point first, if the owner-occupier is to be given the option whether or not to reap the benefits of being in a DNA which have been so highly praised by noble Lords opposite, why is the same opportunity not being, given to everybody, whatever sort of property they own? Why is it that those who own, for instance, commercial or any other sort of property apart from a house which they happen themselves to live in, are not also given the option? I do not understand why, if this is considered to be suitable and to fit in with the benefits to the owners of property in DNAs, we do not have a general provision that the notification is optional. That is what the Amendment which I put down proposed to do, and it seems to me to be entirely in accord with the Government's Amendment No. 185C.

If, however, this cannot be done, what is the danger to the local authority that I touched on just now? It cannot relate to somebody who wishes to buy and sell commercial property in the ordinary way on the market, because if they do that they will do it at the market value and that will not run up the bill to the local authority at all. Is there some special sort of property transaction which the noble Baroness has in mind as being likely to go on in DNAs and nowhere else, which will specifically not be of the ordinary market type but will run up large bills which the local authority will have to pay in due course; and, if so, will the noble Baroness be so kind as to tell us how it works, because I am longing to know?

Baroness BIRK

The noble Viscount has raised a number of points. First, let me make it clear that, when I used the word "concession", I meant to try to undermine the fears which have been grossly over-expressed by the Opposition in another place and through the media. The situation has never been as they have described it. This is a wholly beneficial spelling out of the Bill, and it makes absolutely clear, without any doubt, the position of the owner-occupier in a disposal notification area.

There is no question of pressure from the local authority, to which the noble Baroness referred; I am talking now about the Government Amendments which I have been moving. It is an advantage from the point of view of both a vendor and a purchaser to know exactly what the situation is. The short and complete answer is that the owner-occupier is exempt from development land tax in any case, whether it is in a DNA or otherwise. Therefore, this fits in closely and neatly with that. In answer to the noble Viscount's question as to why it is such an advantage to a local authority to buy direct, I must say that I still have the feeling that I am continuing this rather needless seminar for him—

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I looked at paragraph 13 of the document to which she referred, and it was not particularly explicit on that point. I should like to ask her to continue, because I feel that I am not being quite as stupid as I thought I was.

Baroness BIRK

I should never suggest that the noble Viscount was stupid. But I should like to leave paragraph 13 for a moment and deal with the point he raised on the question of buying. Here I am going over what I explained in moving the Amendments. The difference to the local authority as regards benefit accruing to the community is where there is a question of buying direct from the vendor, or from a middle man in between. Perhaps it would help the noble Viscount if he would bear with me, while I give an example which might be helpful to him.

Let us suppose that A sells to B, and B pays £110,000, £80,000 of which goes as tax. Person A gets £30,000, and B then sells to the local authority and, if the market value is £120,000, then the base value is £121,000. There is no development land tax and there is no further value. The local authority would in this case have to pay £110,000, and so there would be no advantage to the local authority at all. It would not get anything net of tax, because there had been somebody in between buying it and selling it. If A sells direct to the local authority, he still gets the £30,000, but the local authority pays £110,000, and it does not have to pay the tax of £80,000. So far as the local authority is concerned, this is a much better way of buying, and the benefit then accrues largely to the locality. Those are the two ways of doing it.

As I have explained, where there is a middle man, there is no question of pressure, and anybody has a right to buy or sell in that way. But it is obviously to the benefit of the local authority if it wants to acquire a piece of development land to do so direct, if it is able. With regard to the notification, I understand from inquiries I have made personally that local authorities attach great importance to this, because it gives the people in the area the opportunity of knowing what the local authorities are doing, and it gives local authorities an opportunity of knowing what is going on.

It is completely voluntary, as the Amendments spell out, but—and I am sure the noble Viscount will recognise this now—it is to the advantage of both the vendor and the purchaser to give this information. But nobody is forcing them to do so at all. In fact, I should have thought it would make the transaction easier. It may be that it would cut down the work for lawyers, but it would certainly make it easier for the purchaser or the vendor.

2.5 a.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I am told by those who normally deal with conveyancing that the process is likely to hold that exercise up and make it even more lengthy than it normally is, and they are worried about it in that respect. I think we shall have to study this, but will the noble Baroness confirm this? In the example she gave we were plainly talking about land with a very substantial development value. We were not talking about the transfer of, say, an existing shop or garage, or of some small commercial premises, from one person to another. We must have been talking about an example where there was substantial development value; otherwise, those circumstances would not have arisen.

Is the answer not simply this, that the requirement to notify gives the local authority the opportunity to buy, in the way that the noble Baroness says, net of development land tax? There will in fact, either way, be no loss to the community because if they do not do it that way the community, through the Inland Revenue, will get the development tax the other way. So there will be absolutely no loss to the community as a whole, whichever way you do it. Is that not right?

Baroness BIRK

Yes, but I thought I said—and if I did not stress it I was quite aware of that point—the area or the local community. The noble Viscount is quite right and the community would get the benefit either way, whether it is spread over from the Inland Revenue or the local community. But since this is also tied up with the whole concept of positive planning and working out the structure of the local area, then it would be to the advantage of the local community as well.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

Yes, but in order that we may assess what we should do about this in future, the noble Baroness has very kindly confirmed that there will be no disbenefit to the community as a whole if we made all transactions of this sort optional. The only thing which would occur is that there could be a financial advantage to the local authority, which would then presumably result in a financial disadvantage to the Exchequer. That is the only shift which would occur in the circumstances we are talking about. I think the noble Baroness has been most helpful, and it seems to me to be an extremely powerful reason why we should make all these notifications voluntary.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I ask an occasional question tonight, because it helps to keep me awake. On the Amendment which she has moved so ably, I notice that the property of the dwelling-house is limited to one acre. This is an area which has always interested me. I have never understood why there should be this magical figure of one acre. Why can it not be the garden appropriate to the house? It seems illogical that we should be putting into this good Amendment this limitation of one acre. I hope the noble Baroness can give us a reason why it should be one acre. Someone very interested in market gardening may have one-and-a-half acres, or may be 0.8 of a hectare, and may therefore not be covered. It seems very irrational.

The other point I wanted to ask the noble Baroness is: does this new Amendment cover the absentee owner? Does it cover, again, the case where a member of the Armed Services is serving abroad and has let the house? Does it cover a member of the staff of the Foreign Office who is serving abroad and who has let the house? Again, I think this is a most important point. Finally, I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the definition in her Amendment, under "dwelling-house". That, it is said, includes part of a dwelling-house. Does it include a flat? I do not think a block of flats could necessarily be termed a dwelling-house. Would all those flats be covered under this definition? This is very important, for I am sure that it is the wish of the Government that they should be covered.

Baroness BIRK

The point about the one acre is that it is linked to the one acre which is free of development land tax. It is a question that I have myself put on many occasions. The noble Earl will find it in other similar legislation. So far as "dwelling house" is concerned, the definition certainly includes flats.

Going back to the point made by the noble Viscount, he is right in saying that there is a benefit only where there is a substantial development value. He is right, also, in saying that it goes over the whole community. This is a Community Land Bill and the point is that the cost of land to the local authorities should be reduced. The whole procedure of the Bill is angled through the local authorities. The owner-occupier should have the choice the Amendments offer. As the noble Viscount said, it does not make any difference so far as the benefit to the community as a whole is concerned. There is an incentive for local authorities to acquire without going through a middle-man in order that they can extend the benefit within their own area to the people in their own area. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also asked about temporary absentees. This would not matter if the house remained the absentee's only residence, or his or her main residence.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I do not wish to split hairs, but the noble Baroness referred to this one acre coming within the bounds of the development land tax. But we have not yet discussed that subject.

Baroness BIRK

We were discussing earlier the owner-occupier and the exemption of one acre. The noble Earl asked what it was tied to and, with great respect, I do not think that when he gets a correct answer he should reply that we have not yet discussed it. He may feel upset that we are not discussing them simultaneously, but he asked a question and got the right answer.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am not getting upset, and I hope that the noble Baroness is not getting upset. What I was going on to say when she intervened was that she had cited the development land tax, but that what we are discussing here is the exemption of the owner-occupier from the DNA. This has nothing to do with development land tax. The point I want to make is that if we have a house with 0.9 acre of garden the owner may or may not be able to use the benefit of this Amendment. If he has a property which has 1.1 acres of garden it seems to me that the exemption will not apply to the 0.1 acre. Can the noble Baroness answer that question?

Baroness BIRK

I can make the first point clearer by saying that because a house with up to one acre is exempt from development land tax, it means that by making it one acre in the DNA proposals as well, the local authority still do not lose any more. The position remains constant. So far as the other detailed points are concerned, to argue about whether it is just below or above an acre is analagous to saying that somebody is a little bit pregnant!

The Earl of KINNOULL

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the local authority would not lose any more. Frankly, I am not interested whether local authorities lose any more. I am interested in the owner-occupier and in this Amendment. Will the noble Baroness answer my question? I will give a better example. What happens in the case of an owner-occupier who perhaps has two acres of land? That position is not covered by the Amendment.

Baroness BIRK

It would not be covered because there would not be an exemption for tax. If the noble Earl wants me to read the relevant material again, as it is in the Amendment: "disposal" includes a contract for a disposal; "dwelling-house" includes part of a dwelling-house; an individual's "private residence" means land comprising a dwelling-house which, at the date of the disposal is that individual's only or main residence, and land which at that date he has for his own occupation and enjoyment with that dwelling-house as its garden or grounds up to an area which, when aggregated with the area of the site of the dwelling-house, does not exceed one acre.

Frankly, and as conscientiously as I can, I cannot take this point any further. I suggest the noble Earl waits to read it in Hansard. I appreciate that it is com plicated. I have said a great deal, but I do not think we will progress further because I can only give the same answer which I can assure him is correct. I suggest we stop now and he reads the details.

Lord SANDFORD

Since Command 6195 on the development land tax was published in August, we have known from draft Clause 12 that the financial gains accruing to an individual on the sale of his sole main residence, provided it did not exceed one acre, would be free of development land tax. We have known all along that the development land tax and the Community Land Bill were vitally linked, to use the Government's phrase. Therefore, I should have thought it was obvious that the buying net of development land tax, which is what local authorities will be able to do, would not have been of any advantage to local authorities in the case of the properties we are discussing.

It would have been absurd if these Amendments we are now receiving from the Government had not been incorporated into the Bill. What I think is regrettable is that we have not seen them sooner because we are now faced with this significant change in the Bill without the other place, which is responsible for financial affairs, having had any chance to discuss it either at Committee or Report, and with ourselves, who are not particularly responsible for financial affairs, left with little more than a week-end to consult the interests concerned about the merit and effect of what is being done. Clearly, it is a welcome development that there is such an Amendment, but it is leaving it extremely late and hardly gives us any chance to have any consultations; and the other place has had no chance whatever.

Baroness BIRK

I am going to take what the noble Lord has said as an expression of his gracious thanks for the Amendment.

Lord ELTON

May I ask for consideration to be given before the Report stage as to whether we are laying up for ourselves a great deal of unnecessary work in conversion by referring to "acres" instead of "hectares" in which most transactions will inevitably shortly be made?

2.20 a.m.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 173 and also speak to Amendments Nos. 184 and 186. All three are minor drafting amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 2, leave out ("which relates to all the land and") and insert ("for that disposal")—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 174. My noble and learned friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 171.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 5, leave out from ("(b)") to ("to") in line 7.—(Lord Melchett.)

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 175A: Page 23, line 9, leave out ("can") and insert ("shall").

The noble Earl said: This is a probing/ drafting Amendment. I say "drafting" with some hesitation; I am not happy with the word "shall". I am advised that the word "can" in this particular sub-paragraph is very ambiguous and not at all helpful. Knowing that the noble and learned Lord is particularly averse to any ambiguity in law, particularly when he is piloting a Bill through the Committee, I hope that he or his noble friends may consider what word should replace "can".

Lord MELCHETT

I hope that I can convince the noble Earl that we should keep "can" in the Bill. The noble Earl feels that the drafting would be improved by the replacement of "can" with "shall". As drafted, the subsection says that where there is a contract before the effective date, the notification requirement can apply to the conveyance. It will apply only if the conveyance is after the effective date. If this Amendment were made—in other words, if "can" were replaced by "shall"—the notification requirement shall apply to the conveyance; in other words, it will apply to it even if it is before the effective date. It thus would have undesirable results not wanted presumably by noble Lords opposite as well as on this side of the Committee. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful for that explanation, and I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

My noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 176 with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move Amendment No. 176.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 10, at end insert— ("or (c) to a disposal, of a contract for a disposal to any authority or to the Crown; and as respects any transaction to which Part HA of Schedule 8 to this Act applies notice may, but need not, be given under subsection (5) above.")—(Lord Melchett.)

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 177: Page 23, line 20, at end insert ("and if the authority do not wish to acquire they shall not be entitled to do so for five years but if they do wish to acquire then the authority shall be required to give notice to treat within four weeks")

The noble Earl said: Subsection (8) reads: The authority shall serve on a person who gives notice under subsection (5) above—

1. (a) a written acknowledgment of receipt stating the date of receipt, and
2. (b) not later than 4 weeks after that date of receipt, a counter-notice in the prescribed form stating whether or not the authority propose to purchase the land to which the notice relates…

Acknowledgment shall be as soon as practicable, and shall indicate that the counter-notice will follow. I seek to add these words: and if the authority do not wish to acquire they shall not be entitled to do so for five years but if they do wish to acquire then the authority shall be required to give notice to treat within four weeks". I do not think either of these provisions are anything outside the full capabilities of the authority. They know the disposal notification areas and are completely up to date on what is going on—if not, they should never have made the order in the first place. I think it is only reasonable that a person wishing to sell should have a firm decision from the authority in quite a short time, or if they decide not to do anything about it then they should be able to go ahead and do whatever they want. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

The DNA procedures do not give the authority a preemptive right to acquire the land. I know this is one of the misconceptions to which my noble and learned friend will want to refer, but perhaps I can stress that. The procedures give the authority no special rights to acquire land. If the authority 'do wish to buy it they must, in the absence of agreement with the vendor, make a compulsory purchase order and go through the usual confirmation procedures before being able to serve a notice to treat. We have been through the compulsory purchase orders at earlier stages of the Bill and as I told the noble Earl on the Amendment to Schedule 7, the process of going through the compulsory purchase order procedures will take a considerable time. Clearly this could not be done in four weeks, and indeed we were talking in terms of varying periods of up to twelve months. I think the noble Earl may have based his Amendment on the assumption that the DNA in some way gives the authority special powers to buy. It does not. They have to go through the compulsory purchase powers and the time limits—which we have already discussed at great length—which apply to compulsory purchase orders should apply in the usual way.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Perhaps I might draw attention to paragraph (d) of the next Amendment, No. 178, to save time. What happens where land is gifted from one person to another? Does that have to go through the same notification as everything else?

Lord MELCHETT

I should be grateful if the noble Earl would stick to Amendment No. 177 and deal with No. 178 when we get to it.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Very well; then I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.28 a.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 178:

Page 23, line 20, at end insert— ( ) Where a person serves notice on the authority in accordance with subsection (5) above, nothing in this section shall permit that authority

1. (a) to have any right of pre-emption on that land, or
2. (b) to obtain that land at a lower price than the highest price offered, or
381
3. (c) to vary the conditions of sale, or
4. (d) to acquire that land where it is gifted, except by that authority obtaining a compulsory purchase order".

The noble Earl said: I think to some extent this point has been partially answered. This is where a person serves notice on the authority in accordance with subsection (5) to ensure that, …nothing in this section shall permit that authority (a) to have any right of pre-emption on that land"— that has already been explained— (b) to obtain that land at a lower price than the highest price offered. A very common way of selling land is to give a local authority first refusal on certain occasions. What I am much more concerned about is that the local authority, with its extremely wide powers under the Bill, should not have the power to vary the conditions of sale, as, for example, if a person sells a building with the condition that that building shall not be used for licensed premises or some purpose like that. Often conditions of sale are put in, and I do not see why a local authority should be treated any differently from anybody else. The last point is: what is the position where a house or a building has been gifted from one person to another, or perhaps even inherited? How does one stand in that case on the question of notification? I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

These Amendments bring together a number of misconceptions about the disposal notice area provisions. It may be that some of the misconceptions have been dispelled in the discussion, but the fact that the noble Earl still has them makes it necessary for me to deal with them. The Amendment would provide, as the noble Earl has said, that where there was a notification tinder subsection (5) this would not enable the authority concerned, first, to have any right of pre-emption on the land; secondly, to obtain that land at a lower price than the highest price offered; thirdly, to vary the conditions of sale and, finally, to acquire that land where it is gifted except by that authority obtaining a compulsory purchase order.

These Amendments are based on a misunderstanding. Amendment No. 180 would provide that an authority acquiring land under this clause should serve a notice on all adjoining holders. That is another misconception, as I hope I shall be able to explain, which I will deal with. Another Amendment talks of land being acquired. I cannot emphasise too strongly that a disposal notification area is simply a way of enabling authorities to learn of private transactions in an area where they are proposing to acquire anyway. If there is a notification and the authority wish to acquire, it would be for them to negotiate with the owner. Presumably he will be willing to sell by agreement as he was putting the land on the market anyway. But in case of difficulty the authority could make a compulsory purchase order.

It follows from what I have said that the points in Amendment No. 178 are misconceived. I will take them in the order in which they are set out in the Amendment—and I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not here now. First of all, on paragraph (a), the clause does not give an authority any right of pre-emption. This was indicated clearly in another place, and we are really traversing ground that has been threshed over hour after hour in another place—and it is our right to do so here, of course, even at this hour. But the clause, as I have said, does not give an authority any right of pre-emption.

As it was put by my right honourable friend in another place, the purpose of having a DNA is not to give the authority a pre-empted right of the sort that is part of the law of Sweden. He believed it to be wrong and unnecessary, and that it would cause the greatest possible difficulty and anxiety. It follows from this that the authority are not in any sense attempting to step into the private transaction that might otherwise have taken place.

This head in the Amendment clearly assumes that the private transaction will have already reached an advanced stage so that the owner has already received offers on the basis of a private sale. We would not expect the procedure to work in this way. The clause does not require a vendor to have any particular disposal in mind. No doubt, therefore, owners of land in a DNA would serve notification at an early stage, and would go to the trouble and expense of attempting to find a private buyer only when they had found out whether or not the authority would be seeking to purchase.

When one comes to paragraph (c) in the Amendment—whether the authority could vary the conditions of sale—the same applies. This head assumes that there would already be a private sale and that the local authority would be stepping into the shoes of a prospective purchaser who would have reached agreement with the vendor. That is not so. Paragraph (d) assumes that a disposal notification area, and this machinery under it, is a new method of acquiring land. It is nothing of the kind. As was indicated by my noble friend Lady Birk a few minutes ago, it is simply a way of identifying intended private transactions, so that the authority may seek to purchase the land direct from the original owner rather than from somebody who has bought the land from that owner. If the original owner is unwilling to sell to the authority, which seems unlikely in practice as he is intending to put the land on the market in any case, there will have to be a compulsory purchase order, with all the procedures that arise from that.

To sum up the matter, a disposal notification area is a far more limited operation than the noble Earl appears to assume. Having heard him, I see now why his view of the matter is worrying him. I have to repeat that it is a misconceived view. The DNA machinery is simply a way to find out about intended disposals of land. It does not create a new acquisition procedure, nor does it create any right of pre-emption of the kind that exists in other countries—indeed, of the kind that is included in the recent French proposals relating to land. Where an authority want to buy land following a notification, they will have to negotiate or make a compulsory purchase order, as appropriate. The amount that they pay will then be settled in accordance with the compensation code in the normal way. Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and the equivalent Scottish provision ensure that the price will not be depressed by the fact that the land is in a DNA.

Now that the true nature of this machinery has been explained, I hope that not only will the noble Earl be disposed to withdraw these Amendments, but that the misconceptions which his Amendments have highlighted and which have been manifested in other discussions on this procedure will have served a useful purpose in enabling anxieties to be dispelled.

Earl FERRERS

The noble and learned Lord has tried to persuade us that there is nothing to worry about in these DNAs. He has said that this has been threshed out hour after hour and I hesitate to thresh it out, even for a few minutes longer. However, I am bound to say that I am worried about one thing. The noble and learned Lord said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that there is no right by the local authority of pre-emption of the land in the DNA. However, if you wish to sell a property which is in a DNA and you enter into negotiations with a person to sell it, you are obliged to let the local authority know of your intended sale. Under Clause 23(8)(b), the authority lets you know whether they propose to purchase the land. If they propose to do that, presumably they have the right of purchase over and above the sale which you would have under normal treaty. Surely that gives them the right of pre-emption?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

The local authority would give an indication in those circumstances whether they wished to buy the land in any event, and that would be the nature of their intervention.

Earl FERRERS

Yes, but surely that means the original sale you were intending to undertake would not come about; in other words, the local authority therefore has the right of purchase.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

If the vendor was not prepared to sell to it, the local authority needing to acquire, and deciding to acquire that land would intervene by compulsory purchase procedures, and that would be an exercise of the powers of the local authority to acquire land by means of compulsory purchase procedures. The vendor would get the same price as he would have wished to sell to the purchaser in the normal course of events.

Earl FERRERS

If I could put it down to an example—which, of course, is always a tricky thing to do—if I had a house to sell and asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he would purchase it, and he agreed to purchase for a sum of, say, £20,000, then if it was in a DNA I should be obliged to let the local authority know. If the local authority said, "Ah, that is a house which we would wish to purchase", they would give one notice under (8)(b) that they intended to purchase, in which case the noble and learned Lord would say, "Well, if they want to purchase it, I am dropping out". In that case, the local authority must surely purchase it, in which case they have the right of preemption.

The Earl of KINNOULL

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his interesting comments just now that we were under a grave misconception on the whole principle of the DNA. It seems from what has flowed tonight—not before, but tonight—that the real reason and purpose of the DNAs is not what I had originally thought, which was for housing. Of course, we have now exempted the owner-occupier of a house, and he will not come within the DNA. It must be for some redevelopment areas, or for some grey areas which require the specific overall control of the authority. The noble and learned Lord said that this would be a limited power, as, indeed, has been said on many occasions in another place. But, as my noble friend said earlier, there is nothing to say why it should be a limited power. There is no indication other than the good offices of the noble and learned Lord to advise us that it should be a limited power. I wonder whether before Report he could look at this again, and identify the real purpose of the DNA, which is confusing. What is the purpose? It surely cannot be just a taxation purpose to assist local authorities, as the noble Baroness said on one occasion. What is the real purpose? Is it for development areas, or for housing action areas?

2.44 a.m.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I say this with no disrespect to the noble Earl, but perhaps reading tomorrow morning the Report of what I have just said will help to answer the dilemma which is clearly troubling him. The DNA procedure is modelled, at any rate to some extent, on that used for housing action areas under the 1974 Housing Act, and the factor which is really relevant is this. As the title of "disposal notification area" implies, the machinery is primarily concerned with ensuring that authorities are informed of prospective sales in an area in which they expect to be particularly active, and where they expect and intend that development should take place. There is nothing in the provisions enabling an authority to prevent an intended transaction taking place. In the illustration that was given earlier, the vendor need not sell to the local authority unless he wants to. But if the local authority wants to acquire the land in those circumstances it will have to make a compulsory purchase acquisition of it and the provisions regarding that would take effect.

The main need for the machinery arises from the arrangements by which authorities will be buying land net of development tax during the transitional period, and that, I think, was explained by my noble friend earlier. By identifying prospective private transactions, authorities will be able to step in and buy before high base values have been established. This does not affect the net amount which the prospective vendor will receive from his sale; the price which he will receive will be the same whether he sells to the authority or to someone else. So far as the vendor is concerned, his benefit from the transaction remains precisely the same.

Furthermore, DNAs in no way affect the rights of objection to a compulsory purchase order; nor do they affect the price that an authority will pay for the land it will acquire. That is governed by the provisions of Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which makes it clear that no account is to be taken of any depreciation in value attributable to possible compulsory acquisition. This is pure machinery. It is not, in view of the safeguards that are contained in the scheme, damaging to owners in the area. On the contrary, given the existence of the scheme when in operation, it will be beneficial to them.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry to press this point, but he said it is not damaging to the owners in the area. I know we shall be coming on to blight. That is surely not an argument he can put forward with any great weight. One of the great concerns in this whole DNA procedure is the blight problem, and surely one cannot say, even at ten to three in the morning, that it will have no damaging effect on those owners in the area; of course it will. We understand the machinery, but what is the kind of area which is to be acquired? Is it redevelopment land? Is it housing action areas'? What is the purpose of it?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

It is the areas, as has been said several times, where development is to take place within the period that is indicated. If the noble Earl desires me to discuss the blight situation and its impact on this, perhaps we can discuss it at another time; indeed, we will very soon come to it. I do not want to blight the argument in advance.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I should like to ask one further question before we leave this point. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for having joined me. If I have a factory and decide to give it to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, am I liable to a fine of £400 under subsection (10) if I do not notify the local authority that I have done so?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

We said earlier that we were looking into transactions about value, and it is an interesting point. No doubt the noble Earl hopes that the mood of generosity indicated in the hypothetical illustration will not remain merely hypothetical.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am glad that it is being looked at. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

I have to point out before I call Amendment No. 178A that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 178C.

2.51 a.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 178A: Page 23, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("is in a disposal notification area.")

The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment, because I think the moment has come, or will come when we discuss whether this clause or Schedule 8 should stand part, to get from noble Lords opposite a run-down on the people who will qualify under this Bill to serve a blight notice. Noble Lords may prefer to take this occasion to receive notice from me that we should like to have this information when we discuss clause stand part, unless they are ready to give it straight away.

This is the point in the Bill where it is stated in subsection (9) that people within the area of a DNA will qualify to serve blight notices. That is one category. In Clause 22(6) it seems to me there is a subsection covering all those people who, under Clauses 20 and 21, have their planning permissions suspended. They can also serve blight notices. Earlier on, in Clauses 17 and 18 and Schedule 3, we were dealing with the rolling programmes, and my understanding is that anybody with property falling within the areas covered by the rolling programmes can also serve blight notices. At some stage, either now or when we discuss Clause 23 stand part, or Schedule 8, I should like confirmation that I am right in supposing that all those categories of people will qualify to serve blight notices in those circumstances. Perhaps at this stage one of the noble Lords opposite would like to say at what point it will be convenient for them to give us that confirmation.

Lord MELCHETT

Maybe I could deal with the position of the owner-occupier, which arises specifically on the Amendment. It might be convenient to deal with the other points on Clause 23 stand part, if they have not arisen on a previous Amendment. I gather that there are some Amendments before then which will be dealing with blight.

The Amendment to which the noble Lord has spoken is unnecessary, because the provision that it seeks to replace already provides the owner-occupier with a clear right to the blight provisions of the 1971 Act. All he or she has to do is serve a disposal notification on the authority. If the authority reply that they do not intend to acquire, the blight is lifted. In other words, the owner-occupier can serve a blight notice requiring the authority to acquire the land in advance.

Lord SANDFORD

I think I explained that this was a probing Amendment. The noble Lord's remarks would have represented an interesting and helpful answer if I had indicated that I intended to press it. The noble Lord knows what we are after now in moving this Amendment, and I will wait until we come to the clause stand part. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.56 a.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 178C: Page 23, line 29, at end insert ("and as if an interest qualifies for protection notwithstanding its failure to comply with section 192(4) of the Act of 1971 or section 181(4) of the Scottish Act of 1972").

The noble Viscount said: This is a narrow point on blight notices, but I should be grateful if the Government would consider it, because the way in which blight notice legislation has grown up is in danger of leaving us, at any rate in this part of the Bill, in a ridiculous situation. One would have thought, to hear the discussion so far, that anybody with property in an area of this kind would be able to serve a blight notice if he discovered that the local authority wished to buy his property, but of course this is not so because there are limitations on the scope of blight notices, one of which is a rateable value limitation. If one's property has a rateable value above £2,250—I think that is the figure —one cannot serve a blight notice at all and I suggest that in some of our larger cities comparatively modest commercial properties have rateable values above that figure.

The problem is comparatively simple and I hope my Amendment will go some way towards curing it. Supposing one has a reasonably sized commercial property—say, a garage or small industrial works; probably a non-confirming user—just the sort of thing a local authority would like to buy for the purposes of redevelopment. Perhaps one wishes to sell it; because one is old and wishes to retire, or one is moving to another part of the country, or, because of the present Government, one wishes to emigrate. One then serves the disposal notification on the local authority, who reply, "Yes, we will be delighted to buy your property. It is just the sort of thing we want. "But then, unfortunately, nothing happens; the local authority do not get in touch with one's solicitor, they make no move whatever, they have said they want to buy but unfortunately they do not have any money. In that situation there is absolutely no recourse. One cannot serve a blight notice because one is disqualified by one's rateable value and, of course, nobody else on earth will buy it. One is therefore left with property one wishes to sell but which, as a result of the intervention of the local authority, one cannot sell except to them, and as a result of the inactivity of the local authority one cannot sell to them.

These are the circumstances which, if the disposal notification areas are to be found by the great British public to be as beneficial as we are told, should not be allowed to continue. Whether or not it is right to retain this sort of artificial limitations, which are a matter of history now, for other sorts of blight notice, I suggest that the only course of consistency open to the Government, if they really believe in their disposal notification areas, is to make a change and allow the blight notification procedure to apply to everybody who falls within it. This has nothing whatever to do with people who wish to develop, with middle men, with tax, with anything. It is a question of bringing pure and simple justice to people whose land is locked up by the operation of this scheme, and I hope the Government will be sympathetic over this.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Would my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross agree that with commercial property it is not only the rateable value limit but also whether it is occupied?

Lord MELCHETT

As the noble Viscount says, the blight does not apply to everybody and there are limitations. These categories are designed to protect those who suffer the greatest hardship from blight—in other words, the residential owner-occupier who needs to sell his or her house because he or she has to move to another area. As I understand it, it has always been accepted up to now that the protection of the blight provisions should not be extended to other categories —for example, the absentee landlord—which are not affected to the same extent by blight. The noble Viscount said that these provisions were very much a matter of history. I know how unpopular it is if one mentions Acts passed by previous Administrations, but since he did say that this was a matter of history, may I remind him that it is very recent history? —because the categories could have been extended in the Land Compensation Act 1973, Part V of which contained a number of important provisions concerning blight. So history it may be, but it is recent history.

I am glad that we did not have the argument about DNAs lowering values generally because, as the noble Viscount knows, the Land Compensation Act 1961 quite specifically covered that point. I believe that the only issue at stake is, therefore, whether landowners who are outside the present blight categories should be able to force an authority to acquire in advance of requirements. We cannot accept that there is any justification for extending the blight categories generally; still less would it be acceptable to do so only in disposal notification areas, as the Amendment proposes. There is no difference between blight in a DNA and blight arising in any other case outside a DNA which could possibly justify such an anomalous distinction being made. The blight provisions should continue to apply uniformly through the country. I have to tell the noble Viscount that his Amendment, although it may, as he said, seek to make matters fairer, is not acceptable.

There is one further point which I might make about disposal notification areas and which may still not be entirely clear. These are, as my noble and learned friend said, areas where the local authorities expect to be active in buying land for development. It have no doubt that that is something which the Secretary of State will consider when proposals for a disposal notification area come before him. So I believe that the likelihood of the local authority not being in a position to buy when the owner wants it to is small. What it is doing here is going into an area which it wants to develop and, to make things easier both from its point of view and from that of the owners of land in the area, it will announce that the area is one where it intends to buy most and possibly all the land for a development scheme and that it is letting everybody know by making a disposal notification area so that, when somebody intends to sell of his own volition, it can step in at that stage and buy the land, which it would anyhow have bought for the development scheme in question.

I believe that the noble Viscount's hypothesis that this could well leave people unable to sell their land is, given the context in which disposal notification areas will work, unlikely. I repeat that we have a general objection to altering the blight provisions specifically to deal with this particular area.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULCROSS

The noble Lord has a touching faith in local authorities which I, who have had to deal with blight notices, am unfortunately unable to share. It just does not work like that. There are all sorts of reasons why, though it may have the best intentions in the world, a local authority cannot summon up enough money or energy or something actually to get on with buying. I believe the noble Lord said that the affect of my Amendment would be to make the procedure more fair—

Lord MELCHETT

I did not. I said I thought that that might have been the noble Viscount's intention.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULCROSS

I thought that that was what the noble Lord said, and I an now going to ask him why he thinks it would not make it more fair, because I explained that it would apply the benefits of the DNA to everyone, without any exception at all. The noble Lord, with a certain characteristic choice of the people to whom his remarks might be suitable, mentioned absentee landlords. Of course the noble Lord is right that it would not do for absentee landlords, but why not deal with the case which I put forward—that of the owner of a reasonably sized commercial premises who wants for some reason to sell and move out? Why not face up to that? Surely it would be fair for that man to have his property bought from him as a result of one of the benefits of a disposal notification area. The noble Lord must admit that that would be fair and all I am doing is trying to get the Government to do something about it. The noble Lord could have got out of it in another way, but he did not.

Are the Government not even prepared to consider the limitations on blight notices in general? Are they simply saying that because at one stage it was so ordained that there was to be a rateable value and owner-occupiers were to be in a special category, therefore this must be the same for ever? The noble Lord said that we had an opportunity to do it in 1973; and so we did. Have the Labour Government set their faces against ever doing anything about it themselves. Are they not prepared to consider it? Is the noble Lord simply going to sit there and allow us to say that something which is totally unfair will be perpetuated for ever? Is he not going to make any positive contribution to this at all? Is he simply going to sit there and allow this injustice to go ahead? I invite the noble Lord to be a little more constructive about this.

Lord MELCHETT

That really is getting a little over-excited, if I may say so, even if it is a little late at night and the noble Viscount wants to wake everybody up. I said that the categories are designed to protect those who suffer the greatest hardship. That is what they have been designed to do since they were introduced, as I understand it. That is what they were designed to do in 1973 when the noble Viscount's Party left them as they were. At the present moment we see no general reason for altering these general categories, and that is the position. If the noble Viscount wants to be personal and rude about it and say that I am sitting here and doing nothing about it, he is, of course, at liberty to conduct the debate in that way.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

The noble Lord knows very well that I did not mean anything personal. I was addressing him as the embodiment of the whole wisdom of his Front Bench.

The Duke of ATHOLL

Surely it could be argued that the people suffering the greatest hardship are those who happen to own a business—say, a small or medium-sized hotel—in which they have invested all their money, and which just happens to go over the limit of £2,250 rateable value. Such people have a very appreciable sum of money—probably a large bank overdraft—bound up in this property. Like my noble friend, I have had, I think, two occasions when I have tried to persuade a local authority to act on grounds of blight. Unless the local authority acts, there is very little hope of getting one's money out. Therefore, I should have thought that it was only fair that, so far as these development areas are concerned, the rateable value limitation should either be increased or done away with completely. I support my noble friend in his Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

Neither the noble Duke nor the noble Viscount have dealt with my general point about the purpose of disposal notification areas. These are areas where the authorities have announced that they are going to have a disposal notification area merely because they intend to be buying a great deal of the property in that area for the purposes of development. If they do not want to buy the property, then of course blight does not arise. As the local authority has made its disposal notification area merely because it wants to buy a lot of the property for development, not only do we see no general case for altering the blight categories, but it might well be said (were one wanting to make a meal out of this which, of course, I do not) that there is even less of a case in DNAs for extending blight categories than there is anywhere else.

The Duke of ATHOLL

If the noble Lord has this great faith in local authorities, why will he not accept this Amendment? It is not going to make any practical difference. My noble friend and I have had personal experience where the local authorities have not come up to scratch in the way that the noble Lord appears to think they always do.

Lord MELCHETT

I dealt with that point in my original reply, and I said that we do not feel that there would be any justification for making the blight provisions different for this one particular area.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I should like to support whole heartedly my noble friend. Indeed, I think that the answer we have been given so far has been so poor that I hope my noble friend will consider taking this matter further. The case seems to me to be really on one issue; namely, does the DNA produce special blight situations? In my submission to the Committee, it does. I do not think I have heard anyone who does not agree that the DNA situations which we see in this Bill produce, not untouchable blight but blight of a very wide nature. It is very sad that on an occasion like this, when one knows that the existing blight provisions are far too narrow, and when there is a general movement to try to get them improved, the noble Lord cannot take this opportunity to improve them.

Lord MELCHETT

I am fascinated to hear that there is a general movement to get them improved. It may be that the noble Viscount, the noble Earl and the noble Duke can tell me whether this general movement was in existence two years ago, when the Land Compensation Act was passed, what part they played in the general movement at that time and what the response of the then Government was to this general movement.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

One of the answers to that question is that the Government which were in power at that time mercifully had not thought of a thing called the Community Land Bill and disposal notification areas under it. Had we done so, I suspect that we might have been prepared to rethink the question of limitations on blight. However, fortunately, the question would not have arisen.

I am afraid that the noble Lord has been wholly obdurate in this. I can understand when he says he does not particularly welcome the opportunity to pick out this kind of blight and treat it on its own, but he gives absolutely no indication that he recognises there to be any problem at all. I think the noble Lord will find, if he asks his advisers, that there are hard cases where local authorities have failed to buy and where the blight notice provisions are excluded. The noble Lord nods his head, and I am glad he accepts that, because I can assure him that it is so.

I would have expected the Government, in response to this, to say very much what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about costs a little while

ago. He said he recognised that there was a general problem (or, rather, that his honourable friend the Minister had already done so in another place and he was repeating it) and that they wanted to look at it. But not so. The noble Lord says, "No, this is not the time. We are not prepared to do anything about it". I am going to send this back, with a bit of luck, to another place to see if they can.

Lord MELCHETT

It may be that I can make it absolutely clear. Of course any Government would want to do this where there are cases of hardship, and I accept that there have been cases of hardship under blight provisions for many years. This is not something new. This Bill has not invented blight; and I think it is really not a sufficient answer for the noble Viscount to say that the previous Administration had not invented disposal notification areas. I have tried to indicate—and the point has not been answered at all—that the blight, if it exists in disposal notification areas, may well be less of a problem than in some other instances. Of course I accept there are hard cases.

I have made two points. First, I think that if there is any distinction which can be made in the case of disposal notification areas, it is that blight will be less of a problem and not more of a problem. So there is no justification for making a special provision—I repeat, a special provision; all the rest of the blight is to be left untouched—in disposal notification areas. Secondly, it may well be that the general categories of blight should be looked at, but this Bill is not the place to do it and this is not the time to do it.

3.14 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 178C) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Clinton, L.	Drumalbyn, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Colville of Culross, V.	Effingham, E.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Cork and Orrery, E.	Elles, B.
Arbuthnott, V.	Cottesloe, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.
Atholl, D.	Cowley, E.	Elton, L.
Auckland, L,	Crawshaw, L.	Falmouth, V.
Balfour, E.	Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Ferrers, E.
Belstead, L.	de Clifford, L.	Gainford, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Denham, L. [Teller.]	Greenway, L.
Carrington, L.	Digby, L.	Gridley, L.
Hanworth, V.	Monk Bretton, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Harvington, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
Hayter, L.		Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Hives, L.	Newall, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Hornsby-Smith, B.	Nunburnholme, L.	Sudeley, L.
Kindersley, L.	O'Hagan, L.	Swansea, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Onslow, E.	Teviot, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Ridley, V.	Vickers, B.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Sandford, L.	Vivian, L.
Long, V.	Sandys, L.	Wise, L.
Lyell, L.	Savile, L.	Yarborough, E.
Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Sempill, Ly.	Young, B.
Middleton, L.	Stanley of Alderly, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ardwick, L.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Arwyn, L.	Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Lyons of Brighton, L.
Bacon, B.		Melchett, L.
Bernstein, L.	Gardiner, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Beswick, L.	Goronwy-Roberts, L.	Paget of Northampton, L.
Birk, B.	Greenwood of Rosendale, L.	Peddie, L.
Brown, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.	Raglan, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Hoy, L.	Segal, L.
Castle, L.	Hughes, L.	Stedman, B.
Champion, L.	Jacques, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Collison, L.	Kirkhill, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L
Crowther-Hunt, L.	Leatherland, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Cudlipp, L.	Llewelyn-Davies, L.	White, B.
Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.22 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 179:

Page 23, line 37, leave out ("£400") and insert ("£200").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to reduce the maximum fine under the DNA from £400 to £200. I understand that the magistrates' power is up to £400. I assume that is why this figure has been included. I do not think this matter requires much explanation, but in view of the fact that there may be cases in which, unwittingly, an owner falls foul of the DNA, I hope that the Government will consider £200 as a maximum is sufficient. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the fine, as the noble Earl explained. The fine of £400 is now a standard figure for this type of summary offence—that is, not complying with statutory procedures—and is well precedented in planning law. Section 89 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 specifies a fine not exceeding £400 on summary conviction for non-compliance with an enforcement notice. Section 90 similarly provides for a fine not exceeding £400 for non-compliance with a stop notice. Section 98 also specifies a fine not exceeding £400 for non-compliance with a listed building enforcement notice.

It should be remembered that the fine is one not exceeding £400, so that if there are mitigating circumstances magistrates may well impose a fine which is considerably less. In fact, from my own experience as a magistrate, I know that the maxima are not taken as the average or the norm. However, the amount specified is far from excessive and is well precedented. If the amount of the fine on summary conviction were reduced, it might lead authorities to take proceedings by indictment in which case there would be no limit to the fine. As the noble Earl appreciates, it would probably go to another court instead of being dealt with summarily, and it is obviously desirable that, where possible, proceedings should be before the local magistrates.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

My noble friend has already spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move Amendment No. 181:

Amendment moved—

Page 23, leave out lines 41 to 43.—(Lord Melchett.)

3.26 a.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SANDFORD

I wonder whether the noble Lords opposite would care to answer my general question at this stage about who qualifies for blight?

Earl FERRERS

Also on this point, a person who does not give notice to the local authority of an intended sale is guilty, or liable to be guilty, of an offence for which the fine is £400. Is it up to the individual to discover whether they are in a notification area, or is the local authority under any obligation to state to people whether they are in a notifica-area and, if so, how does the authority do it?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

There are substantial provisions for publicity for these matters. First of all, as DNA's will be restricted to areas already accepted as suitable for development in planning terms, there will have been the usual publicity and public participation at the planning stage. Secondly, DNA resolutions must be advertised locally, copied to local parishes and registered in the local land charges register, so there will be ample opportunity for all concerned to get to know about them. Those arrangements ought to be adequate for the purpose.

The Earl of KINNOULL

If a case arose where the owner of a commercial property was about to sign the contract with the purchaser before they in fact had instructed solicitors to make the usual searches, he would have broken the law without in fact having been advised by his solicitors what the DNA provisions held. This is one of the points my noble friend was making. I wonder whether it would be worthy of thought that when a DNA is made, it would only be a limited area anyway, and all those ratepayers who are in that area should be notified at the time their next rate demand was sent out.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

In view of what I said earlier about the fact that this will become very widely known in good time, I should not have thought that additional means of publicity would be necessary. There are limits to the amount of public expenditure and ad ministrative problems one wants to cope with; I should not have thought that, in view of all the adequate publicity which will already exist after the full planning phases and the publication in the local land charges register with advertisements locally, copied in the usual way, anything further was necessary.

Lord MELCHETT

Regarding the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I think this was regarding rolling programmes. That certainly would not give anybody the right to serve a blight notice. It would not be specific enough as to particular areas of land. However, suspended planning permission and DNAs are two categories in the Bill, as are people in areas covered by CPOs which have been made; and of course the people who will be able to take advantage of the blight provisions are those who can do so at present.

Lord SANDFORD

That is a rather extraordinary answer, if I may say so, because noble Lords have been spending a good deal of time trying to reassure us, in discussing Clause 23, that DNAs did not trigger off any sort of acquiring process. They were designed to provide information to the local authorities about transactions that were impending in the areas designated—and yet the existence of a DNA surrounding your property qualifies you to serve a blight notice. Well, we are glad of that. But to go on to say that when you are embraced in a rolling programme, which is specifically a programme of acquisition covering the next five years, you cannot serve a blight notice, seems to be illogical in the extreme. It may not be possible in every case to show from a rolling programme that you would be affected, but I should have thought that if a rolling programme contained a reference to a particular area and your property was in the middle of it, there is no doubt at all that you should qualify—certainly you should qualify under that, if you qualify under a DNA.

Lord MELCHETT

I think we went into some detail on this when discussing rolling programmes earlier. My recollection is that it was stated clearly then that it was extremely unlikely that a rolling programme would refer to particular areas. Rolling programmes were going to speak of likely expenditure and likely areas of total acreage of land. We had a very similar discussion, unless I am mistaken, earlier in the proceedings.

Lord SANDFORD

I said earlier that we were going to skate over Clause 23 and Schedule 8 at this stage of the Bill. We have, but it deserves it, particularly if we get answers of this kind, saying that a DNA qualifies people embraced in it to serve blight notices, and the rolling programme, which is specifically a programme of acquisition, does not. However, we will leave it for now and return to it on Report.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 181B: After Clause 23 insert the following new clause:

Notice to be given to owner

".An authority shall not, in respect of any planning application made after the 12th September 1974, by a person who is not the owner or authorised agent of the owner of the land to which the planning application relates, entertain the planning application or exercise its powers under this Act in respect of the land to which the planning application relates without first giving to the owner not less than 28 days within which to make representations to the authority."

The noble Lord said: We now examine the question of third party applications. Up to now we have been considering the situation of two parties where there is the authority, the person with a material interest, and now we should take into account that rather shadowy object, the third party application. In this Bill it is possible for a person with no material interest to apply for planning permission. We believe that very clear instruction should be given whereby the provisions of two clauses—Clause 26, which deals with publication and notices of application, and Clause 27, notification of application to owners and agricultural tenants —of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 should apply.

We believe that the Government have down three relevant Amendments at a later stage in our discussions: Amendments Nos. 218EE, 218FF and 218GG. But it occurs to us that this Amendment would fulfil what we desire in a better manner. The reason is this. If we refer back to the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Young, No. 167B, when she referred to the same Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Clause 12(1), we may recall that she believed, as we do in this Amendment, that it is desirable that the previous provisions of the existing planning regulations should apply. I beg to move.

3.36 a.m.

Baroness BIRK

This Amendment, as the noble Lord explained it, would prevent a local planning authority from entertaining—that is to say, accepting—an application for planning permission from anyone not the owner or authorised agent of the owner of the land unless and until the owner had had not less than 28 days in which to make representations to the authority about the application. As the Amendment is retrospective to White Paper day, most planning applications made since then, and consequently their determinations, would be invalid since the requirements of the Amendment are seldom likely to have been met under existing provisions.

Under Section 27(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, a local planning authority are already prevented from entertaining an application unless it is accompanied by a certificate indicating either that the applicant is the owner or tenant of all the land or that he has served notice of the application on all owners. For this purpose "owners" includes anyone with not less than seven un-expired years of a tenancy—this was amended from ten years by paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to this Bill.

Under Section 27(4), the application for planning permission cannot be determined until 21 days after the latest notice served according to the certificate, so that owners must at the present time have at least 21 days in which to make their representations. We do not consider it necessary to give owners 28 days before the application as well as 21 days from the receipt of notice to make their views known. There is a practical difficulty here in that an owner would have to have access to details of the proposed development 28 days before the applicant could submit them to the authority. This would mean that all applications would have to be delayed by at least one month, and as we have heard so many comments about delay I should have thought this would have made it a rather unattractive proposal.

It is considered to be advantageous all round for the owner's representations to be made following the lodging of the ap plication when full details are available in the planning register and within a period during which the authority can be processing the application—for example, consultations with other interested bodies in other ways.

The basic aims of the Amendment, that owners should be informed of any application made by a third party and should have an opportunity of making representations to the authority, are met by the existing procedures, and for the reasons I have given there seems no benefit in altering these. I think I should re-emphasise that the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 will apply. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised a doubt about that. Planning applications will continue to be made under the 1971 Act as now and not under this Bill.

Briefly, the essential point here is that under Section 27 of the planning Act local authorities are already prevented from entertaining planning applications from people who are not owners unless the owners have been given at least 21 days to make written representations. Therefore, all that the Amendment would do—I am afraid in a technically defective way—would be to increase the 21 days to 28 which, as I have explained —and I hope I have convinced the noble Lord—is unnecessary.

I should add that we are aware that there has always been a slight deficiency in the Section 27 arrangements, in that an applicant can comply with the requirements by submitting certificate A, being the owner or tenant. There may be other people with interests in the land which would qualify them to be notified, as envisaged by certificate B. Therefore, the present certificate A on its own is unsatisfactory. The noble Lord will perhaps feel satisfied if I point out that the Government's Amendments—218EE and 218JJ—correct this and provide a new certificate A which an owner can use to show that no person other than himself is the owner of the land. In view of that long, full and very satisfactory explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

Lord SANDYS

The noble Baroness has given us a very full explanation of the working of Clauses 26 and 27 and of the need for certification. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8 [Disposal notification areas]:

Lord MELCHETT

I should like to move Amendment No. 181D. In view of the fact that my noble and learned friend spoke to it with Amendment No. 148B, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved Amendments Nos. 181D and 181E en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 81, line 11, leave out from ("map") to ("to") in line 13.

Page 81, line 11, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert— ("(2) The resolution shall be a local land charge.").—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord MELCHETT

My noble and learned friend spoke to Amendment No. 183A with Amendment No. 141B. Again it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved Amendments Nos. 183A and 183B en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 82, line 18, leave out from ("map") to ("to") in line 19.

Page 82, line 20, after ("council") insert ("and (if they are not a local authority keeping a local land charges register) to every local authority keeping such a register"). —(Lord Melchett.)

Lord MELCHETT

I spoke to Amendment No. 184 with Amendment No. 173. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 32, leave out ("estate or"). —(Lord Melchett.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Amendment No. 185 was discussed earlier in connection with the other Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 82, line 45, at end insert—