Lords Sitting of 13 October 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

INSURANCE FIRMS: CONDUCT OF BUSINESS WITHIN EEC
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take at both COREPER and Council level in order to ensure that, in conformity with the provisions of Title III, Chapter 3 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community, British insurance companies and firms may conduct their non-life insurance business in free competition within the territories of the eight other member states.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I would sympathise with the impatience which is implied in the noble Lord's Question. Since the report of the European Parliament in 1977 on the draft insurance services directive, its consideration in a Council working group has been detailed and technical, and regrettably very slow. The Committee of Permanent Representatives is, however, now considering a report from the working group on the major issues which are still outstanding, and our representatives are doing all that they can to make progress to a very satisfactory solution.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a portion of his reply contains a considerable degree of reassurance? However, is he also aware that one way or another this matter has been under discussion in the European Community for the past seven years? Is the noble Lord further aware that it was subject to deliberate obstruction in the European Parliament on the part
836
of two member states for at least three years? Will he give the House an assurance that, when it comes to the provisions of Article 59 of the treaty, Her Majesty's Government will pursue the facilities that should be granted to British insurance companies, in accordance with this particular article, with the same rigorous determination as the French pursue the provisions relating to the Common Agricultural Policy?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the noble Lord's vigorous follow-up to this Question. I note that the noble Lord and myself discussed this very article on 25th June in the course of an earlier exchange, when the noble Lord used vigorous language. Indeed Her Majesty's Government have every intention of pursuing this matter to a satisfactory and, dare I say it?, vigorous conclusion.
The Government are aware that there has been a problem—I would not necessarily say of obstruction, either voluntarily or involuntarily—involving at least two members of the Community, but we hope that there is to be a very swift and efficacious solution to this. I think that from his specialised knowledge the noble Lord will know that these matters may take a reasonable time, but we are of the opinion that this question will be resolved in a matter of months, as opposed to years.

THE PUBLIC SECTOR BORROWING REQUIREMENT
2.38 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by what amount they expect the public sector borrowing requirement to increase by the 31st December 1980 as the result of unemployment rising to the total which they envisage as at 30th November 1980.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government do not publish

837
forecasts of the PSBR, except on an annual basis. A further forecast of the PSBR for the current year will be published in November, under the terms of the Industry Act. According to the Government Actuary's Report of July 1980, a difference of 100,000 in the average level of unemployment alters the surplus on the National Insurance Fund by £180 million. The effect on the PSBR would be greater than this, but the exact figure will depend upon a number of factors, including the nature of the causes leading to the rise in unemployment.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the most reliable estimates, that have not been challenged in any authoritative Government statement, the annual cost of each extra 1,000 unemployed amounts to £2 million, and that on that basis the cost of increased unemployment since the noble Lord and his party have been in office already exceeds £1,000 million, and is now running at an extra rate, after taking into account benefits, redundancy payments and loss of taxation, of about £1,500 million per annum?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I would not accept the noble Lord's figures as necessarily correct. The Government are not obliged to comment on every estimate that is produced by an outside source. I have quoted to the noble Lord the figure given by the Government Actuary for the cost of every 100,000 increase in unemployed so far as unemployment benefit and National Insurance contributions are concerned. With regard to the remainder of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the rise in unemployment is due to two factors, neither of which is in the control of the Government. The first one is of course the world recession, and the second one is the exessive level of pay settlements.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the House is to understand that the Government have undertaken no serious study of the "disbenefits" which accrue to the Exchequer when an employed person becomes unemployed? I understand of course that there must be a difference between various types of unemployed
838
persons, but would it not be possible to produce to the House an average figure?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord would be quite wrong in making any such assumption. Of course all Governments make for their own purposes estimates of the effect of all kinds of economic changes, and clearly the effect of unemployment on the economy as a whole is one of the factors that any Government will look at. Nevertheless there is a considerable difference between the Government making estimates of this kind for their own use, and publishing those estimates.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether I would be wrong in making the assumption that extra administrators are needed for every 100,000 unemployed, and would I be quite wrong if I said that the extra administrators in fact total 2,000 for each 100,000 unemployed?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord is now going wide of the Question which appears on the Order Paper.
Lord PEART: But, my Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has gone very wide? Actually, his own Government have deliberately created unemployment. They have done this in the steel industry. They have done this to my native Durham—and I think of Consett. It is no good having an alibi that it is because of the world recession and the level of pay settlements. The noble Lord knows full well what the policy of his own Government is doing.
Lord COCK FIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely wrong, both in his diagnosis and in his conclusions. We could, of course, debate the question of the steel industry at great length, but this is a specific issue. I think, however, it is generally agreed that had the problems of the steel industry been tackled at a much earlier stage the present position would not have been as unfortunate as it is now.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord deny that the following

839
passage from this publication by the Treasury:
"… there is insufficient adjustment by pay negotiators to announced monetary targets so that earnings rise by more than money supply"—
is a particularly obnoxious, unilateral diktat of a wages policy which is bound to fail?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords. It is a simple statement of fact which is widely accepted, not only in this country but elsewhere in the industrialised world.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether unhappy experience has yet taught the Government that stopping the economy does not stop people from wanting to borrow money, and in fact forces them to do it to a greater extent?
Lord COCK FIELD: I am sorry, my Lords, but I did not hear the first sentence of the noble Lord's supplementary question. My general comment on it, however, would be that it seems to have little or nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if the Government make these estimates for their own purposes, would it not be right, in this age of open government, for such estimates to be made available to the public?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, we do make available a very wide range of statistical material. The problem with the PSBR, of course, is that many of the causes are interrelated with one another. There is a clear relationship between the level of output, the level of employment or unemployment and the level of pay settlements, and it is not easy to decide how much of the consequential effects ought to be attributed to one cause rather than to another.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would the noble Lord be able to give an answer, possibly not now but if a Question was put down, as to how much lower unemployment would now be if the unions and others had taken the advice of the former Prime Minister?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a point of very great validity.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, arising from the noble Lord's reply to that last supplementary question, which I presume was in fact relevant to the Question, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the unions are following out precisely the advice which was given to them by his right honourable friend in another place on 13th December 1978? Is he also aware that the nature of his replies here this afternoon give the impression that the Government are perfectly willing to publish figures when it suits them but that if they are inconvenient they do not publish them?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords; the noble Lord is not entitled to draw any such conclusion. So far as the first part of his supplementary question (if question is the right description of it) is concerned, it is true that union leaders are showing a greater sense of realism and responsibility than they were 12 months ago.

ECONOMIC PROGRESS REPORT No. 125
2.47 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they approved the content of the Economic Progress Report No. 125 of September 1980.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the Economic Progress Report is published monthly by the Treasury, and the contents are approved by a Treasury Minister. If there is any particular item in the issue to which the noble Lord refers on which he would like further explanation, perhaps he would let me know.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Could I ask him now, however, whether he really believes that language such as quoted by my noble friend in the supplementaries on the last Question really gives the impression that the repor is dealing with real people in the realt world? I refer to the quotation:
"… insufficient adjustment by pay negotiators to announced monetary targets …".

841
Would he not accept that to go through a long discussion on unemployment without saying, in September, that the actual figure of unemployed was 2 million and more does not do credit to an objective Treasury publication?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that he has cause for complaint about the Economic Progress Report. It is widely regarded as a useful and informative document. Inevitably, if it is going to describe what is happening in the economy, it should describe what the reasons behind developments in the economy are, and the particular phrases to which the noble Lord refers seem to me to be a perfectly legitimate explanation of what in fact has been happening. So far as the level of unemployment is concerned, there is in fact, right on the face of this document—and I have it open in front of me—a chart which shows both world and United Kingdom unemployment for the whole of the period from 1970 to 1980.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, that very passage in the document shows the total ignorance of the Government and their servants—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord BALOGH: Would the Minister not agree that to say "world unemployment" is nonsense—complete nonsense? Because that would include India and Africa, and nobody knows what world unemployment totals. They should be a bit more careful in their phraseology.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is on a very narrow point indeed. In a document of this kind, which is intended to give information, the expression "the world unemployment" relates obviously to the major industrialised countries; and, indeed this is made clear in the footnote to the table itself. So far as the noble Lord's economic theories are concerned, he knows as well as I do that they are not accepted by the Government.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his incredibly skilful batting causes great pleasure on these Benches? Is he further aware that
842
because of his great skill we do not support him perhaps as much as we should, because we cannot do nearly as well as he does?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his support.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, is it not the case that his noble friends would support him rather better if they had more ammunition?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, there is more than adequate ammunition available to support not only me but the Government as a whole. I gather that the real complaint about the Economic Progress Report is that it contains too much of this ammunition.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this mutual congratulation sounds like an extension of a certain party conference in Brighton?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to us why the balance in our favour on invisible exports has gone down by over 20 per cent. for the first half of this year compared with the first half of last year?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to follow a point of that kind, I shall be happy to write to him.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, will the noble Lord expect support from the Benches behind him and in the other place when his policies and his batting have produced 3 million not out?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I made it quite clear; and I am sorry if the noble Lord was not listening—
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, I was listening.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I made it clear that the level of unemployment is not the result of Government policies; it is due partly to the level of activity in the industrialised world as a whole and partly due to the level of pay settlements.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, in view of the last

843
remarks by the noble Lord the Minister, may I ask whether he is aware of the article in the Sunday Telegraph which pointed out how unpleasant it was that an impassioned plea about unemployment in Consett was greeted at the Conservative Party Conference with slow clapping and laughter?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, neither I nor the Government are in any way responsible for reports which appear in the Sunday Telegraph. Particularly without notice of the report in question, the noble Baroness will hardly expect me to comment on it. But I will say that we have repeatedly said how very, very much we deplore the present level of unemployment. No one feels more strongly on this than do the Government themselves. It is because of the depth of feeling on the part of the members of the Government about this subject that we have striven so hard to draw the simple facts of economic life to the attention of wage bargainers on both sides of industry. I have never sought to place the blame solely on the unions; I have always referred to the level of pay bargaining. We are just as anxious as the noble Baroness, if not more so, to see a permanent and lasting reduction in the level of unemployment.
The Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, after that long and informative reply, perhaps we may move on to the next Question.

CAR PARTS: DANGEROUS IMPORTS
2.55 p.m.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are in contemplation to deal with the dangerous import—mainly from Taiwan—of fake car parts marked as being Ferodo, Ford, Girling, Lockheed and Lucas, claimed to be "cancelled export orders" or "bankrupt stock".
Lord LYELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport has no evidence so far that accidents have been caused by such imports but he is very much concerned about their possible dangers to the public. His department has approached a number of companies whose products have been counterfeited and he would be grateful to know of any other evidence available to the noble Lord. If cases of real risk to the public are substantiated, he will issue warnings to the public or take other appropriate action under the relevant legislation. My right honourable friend will of course work closely with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who has the overall responsibility for the trading aspects of the problem.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he will go to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, whose information this is, in order that the Government may be better informed?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I would hope that RoSPA would be in close touch with the department and I had understood that relations and communications between RoSPA and the department were very good. My right honourable friend and the department will approach RoSPA with a view to resolving this problem and obtaining any other information.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, as deputy president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents who is about to become president this week, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that I have taken note of what has been said and will make sure that we act on it?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I will accept that assurance willingly on behalf of my right honourable friend.

BRITISH AIRWAYS: SALE OF SHARES
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.45 this afternoon my

845
noble friend Lord Trefgarne will be making a Statement about the offer for sale of shares in British Airways.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that dinners will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately one hour and two order confirmation Bills will be taken during this adjournment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (NO. 2) BILL
2.57 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 178:
Before Clause 75, to insert the following new clause:
("General provision for transfer of functions
Sections (Excepted districts) to (Highways and transportation) below shall have effect for the purpose of adapting the provisions of—

(a) public general Acts passed before, or during the same session as this Act; and

(b) instruments made before the passing of this Act under public general Acts, being instruments of a legislative character and not being instruments in the nature of local enactments;

and, in particular, for the purpose of providing for the exercise of functions conferred by such provisions, but those sections shall have effect, subject to any provision of the contrary made by, or by any instrument made under, this Act and shall be without prejudice to any express provision so made.").
The noble Lord said: I feel that it would be for the convenience of the Committee
846
if I spoke to Amendments Nos. 178, 178A, 179 and 180. This will ensure a general debate on the new clauses involved in the principle that I am seeking to establish: namely, the return to some district councils of some functions lost under the Local Government Act 1972, subject to the decision of a district council to seek such powers and subject to the final approval of the appropriate Secretary of State. Thus, I move Amendment No. 178.
Before proceeding further, I should like to quote from the Sunday Telegraph (which has been mentioned already today) of 27th July, 1980. In a small leading article headed, "Second Thoughts", they say:
"When last in office Sir Keith Joseph imposed a top-heavy structure of bureaucracy on the Health Service. The present Tory Government sensibly decided last week to streamline all this, thus showing a welcome willingness to learn from past errors. Perhaps the same spirit of repentance could now be demonstrated in the field of local government? Not even Mr. Peter Walker, the author of that example of Tory reform 'under Mr. Heath, could claim that utopian perfection has resulted from it".
The amendments are a very modest step in the direction outlined by the newspaper. They are not revolutionary; there is no party political angle to them whatever. Among local authorities likely to be involved so far as district councils are concerned, there is all-party support whatever the political party control of the council might be.
Before proceeding to the main arguments, I feel that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I gave a brief explanation of each new clause. I shall also refer briefly to the new schedules which I withdrew on Friday last: these were withdrawn for the time being in the hope of some fruitful results.
The first new clause (Amendment No. 178) is a replica of Section 179(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It is merely a general provision designed to make sure that, in any legislation dealing with the transfer function, it applies to excepted districts—that is, any district to which all or any of the additional powers being sought are transferred. For all other purposes the present titles of district or district council would continue to be applied. The clause is also worded to allow for power sharing if in any particular case the

847
district and county council preferred it that way, or indeed if the Secretary of State thought that such an arrangement would be more appropriate.
The next new clause (Amendment No. 178A) deals with how excepted districts would get their new powers. This would be by application rather than as an automatic right. The clause has been drafted in this way because, first, it would allow the flexibility of making the transfer of functions adaptable to local circumstances. For example, if a district council, for its own reasons, did not want responsibility for education, or wanted to share a highways function, such arrangements would be possible. Secondly, although it is presumed that initially only applications from the larger urban authorities would be successful, applications by districts developing in that direction would be possible at a later date without amending legislation.
The new clauses in Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 provide for the transfer of education, social services, highways and traffic management to excepted districts. So far as the schedules to which I have referred are concerned, they deal respectively with arrangements for considering applications and for the transfer of staff. The schedule covering arrangements for consideration is worded to safeguard public interest and to provide the Secretary of State with adequate information on which to base his final decision.
So far as the reorganisation carried out under the 1972 Act is concerned, it is now being, I think it will be accepted, clearly revealed as a failure. This is because the reorganisation was based upon a number of gross errors of judgment. The reorganisation was based on functionalism, service by service and not on living communities. But social purposes and political will are found and expressed in communities, especially urban communities, not in widespread counties. This was the secret of the success of the old county boroughs, acknowledged by the Royal Commission on Local Government as:
"the most effective local government unit we have known".
The reorganisation was based on false ideas of the economy of size, and size is
848
now revealed in many instances as a disadvantage. Over a large geographical area the political direction of a service becomes flabby and the administration becomes top-heavy. There are long lines of communication and consequently the centre becomes insensitive to requirements at ground level. Such a top-heavy administration is unnecessarily costly, and size, so far from conferring savings, entails extravagance.
The architects of the new system failed to realise that specialist requirements (for example, in education and social services) have always been dealt with by freely negotiated arrangements between adjoining local authorities, and these arrangements produced satisfactory results. Putting services like education and social services on a county-wide basis may have reduced a number of joint arrangements but has not of itself improved the quality of the service nor has it eliminated the need for joint arrangements entirely, because there will always be some special-isms and some pioneering ventures which require a wider catchment area.
This is not a question of political outlook—both the Big 11 of England's major cities (outside the metropolitan areas) and the group of medium-sized cities and boroughs contain councils controlled by both Conservative and Labour majorities. This issue is felt keenly throughout all the important boroughs and cities of the country, irrespective of their political complexion.
Now a word on finance. I have no doubt that it will be protested that any further reorganisation of local government will be expensive, as was the, in everyone's opinion, ill-advised reorganisation of 1974. This is not true of the amendment proposals, for the following reasons: first, more compact units of administration will be more economical to run; and, secondly, in the case of highways, the duplication of professional work carried out by both the county and agent district councils will be eliminated. The district staff engaged in the highways function will be detached from the county and become self-sufficient. The Bill already reorganises the need to eliminate the duplication of work on planning, and exactly the same principle is concerned in the duplication of work in highway agencies. If a district can run an agency, it can run an independent service.
In the case of social services and education, most counties have separate area administrations for the boroughs and cities which are likely to benefit from these proposals. There will be a simple hiving-off of staff already engaged on the work of the urban community and a more compact administrative set-up.
There will be a substantial economy in the more effective deployment of staff and the evolution of policies more directly related to the needs of the urban community. Any possible marginal increase in costs in education or social services will, in the firm view of the borough and cities, he more than compensated by the more effective utilisation of the staff employed.
Now a word about education. I am basing my remarks entirely on the city of Norwich, which as members of the Committee will know, is very close to my heart. The situation in 1974 was entirely self-sufficient. The city council had provided and maintained the following: the Technical College (the City College), which took pupils not only from the city, but also from all central Norfolk and had representatives of the county council on its governing body; the School of Art, which had national recognition and was controlled by a very widely-based board of governors; first and second schools which were entirely adequate for the population of the city; a completely comprehensive system for senior boys and girls with three direct grant schools running alongside; special schools, including two for educationally sub-normal children, one for physically handicapped children and one with boarding facilities for maladjusted children; and a teachers' centre. The city employed eight specialist advisors. Before reorganisation, therefore, the city council maintained a progressive and effective educational system.
If the education service were returned to the city council, the colleges, schools and centres enumerated above would enable the city to be entirely self-sufficient immediately. It might well be logical to establish the City College as a joint institution controlled equally by the city and county education committees, in view of the big county interest in the facilities. Such joint arrangements are extremely effective in the case of the airport, the museums, the computer and
850
archives. There is no reason why Norwich and Norfolk should not work equally happily together in the field of further education. If in future the county council wished to be granted access to any of the special facilities of the city, there seems to be no reason why arrangements should not be negotiated.
The advantages of restoring the education service to the city council would be, first, that the service would be administered by knowledgeable councillors in whom a sensitivity to the needs of the city would be allied to political will and capacity; secondly, a compact unit would be run with fewer administrative overheads and would be more economical; and, thirdly, the county council would be able to concentrate with greater efficiency on rural problems.
Highways and traffic management are a very important issue. If the problems of our major towns are to be resolved, then a corporate approach is needed to all matters affecting the infrastructure and the environment. It is, therefore, imperative that highways and traffic management shall he in the hands of the immediate local urban community. Most boroughs and cities can point to the imposition of rural standards upon the cities by unthinking county councillors.
Traffic management and control, in particular, require the most sensitive handling by councillors who have an intimate knowledge of the needs of the area. County councillors, by reason of the size of their area, can rarely obtain such a sensitivity. Although almost all boroughs and cities of any substance carry out this work as agents of their county councils—and this is welcome—this is very definitely a second best. There can still be paralysing differences of view between county and city councils. Hiving-off will create no difficulty, because, as I have already said, almost all boroughs and cities of any size have an agency agreement and are already carrying out the effective part of this work.
There will be substantial economies, if the responsibility for highways and traffic is handed back to the boroughs and cities. There will no longer be a needless duplication of effort on the part of city and county staff and there will be a saving of time of

851
members of both councils. This argument, about duplication of effort between district and county, has already been accepted by the Government in the case of planning control, and the argument in respect of highways and traffic management is exactly parallel.
I should like to give an example of the effects of the present reorganisation on the city of Norwich. In Norwich, the unfortunate influence of the county council is seen in the following instances. The county council are orientated towards the private motor car and their aim seems to be to get as many cars into the city as cheaply as possible, whereas the city council, who live with the problem and are aware of the damaging impact upon the environment, seek to develop public transport instead.
The city's traffic restrictions, both central area and "residents only" schemes have to be policed by traffic wardens. But they are becoming less and less effective, because the county now provide only 15 wardens at maximum, whereas in 1974 the city council employed 36. The county council has opposed experiments such as "bus only" lanes.
But I now come to a part that really is astonishing. Norwich was the first authority in the country to create a pedestrianised street—London Street—but now all progress has been blocked by the county council. This is particularly frustrating, because 10 years ago Rouen, their twin city, sent representatives to look at what they had done and they returned to Normandy imbued with Norwich ideals. Now Rouen has a splendid network of "foot streets", whereas Norwich is stagnant. As highways authority, the county council will pay for only low standards of street lighting, cleaning, maintenance, trees, grass verges et cetera and the city has to top up the county's budget.
Finally, I come to what to me personally is the most important issue of the whole lot; that is, social services. To my mind, social services are the highest priority for change. In the large cities and towns, the case is overwhelming for the fullest integration of the main community services—housing, personal social services and health. This has an important
852
relationship to the reorganisation of the health services which was so wisely carried out by the present Government, in as much as new districts are being created and area authorities are being done away with. In the field of housing alone, it has become absolutely vital that social services and housing are in the hands of one authority which can deploy the combined resources to the best possible effect.
The concept of care in the community can best be realised within local government by concentrating at district level the community support services for families in need, the care of the elderly, children and the physically and mentally handicapped. It is the towns which mainly find in their midst the destitute, the victims of the poverty trap, the misfits and the inadequate. Urban areas throw up very different social problems from rural areas. There is a lot that could be said of the present division of responsibility for the frail and elderly who are unable to cope, on the one hand, and those needing sheltered accommodation, on the other.
In the social services field, the 1972 Act has created far more problems than it has provided solutions. The change can be made without increasing public expenditure, except in some minor respects in some areas, and any such minor increase would be more than justified by the vast improvements secured. In urban areas, particularly in the larger towns, the population looks to one local authority for a response and they are confused when services which are closely related are administered by different authorities, from different buildings and frequently with different priorities.
This confuses not only the man in the street, but voluntary organisations and professional people such as doctors and others. Putting control of social services at community level would end the confusion and, above all, ensure happy co-ordination with the housing service. I cannot stress too strongly that, of all the proposals put forward in these amendments, that affecting social services is most urgent and vital. Something must be done, and done soon.
The amendments which are before the Committee originated, as I have stated, in the city of Norwich, which has a proud

853
tradition of first-class local government administration and an acknowledged good, caring and efficient council. It is to my everlasting pride that I represented that city in another place for over 10 years. Yet I live and pay rates in the Greater London borough of Bexley. That is a newer authority, which is able to control and provide services taken away from experienced and capable cities such as Norwich.
I echo the words of the Sunday Telegraph, and hope that the same spirit of repentance which was so recently shown in the case of the National Health Service can now be demonstrated in the field of local government. I say in all sincerity that I hope the Government will accept, at least in principle, the amendments put forward and will carry on the progressive, sensible attitude which was shown in Section 1 of the Health Services Act 1980. I beg to move.
3.19 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: The Committee has listened with great interest to the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. But I have to say that he is lucky to be here in this House, because if he were back in another place and continuing to represent the city of Norwich with the distinction with which he represented it before, he would either have been ruled out of order or, almost certainly, his amendment would not have been called, because I have to say to the Committee that, in my view, it falls far outside the terms of the Title of the Bill.
The Bill is not concerned with the transfer of powers between the counties and the districts. All I rise to say is that if the Bill was concerned with that, I should have a great deal to say on behalf of the districts, the city of Norwich among them. It does not surprise me a bit that they feel as they do, and there are several other districts which feel likewise. But I submit to the Committee that this is not the Bill or the moment to be discussing these matters.
3.20 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I rise to give general support to the concept put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. Having been a county borough councillor for a fair number of years, I appreciate in the fullest sense the advantages that that
854
system had to offer. As the noble Lord said, the Royal Commission said the same thing—that it was the most effective local government unit we have known. We then go off and abolish it. Many of the arguments that the noble Lord used in putting forward a case for the transfer of functions to many of the larger non-metropolitan districts are arguments that apply to the whole of the two-tier system of local government.
Many of us, particularly those of us who live in cities, have considerable reservations about the whole concept of two-tier local government. I do not have the kind of personal knowledge that noble Lords who live in shire counties and in cities in shire areas have about the sort of problems the noble Lord has mentioned, though I can see very clearly that the problems, in particular in social services and education, that cities, urban areas, confront are very often extremely and painfully different from the problems in the social services and in education that is county experience; and I think that is really the key to the problem.
There is a large number of paradoxes within this Bill. There is the paradox that the Bill proposes to give back to the district councils almost complete control in town and country planning. I should have thought there was a much better case for having a continuing county output, as no doubt we shall be hearing in many eloquent speeches which will be made on subsequent amendments. I am sure there is a better case for the counties to retain overall control of structure plans and so on at planning level than for them to retain, where there are big cities within the county, control of education and social services. It is a great pity that in drawing up this Bill the Government did not plan consistently a return to the bigger cities in the shire counties of the social services, the welfare services and education. Another paradox is that the Government have retained in this Bill the division between county and district over highways and highway management. Again, I should have thought that might have been—certainly it is in my county—a matter of more controversy than the control of town and country planning.
I must say, however, that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that while it is well-intentioned and a good thing that this matter should be aired,

855
I do not think it is appropriate to go in for piecemeal reorganisation in this way. I can fully understand the feeling in big cities such as Bristol, Nottingham, Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich and many others that they are not being properly served by being part of a county organisation after many decades of being all-purpose authorities. I should have thought that reorganising it along the lines suggested in the noble Lord's amendment would create almost as many anomalies as it would cure.
What would happen in a shire county where there was one district that became an authority which was responsible for its education and social services? What would happen in its relationship with the councillors on that council who went on representing the city that had now got its own services back while other districts within the same county did not have back education and the social services? It would create an enormous and, I should have thought, a greater anomaly and a greater problem than the problems it would solve.
I think that on all sides of the Committee there is great sympathy with the view the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has put forward. The concept of all-purpose authorities is a concept that even those of us who live in metropolitan districts or metropolitan counties would very much prefer to have. How much more, therefore, would the big cities in shire counties prefer to have this? It is something that, as the noble Lord said, at least seeks a sympathetic word from the Government, but I do not believe it would be appropriate if we were to incorporate it into this Bill, complex and difficult as it is. I believe it would create further difficulties.
If we are considering reorganising there is a strong case, even in metropolitan counties, for further education becoming a county function throughout the country. But that is another reform which would be a piecemeal reform if it were incorporated here. I, and I am sure many members of my party and noble Lords across the party spectrum, support the concept and the feeling that local government would be better and more sensitive if this reform were carried through. But this is not the Bill in which to incorporate it.
Viscount RIDLEY: I wish to say a few words because I hope very much that the Committee will refuse to accept this amendment. It is w hat used to be known as Mr. Peter Shore's organic change proposals. Everyone thought that these had died a decent death when the last Government disappeared and I am sorry to see them raised again today. The noble Lord who proposed the amendment said that the 1972 Act had been a failure. That seems to me a little bit unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who steered it so well through your Lordships' House. It may not have been a 100 per cent. success—no Act of Parliament ever is—and it has its faults, like many others. But on the whole people have learned to live with it, warts and all, and to make it work. I think the one thing that local government wants now is no more reorganisation for the moment. We have got enough to cope with in this Bill without starting something else.
Furthermore, it would create great uncertainty in the minds, not only of the public and the councillors—one may say that does not matter—but of everybody concerned with local government. They would not know where they were and it would be dreadfully unsettling for everybody concerned. When the proposals were suggested by the last Government independent people able to judge these things said the proposals then would cost about £80 million a year more for no noticeable improvement in services, so I do not think the noble Lord can be allowed to get away with a statement that it would cost nothing. In today's terms, £80 million then is probably worth nearer £100 million. I think it is absolutely wrong that the Committee should consider this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: The new clauses and schedules are designed to put into effect the proposals of the previous Government for giving certain district councils responsibility for education, personal social services, highways and so on. It will come as no surprise when I say that I cannot accept these amendments. It is understandable that some of the non-metropolitan districts which had been county boroughs before 1974 would like to have some of their former county borough functions restored to them, but the result

857
would be to fragment responsibility for the services in question, not to mention disrupting their administration during any hand-over.
I am not one of those who belittle local pride. It has been a potent, creative force in the development of our local government services. It is a very natural and healthy thing that people should feel they could run their affairs better than anyone else. Indeed, that is very much what local government is about—letting people do things their own way simply because that is the way they choose to do them. So it is not surprising that some of the towns and cities which used to be county boroughs did not take kindly to the transfer of responsibilities to the county councils in 1974. If I may say so as an aside, that would have applied very much to me. But much as I sympathise with those feelings I really do not believe that any responsible Government could support the kind of Heath Robinson arrangements which Labour Ministers proposed under the name of organic change and which these amendments seek to put into effect.
Let us consider what the results would be. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, touched for a moment on a fundamental flaw in what is proposed in the amendments. A non-metropolitan county council which, as things stand, is the education, social services and highway authority for its area, might face a situation in which it no longer provided any of these services in District A. In District B it might provide education but cease to be responsible for social services and highways, while in District C it might lose only its highway functions. I must ask the Committee to consider whether such fragmentation of responsibilities could be in the interests of the efficient provision of services. Of course it could not be. The county council would still have to cater for the residue of its area while the district councils concerned would have to appoint senior staff to manage the services for which they had become responsible. Total costs would rocket.
Moreover, the administration of services would once again have to take account of the artificial boundaries between large towns and cities and their surrounding areas. This would be particularly regrettable in the case of education
858
where the decline in the school population makes it more necessary than ever to consider the needs of inner city areas and the suburbs together. So once again we would have still more duplication and over-overlap on waste, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
As a further reason why I would invite the Committee to reject the amendments, they would confuse accountability for the provision of services. One of the objects of the Bill is to make local democratic control more effective by ensuring that the public is adequately informed about local authority affairs and by clarifying the responsibility for decisions. If the responsibility for services varied from district to district within a single county—and that is what the effect would be—this would not help local electors to know which authority to hold accountable for which decisions. There is currently enough confusion as it is.
Finally, although for the reasons given we would not contemplate such changes it is only too easy to under-estimate the expense and strain of the process of transferring services from counties to districts. Staff and property would have to be transferred and this would offer ample scope for endless disputes. Moreover, the services concerned would suffer a loss of direction during the period of transition while the district came to grips with their new responsibilities and established their policies. Inevitably morale would suffer and the quality of service would be damaged.
From time to time any reorganisation may need to face up to the cost and strains of structural change for the sake of real benefits which can be gained in no other way. However, I maintain that no case whatsoever has been made out for the changes which the amendments envisage and I doubt whether those who favour such changes appreciate the damage they would cause.
The particular scheme put forward by the amendment, which is basically the Labour Government's organic change proposals, is, for the reasons I have given, and many more I could give, a nonstarter. Having gone through the trauma of the 1973–74 reorganisation, I frankly shudder at the prospect of another major upheaval such as acceptance of this

859
amendment would mean, particularly—I say so not unkindly, I hope—because it is ill-thought out, for the reasons I have given. For every authority it would please, 10, 20 or more would be bitterly opposed. The fragmentation aspect alone makes it totally impracticable.
The particular scheme put forward is, as I have said, unacceptable but there may be a case for another reorganisation in the future and one day something of that kind may well come about but, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, this cannot possibly be the time to consider undertaking it. Although I have to say, wearing a former hat, that I both understood and had much sympathy with the basic motivation behind the proposal, for the reasons given we could not accept the amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: At least I cannot say that I am surprised, but what did surprise me was what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is President of the Association of District Councils. He said that he did not think the amendment would get through in another place, simply because it is not contained in the Title of the Bill. In fact, it is possible to amend the Long Title and that is precisely what I have done. Later in the Marshalled List noble Lords will find that there is an amendment to that effect. I believe that the Commons are a bit tighter on Committee stages. One of the qualities of this House is that some of the tight restrictions of the Commons are not employed here. To that extent we are more democratic.
Secondly, I was not surprised at what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, had to say because he is the voice of the county councils, and the county councils have spoken. Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, had to say, I traced in his voice a hint of sympathy but, as the dear lady said to the sailor, sympathy is not enough. I should have liked more. The noble Lord said that some time later it might be possible, which is a hint that the Government may consider it. That is all I am asking for. At the moment I am trying hard to get blood out of a stone. The noble Lord is not stone but the Government might be. If the noble Lord could say that the Government might consider this later on, I should be only too pleased.
860
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has pointed out some flaws. It is possible that there are flaws, but I think we were being kind to the Government in giving the Minister absolute control over local authorities to decide for themselves. My feelings on the matter are still very strong, but if the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will go just a shade further and say that the Government will consider the possibility of reorganisation at some date in the future I shall be very grateful indeed.
Lord BELLWIN: The noble Lord really must not tempt me in this way. I will not say that I cannot but I had better not add anything to what I have already said.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I was rather afraid of that, and normally I would be upset, but we have had a good debate, the point has been made and I hope that it will receive due publicity. To say that the majority of local authorities are against it is absolutely untrue. The county councils are against it, but I have had innumerable letters—no doubt other noble Lords have had similar letters—from all sorts of authorities of high repute, so this is not a minority demand. It is a demand on the part of a large number of people and authorities for whom in the past we have had the greatest respect. I do not intend to prolong the argument. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 178A, 179 and 180 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Distribution of planning functions between planning authorities]:
3.39 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 62, line 21, after ("be") insert ("and in any case not later than seven days").
The noble Lord said: In another place my right honourable friend the Minister of State said that the wording of this amendment would be incorporated in a code of practice. I refer to col. 2165 of Hansard of 17th April, Standing Committee D. Though there is some merit in having this wording in a code of practice,

861
the trouble with codes of practice is that they are not, strictly, legally binding. It would seem to me that this sort of provision would do better within the main body of the Bill or Act rather than in a code of practice. If the Government really want to make the planning system expeditious some legal guarantee ought to be added.
The wording of the amendment overcomes an earlier criticism that by specifying a number of days that period becomes the norm rather than the maximum. I suggest that this amendment is worthy of incorporation in the Bill and I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: This amendment would lay statutory duty on the local planning authority of a district council but it is a duty which they will be fulfilling under the voluntary code. I do not see any objection to having it in the statute, if that is the wish of the Committee.
Viscount RIDLEY: I too would like to support this amendment.
Lord SANDYS: There was an extensive debate on this matter in another place. My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to the debate on 17th April and I have spent some time going over it. My right honourable friends and my noble friend Lord Bellwin have considered this amendment with great care. The question was of the precise meaning of the phrase "as soon as may be". Our intention in using this phrase was to indicate that it should be done as soon as possible, which would normally be much sooner than seven days. "As soon as possible" is not a phrase which is appropriate in law, and this was referred to in discussions on Standing Committee, since it could always be agreed that however quickly the job has been done it would have been possible, using some more extreme means, to do it faster. "As soon as may be" is an accepted form of legal wording to cover this point. Nevertheless, I can understand that some people, reading the Bill drafted in this way, might very well be left with a lingering doubt that the man with the responsibility for doing a job in a district council might not have the same interpretation of "as soon as may be" as the parliamentary draughtsman.
862
I would emphasise that copying these applications to county councils is something that should be done as promptly as possible, to avoid delays in deciding planning applications and, to make the point clear, I am happy to accept this amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: If I might make a small point, my noble friend Lord Sandys referred to my noble friend Lord Ridley as having quoted the Standing Committee stage. I think he will find that it was I who referred to it, and perhaps the record should be amended accordingly. I have greatly welcomed my noble friend's acceptance of the amendment and I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.43 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved amendment No. 181A:
Page 62, line 29, at end insert ("and which appears to them to relate to the descriptions of development specified in paragraph 17 of Schedule 16 of the Local Government Act 1972.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the question of which planning applications to the district council's local planning authority should be referred to the local highway authority. The Bill prescribes in a rather elaborate way which these should be, in subparagraphs 3(B) and 3(C) of the amendments proposed to paragraph 15 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972—the words printed on page 62, between lines 25 and 35. My contention is that this will lead to a very considerable and unnecessary amount of extra work. The definition of which matters should be referred to the local highway authority has been laid down in the Local Government Act 1972 since then and, so far as I know, has worked well.
The categories of matters are as follows—and I quote from the Act:
"(a) the formation, laying out or alteration of any means of access to a road classified under section 27 of the Local Government Act 1966 or to a proposed road the route of which has been adopted by resolution of the local highway authority and notified as such to the local planning authority".
That is one category. The second category is:
"(b) any other operations or use of land which appear to the local highway authority

863
to be likely to result in a material increase in the volume of traffic entering or leaving such a classified or proposed road".
It seems to me that that is a satisfactory definition to which the local planning authority can refer in deciding which planning applications it will pass on to the local highway authority for its opinion.
To use the definitions now proposed seems to me to involve about a quarter of a million further applications, not falling within this category, having to be sent to the county planning authority, which will now no longer be required to receive anything like so many planning applications—a matter which we are coining to in a moment in Amendment No. 182A. My submission to the Committee would be that, unless good reason can be shown why it should be otherwise, we should stick to the categories of planning applications already prescribed in the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 16, paragraph 17.
Viscount RIDLEY: I wonder whether this is really a wise thing at this stage of the Committee? It seems to be putting a tremendous amount on to the district council; it is a case of its being judge and jury in its own cause. So many planning applications involve technical highways matters that this could be a dangerous thing to introduce.
Lord SANDYS: This amendment raises the interesting question of whether it is necessary for county highway authorities to be able, if they choose, to see a copy of every planning application, or whether it would be sufficient for them to see only those which the district believe could be the subject of the highway authorities' power to direct refusal. The issue goes wider than planning and falls as much, if not more, in the field of the Department of Transport as within the Department of the Environment.
The question of local highway authorities' responsibilities in planning matters and of the Department of Transport's equivalent responsibilities in relation to trunk roads is one to which we shall be giving thought. This is not the right occasion for making such a change, but I shall want to bear in mind the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Sandford.
864
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Ridley had very strong reservations which he has expressed. I can see one technical problem in the amendment as its stands, which is that paragraph 17 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 refers to operations which "appear to the local highway authority" to have certain effects on the highway. The effect of the amendment is therefore to make it the district's responsibility to determine how an application may appear to the local highway authority. District councils might well be a little nervous at having to make that kind of judgment. It is a matter of judgment here. We believe that it would be unwise to proceed with this amendment, and I commend dist judgment to the Committee.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: This is a terrible and bloody struggle to the death between the district councils and the county councils—part of the struggle which is centred on Clause 75. Being a county council man, I take the same view as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I think that Clause 75 is a totally bad clause and that this amendment makes it a bit worse. I therefore oppose it, as the noble Viscount does.
Lord SANDFORD: District councils are not at all nervous about taking this decision. They think it a very straight forward one, with the help of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 16, paragraph 17, which makes the job absolutely straightforward. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will be disappointed in the bloody battle that he anticipates between the counties and the districts because, as he will see in a moment or two, everything will be sweetness and light!
I believe that the reservations of my noble friend Lord Ridley were not strong at all; they were extremely feeble. Nevertheless, with the assurance that we received from my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Government will look into the matter again, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDYS: I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the Statement at this stage, and, with

865
the agreement of your Lordships, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly and, on question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BRITISH AIRWAYS: SALE OF SHARES
3.51 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will make a Statement concerning the offer for sale of shares in British Airways.
In view of the present difficulties in the international civil aviation market which have adversely affected the financial performance of all airlines, including British Airways, it is now clear that it will not be possible to launch a successful flotation in 1981.
It is the Government's firm intention to change British Airways' status to that of a private sector company in which shares will be offered to the public—but we have always avoided giving any firm commitments as to the timing of a flotation. Meanwhile, British Airways face a large capital investment programme to modernise their aircraft fleet, and part of the necessary expenditure will have to be funded by external borrowings.
I have today tabled an Amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill, which your Lordships are to consider in Committee on Thursday, increasing the airline's borrowing powers to ensure the integrity of this programme. Such borrowings are already included in published Government forecasts of nationalised industries' financing and therefore do not represent any addition to public expenditure.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, in response to the Statement made by the noble Lord, I am glad that the Government have at last acknowledged the reality of the present financial uncertainties affecting the profitable operation of all airlines. I am surprised that they did not acknowledge this earlier.
866
To many of us it has been apparent for some time. I think it certainly must have been apparent to the Government at Committee stage that this was so and, in my view, it should have been apparent to them when the Bill was first introduced. This inevitably leads one to the conclusion that the introduction of this Bill was based more on political considerations than on the economic facts about the air transport industry. My view is that this Bill could well have been postponed for a year, and it would seem to be another example of the Government's undue haste to bring in irrelevant legislation.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for making this Statement. As has been said, this news comes as no surprise to us, but we have a feeling that the Government knew about it a long time ago, and we regret very much that they did not make this information available until today. Doubtless we shall have time and opportunity to go into it more deeply during the Committee stage on Thursday.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby knows, the airline industry is a very cyclical one, and I can assure him and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, that the announcement has been made as soon as practicable after the decision was taken. Parliament was not sitting until the beginning of last week and I tabled the relevant amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill as soon as an opportunity presented itself. We have gone out of our way to emphasise, during the passage of this Bill, in the other place and so far in your Lordships' House, that no decision had been taken on the precise date of the flotation, and that remains the position.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that it would not be possible to launch a successful flotation in 1981: that brings us to 1982. In all probability there will be a general election in 1983. Does the noble Lord seriously think they can float a company like this with all the uncertainties that a general election would bring forth?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if I may say so I think the noble Lord is running somewhat ahead of himself. By my calculations, the election is not

867
due until 1984 and in any event I do not see that this has any bearing on the date of this flotation.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, may I suggest that the noble Lord will probably find himself mistaken on that point. I should like to ask a further question. In the Statement there is a reference to the flotation of the company: the powers in the Bill, of course, provide for the transfer of assets to a nominee Government company. Is it intended to transfer these assets in that way or will that be left open?
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords, that part of the Bill will proceed.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord and perhaps, through him, the noble Lord the Chief Whip, whether he is aware that since we were told only this morning that the Secretary of State would make a public announcement of his decision, we are gravely disturbed at the disrespect shown to this House, in that, although we have a Committee stage on the Bill on Thursday, the public statement would not have been made in this House? Is he further aware that the whole House now knows that the Statement would not have been made in Parliament unless we, the Opposition, had asked for it? Is he further aware that, in view of the almost overwhelming pressure put upon your Lordships' House to implement the Government's unreasonable programme in this overspill, we should particularly like to ask the noble Lord whether in future he will consider the physcial as well as the—I was going to say "moral" but perhaps I had better not say that—pressures put upon this House? Since the Government may have known eighteen months ago, and certainly should have known at Second Reading three months ago, I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill in this House in this overspill was unnecessary.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that the House is not at this moment under considerable pressure. I have said before, and I will say it again, that the way in which this House has stood up to the pressure is in the very best spirit that it has always shown and I am quite determined
868
that the House should not be under so much pressure again. That is the general remark.
As regards this Statement, the noble Baroness the Opposition Chief Whip was good enough to see me this morning and tell me about her misgivings. Since then I have done my best to find out exactly what would have happened if another place had been sitting at this moment and in what way the Statement would have been made. I can tell the House that the best I have been able to find out at the moment is that the Statement would have been made in the same way, as a press statement. I have given strict instructions that—and I do not want to take this on myself, because I have in fact given those instructions, but independently my noble friend the Leader of the House did it himself beforehand—whenever anything happens, when this House is sitting alone, that would have been the cause of a Statement in another place, a Statement will be made in your Lordships' House. That is an undertaking for the future. I know that we are under severe pressure. My understanding is that the actual decision which has been announced has not been known a long time ahead. It could possibly have been made a matter of days ago, but not, as has been suggested, a long time ago.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the whole House knows that the noble Lord himself always treats the House with consideration and kindness, but on this occasion I must ask him to accept that the whole House—and certainly the Opposition—has been astonished by this performance. It is really astonishing that the Government should have had no intention of announcing in this House something which is essential to what we are going to debate on Thursday.
Perhaps I had better say something a little more gracious. The noble Lord in his usual skilful way has apologised to the House without actually saying so, because he could not; but we accept what is an apology for the way the Government have treated your Lordships. Perhaps I may further say that if the Government really did not know until a few days ago what the situation was, that is simply a token of their whole muddled approach to the economy of the entire country.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Opposition Chief Whip is very kind to say that she does not blame me personally; but, of course, if the Government are at fault in a matter of administration the blame is mine and mine alone in this House, so I must not shelter under anyone else. But without commenting on the other remarks of the noble Baroness, I think perhaps we could leave it there for the moment.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, before we return to the Local Government Bill, may I correct one thing that I said to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I understand it is not intended to transfer the assets of the existing British Airways to a new company until nearer the flotation date.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
House again in Committee.
4 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 182:
Page 62, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1)-(3) of section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—
"(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications for planning permission, or for the approval of any local planning authority required under a development order,

(a) to be referred to him instead of being dealt with by local planning authorities, or

(b) to be referred to the county planning authority instead of being dealt with by the district planning authority.

(2) A direction under this section—

(a) may be given either to a particular local planning authority or to local planning authorities generally; and

(b) may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.

(3) (a) Any application in respect of which a direction under this section has effect shall be referred to the Secretary of State or county planning authority accordingly.
(b) Any application referred to the county planning authority under this section shall be dealt with them as if it were a county matter.".")
The noble Viscount said: We come to what some think the most important
870
part of the Bill. I believe the debate on this issue would best be held on Amendment No. 182A in my name, and it is for that reason that I would wish not to move Amendment No. 182.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 62, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("above") at page 63, line 9, and insert—
("19.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the district planning authority shall consult the county planning authority for their area before determining any application to which this sub-paragraph applies.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies to any application for planning permission for the carrying out—

(a) of any development of land which would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation—

(i) of any policy or general proposal contained in a structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State;

(ii) of any policy or general proposal contained in a structure plan which has been submitted to the Secretary of State for approval;

(iii) of any proposal to include in a structure plan any matter to which the county planning authority have given publicity under section 8 (publicity in connection with preparation of structure plans) or under that section as applied by section 10 (alteration of structure plans);

(iv) of a fundamental provision of a development plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State (whether under Part I of Schedule 5 or under any enactment replaced by that Part of that Schedule) so far as the development plan is in force in the district planning authority's area;

(v) of any proposal contained in a local plan which has been prepared by the county planning authority (whether or not the plan has been adopted by the authority or approved by the Secretary of State);

(vi) of any proposal to include in a local plan which the county planning authority are preparing any matter to which they have given publicity under section 12 (publicity in connection with preparation of local plans);

(vii) of any proposal to include in alterations which the county planning authority are proposing for a local plan any matter to which they have given publicity under the said section 12 as applied by section 15 (publicity in connection with alteration of local plans);

(b) of any development of land which would, by reason of its scale or nature or the location of the land, be of major importance

871
for the implementation of a structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State;

(c) of any development of land in an area which the county planning authority have notified to the district planning authority, in writing, as an area in which development is likely to affect or he affected by the winning and working of minerals, other than coal;

(d) of any development of land which the county planning authority have notified the district planning authority, in writing, that they themselves propose to develop;

(e) of any development of land which would prejudice the carrying out of development proposed by the county planning authority and notified to the district planning authority under paragraph (d) above;

(f) of any development of land in England in respect of which the county planning authority have notified the district planning authority, in writing, that it is proposed that it shall he used for waste disposal;

(g) of any development of land which would prejudice a proposed use of land for waste disposal notified to the district planning authority under paragraph (f) above.

(3) The district planning authority may determine an application to which sub-paragraph (1) above applies without the consultation required by that sub-paragrah if the county planning authority have given them directions authorising them to do so.
(4) A direction under sub-paragraph (3)").
The noble Viscount said: This matter deals with the distinction between county and district councils in the matter of applications for development control. There is no dispute over the Government's intention to make control of development a district council function. But there is widespread concern that the structure plan should be protected, and the Government have repeatedly said that strategic planning should be a matter for county councils. These amendments will make it clearer how that strategic role can be exercised. I should have said that I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 184A, which may save a lot of time.
The Bill as drafted tends to use nebulous phrases like "having regard to" and so forth, and the safeguards which are built into the Bill are not, in my opinion, enough. I think I should remind your Lordships that the Bill removes the county council's power to direct that applications should be treated as a county matter where the structure plan is involved. Obviously, I am prejudiced in this matter, as your Lordships are well aware. But the number of amendments which have
872
been tabled on this subject show that I am not alone in being worried. Indeed, the following list of bodies, which represent a considerable volume of professional expertise, have all indicated support for amendment along these lines: CBI. British Property Federation, CLA, NEU, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Royal Town Planning Institute and Town and Country Planning Association. There are many more as well. Also I have had a large correspondence on this subject all expressing concern, including a letter from what is now known as the People's Republic of South Yorkshire—not a member of my party but a member of Lord Greenwood's party. I hope these amendments will be acceptable to all those interested bodies, as well as being acceptable to the Committee as a compromise, and to the Government and the Association of District Councils.
I think the crunch is probably concerned in Amendment No. 184A, and the rest of it is all consequential. We all recognise the need to speed up the planning process and avoid the duplication of work at different levels. These amendments cannot possibly, in my opinion, be used for any justification for a county council to employ more staff to comply with the changes proposed. I say this because the Bill already provides that the districts must consult the counties, so that work has to be done in any case, the only difference being that the county would have, in a small minority of cases, control over certain types of planning which are specified as threatening the structure plan.
Lest it be thought that all district councils are as white as snow and free of sin, I would quote from a massive document, of which I have given my noble friend Lord Bellwin a copy although I doubt whether he has had time to read it, which shows how already under existing legislation some district councils have defied or are attempting to flout the intention of structure plans throughout the country. These mostly concern applications for supermarkets or hypermarkets which are situated on the edge of the boundary of one district and can play havoc with the shopping centre of the other district, but there are also examples of small applications for housing which, taken by themselves, may not be very great, but when added together in a very

873
rural county can considerably affect the settlement pattern and indeed the structure plan for that part of the county. There are also many more serious cases, involving in one instance no less than nine acres of residential property, permission for which was granted by a district council in defiance of the structure plan in one of the home counties. In two other cases similar applications for 600 and 200 houses respectively were agreed, totally against the structure plan.
One need only imagine the effect of this type of thing on the use of resources in the provision of infrastructure, schools, roads, sewers et cetera. I must remind your Lordships that the structure plan is also a statement of resources available to the county council for the period in which it should be in force. I submit that total district autonomy allowing them to be total judges in this matter could be a very expensive process indeed and could have a serious effect on public expenditure totals as a whole. As chairman of my own county planning committee for many years, I have considerable experience of this matter. I am still a member of that committee and I have seen where the districts have sometimes been unable to agree to the allocation of resources and may well see this Bill, drafted as it is, coming before them as an opportunity to indulge in what they like to call "county bashing".
The Minister said in another place that the departure procedures would be a safety net to back up the structure plan. I submit that this is a laborious, slow and expensive process. The amendments which I am suggesting could make it quite clear where the distinction lies between county and district in the future without the involvement of the Minister in such cases; there is no need to involve the Minister. I think we should all be quite clear that his powers of calling in applications in the national interest are quite unaffected by the Bill or by these amendments. Although I am sure the present Secretary of State would not hesitate to use his powers in this or any other field, and he has demonstrated many times that he is quite willing to do so, I wonder whether a future Secretary of State might be quite so forthright. He might not wish, for example, to use these draconian powers—and they could be very draconian; the power of relocation is a very expensive
874
business—against, let us say, a powerful city with two marginal seats just before the date of a general election.
Also it must be remembered that the structure plan has been and is, quite rightly, and will always be subject to most stringent and detailed examination in public by Ministers, by the Government, by the district councils themselves, the parish councils and anybody else who is interested, and the general public kept very much informed and allowed to take part in that process. To permit the relaxation of this process without such consultation seems to me to be absolutely wrong; and this is what the Bill could do, and would be contrary to the whole spirit of the structure plan process.
Your Lordships have before you a choice of words of several amendments. I suggest that my own amendments, Nos. 182A and I 84A, represent a sensible compromise which I hope is acceptable to everybody. We also have those of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and his friends, which indicate cross-party support in this matter. We have, too, to back up at the end an amendment down in the names of the very formidable gang of three noble Baronesses from Cambridgeshire, who have put down something perhaps stronger than I intended. However, I commend it as well. I think Cambridge is very lucky to be represented by three such formidable champions, although I must say, not having been to that university, that Oxford has not been inactive in this field in lobbying the Peers who live in that part of the country. So is every other county council.
I only add that the final amendment the Committee has to consider is No. 182B, which my noble friend Lord Sandford has inserted like a snake into the bosom of my own amendment, and I hope it will be treated in that way. I hope I have explained as best I can the purpose of these amendments, and I have great pleasure in moving Amendment No. 182A.
4.10 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved as an Amendment to Amendment No. 182A, Amendment No. 182B:
In subsection (2)(a), in line 1, after ("which") insert ("in the opinion of the district planning authority").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 182B: the snake in the bosom, or the nigger in the woodpile, or however one may like to describe it. First, I should like—greatly to the disappointment no doubt of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton—to welcome the highly intelligent and statesmanlike move by the Association of County Councils in putting down, albeit only last Wednesday when we were already well through the Committee stage, their Amendment No. 182A and coupling with it Amendment No. 184A. I should like very much to commend to the Committee Amendment No. 184A as by far the best statement I have seen so far of what district councils, county councils and everybody else associated with the structure plan, need to do in order to protect and establish its status, not to say its sanctity. Amendment No. 184A does that, in my view, admirably and a great deal better than any of the other amendments relating to it.
In that connection, I should like to suggest to the Committee that, together with those amendments that have been mentioned, we might also have in mind, though not necessarily to the exclusion of speaking to them when they arise, Amendment No. 183, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and Amendments Nos. 184, 192 and 193. My belief is that what my noble friend has suggested provides a better way of doing what all those want to do and have set out to do.
Amendment No. 182A is far better than just a compromise; it is seeking to incorporate in the Bill the terms of an agreement—and this is what will be so disappointing to the readers of the Guardian who were expecting that this all resulted from some secret conclave in some country house somewhere or other between the chairmen of shire counties and Ministers in the Department of the Environment. It is no such thing. Amendment No. 182A, sensibly tabled by the Association of County Councils, incorporates the findings of a working party consisting of the associations of all three sets of local authorities and the Department of the Environment as reached on 30th April last. That agreement was intended to form the basis of regulations amending the general development order, and prescribing the way in which the
876
local planning authorities and the county planning authorities should co-operate in the protection and establishment of the structure plan and the settlement of planning applications made to them. I think that in all the circumstances, and considering the confusion, difficulty and heat that had been generated, it was indeed very sensible of the Association of County Councils to table this as their amendment.
I was grateful to receive on Wednesday the 8th a copy of a letter in which the Association of County Councils actually tabled those amendments. Its words to me were:
"Appropriate amendments are being tabled as a matter of urgency. I, therefore, hope that you will be able to support the late amendments referred to in the enclosed brief, as a genuine attempt by the Association to give effect to what are believed to be the common objectives of all those interested in an effective planning system".
And so, indeed, it was. The only exception was—and it must have been in their haste—that the county councils left out from the first paragraph of that document, which had been agreed, the words:
"In the opinion of the district planning authority".
That, I think, must surely have happened because they were in a hurry. In the time that was available to me, when I checked it, I found that that was the case and, therefore, to put the record straight I tabled my Amendments Nos. 182B, C and D. We shall hear from the Government in a moment whether or not they think that that is necessary. If they think that it is not necessary then I shall listen very carefully to what they have to say and take legal opinion between now and the Report stage and then, depending on what they say, either seek to move it in or leave it out. But I think that first the Committee should hear what the Government have to say about the matter.
The other matter is that I should like to get the background straight against which all these judgments are being taken. In February 1973 the framework of legislation about planning was being laid down. I remember that well because I was responsible for taking the Bill through this House. We had a situation where the districts—to whom it was felt the chief responsibility for deciding planning

877
should be devolved (there was a very strong argument for taking the planning as close to the people as possible)—together deployed no more than 3,129 planning officers. It was absolutely clear that, although that theory and philosophy was right then—as it is right now—it was quite impossible for the districts fully to discharge that function the moment the legislation was enacted. Therefore, a whole lot of provisions were made retaining in the hands of the counties a number of important functions. Conservation was one particularly important function where specialised skills were needed, which were not readily available in the majority of districts. But from that moment onwards it was always envisaged that at some appropriate moment the division of responsibility between the districts and the counties should be clearly established with the district councils bearing the main responsibility. The only question has been a judgment as to when they were sufficiently and adequately staffed for that purpose.
I should like to quote figures from INLOGOV—the Institute of Local Government. Whereas the districts in 1973 had 3,129 planning officers, there has now been a shift and adjustment between the counties and the districts which has resulted in the districts, all much larger, now having nearly four times as many—12,622. I put it to the Committee that these larger districts, professionally staffed, as they now are, have reached the stage when they can well discharge the planning functions prescribed for them originally in the 1972 Act and be trusted to share, with the county, the protection and establishment of the structure plan. So I should very much like to commend to the Committee Amendment No. 182A as amended by Amendment No. 182B. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: It is very seldom indeed that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Sandford, but this is one of those rare occasions. I am glad to say that the gulf between us is not a very wide one because for a vice-president of the District Councils Association to differ from his president must be very near to insubordination. But differ I do with him about this amendment, and I shall try briefly to explain why it should not be accepted by the Committee and why that
878
moved by my noble friend Lord Ridley should be accepted.
I spoke at some length on Second Reading about the necessity for the protection of the structure plan, and I shall not repeat myself now. That necessity, as my noble friend Lord Ridley has pointed out, has been fully recognised and amply endorsed by the Government. But, by this Bill, the Government are giving virtually entire control over development to districts, and I have no complaint to make about that in principle. I do not think that there is any dispute about that on either side of the Committee. But the difficulty has been that the safeguards proposed by the Government so far, have not been sufficient to ensure that a district which had it in mind to approve development which ran counter to structure plan policies could be deterred from taking such action. I am the last person to suggest that many districts would wish to depart from approved strategic plans; they would not. I have been a member of two different county planning committees whose realtionship with their districts was very happy, but there can be differences, and I too have seen the document to which my noble friend Lord Ridley has referred. So safeguards there must be.
Until now if a district has not held to its statutory duty to have regard to its county plan, there remains for a county planning authority the power to make a direction, and this power is removed by the Bill. Therefore, we must look at the safeguards which are envisaged by the Government. What are they? First, it is proposed to amend the general development order to require a district to consult the county before determining an application for development that might be in conflict with or which might prejudice the implementation of the structure plan. But if the kind of wording which I have seen suggested is used, it would be very easy for a district to claim that there was in its opinion no material conflict, and so avoid the need to consult. This is precisely the wording which my noble friend Lord Sandford wants to include in the Bill. He agrees that the consultation requirement should come into the Bill—as Amendment No. 182A provides—but the effect of his amendment would be to water down the requirement so as to make it of very little value.

879
Secondly, there is a proposed departure procedure. The Secretary of State is to act as a long-stop to field any proposals for development that depart from the structure plan. However, the question is: how does this procedure get triggered off when a district fails to consult—claiming that there is no conflict, and that there is therefore no obligation upon it to institute the departure procedure? Under these proposals it is the district which would have to start off this departure procedure. The proposed rules did not seem to me to be tight enough. If we are to rely on what is really no more than a code of practice, it must be a firm one. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bellwin would agree with that.
Therefore, failing a power of direction by the county, I believe that it is essential to have a statutory duty written into the Bill that structure plans should be respected by district planning authorities. That is what Amendment No. 184A in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley does. It does it better than the previous amendment, Amendment No. 184, in my name and his, which I do not think will be moved.
I also believe that it is necessary to have the consultation requirement clearly defined in the Bill, and that is what Amendment No. 182A does. I am so glad that my noble friend Lord Sandford is in agreement on that main point. The two amendments go together, and both are essential. I believe these to be the minimum provisions necessary to give statutory backing to the system of safeguards envisaged by the Government. Some noble Lords—and I am sure that we shall hear this in a minute or two, and I am one of them—may have preferred a power of direction restored to counties, and I understand the difficulties. I must confess that I am still not too sure that the departure procedure will be triggered off by an unwilling district, even after the statutory consultation provided for by this amendment has been carried out. I believe that if Amendments Nos. 182A and 184A are accepted by the Government, we shall then have a reasonably firm basis upon which a satisfactory departure procedure can be built.
I cannot stress emphatically enough that these are the minimum requirements that
880
must be included in the Bill, so that the Government's intention of protecting the structure plan can be implemented. The moment we try to weaken the requirement to consult—as the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley would do—then the safeguards are not firm enough.
The words, "in their opinion" and to a lesser extent, the word, "significance" give too much scope for the admittedly rare occasions when a district planning authority feels the urge to flout a structure plan. Let us not forget that, as my noble friend Lord Ridley has told us, a structure plan has been subjected to the fullest possible public consultation; it has been through all the democratic processes we can imagine, has then been approved by the Secretary of State and, finally, it is a plan that is intimately tied up with the control of a county's public expenditure programme, about which we have heard enough in these last few days. I suggest that the Committee should not agree to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford. I sincerely hope that Amendment No. 182A in the name of my noble friend Lord Ridley might be acceptable to the Government, and that is the one which I shall support, and I beg your Lordships to do likewise.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I was invited by my noble friend Lord Sandford to consider that my Amendment No. 183 should be included with these others, and I am certainly prepared so to do. That amendment is, in fact, a probing amendment which followed on from a similar one in another place in which the Minister undertook to find out from the district councils whether they wished for the sort of power that my amendment would give them. It seems to me that the district councils are not entirely of one mind as to whether or not they are ready for that, and I personally think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley, particularly Amendment No. 182A, is the one which is most deserving of support, without amendment to it.
4.26 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley. For some 20 years I have

881
been chairman of the Regional Conference for London and the South-East Planning Authorities, which, in fact, now includes not only the county councils, and the Greater London Council, but also the district councils. Therefore, I shall pick my words carefully in the hope that I shall not offend either of these important bodies.
The point that I wish to make to my noble friend—and I am very hopeful that he will accept this amendment—is that planning matters are very much matters of judgment. Planning is not a science; it is entirely an art. It is a matter of perspective that what looks right at a strictly local level looks much less right at a county level, and possibly even less right still when looked at at a regional or national level. It is for that reason that all the local authorities in the South-East, including London, have for nearly 20 years had this standing conference as a piece of machinery, so that they could bring what were previously their develpoment plans and are now their structure plans together, in order to give the benefit of greater perspective, to ensure that these plans fitted together in the interests of the whole community. It is absolutely vital to look at such matters as the conservation of important natural features—like the North Downs, the South Downs, the Thames Valley and so on—in a regional context, because this affects the whole community, not only of the counties concerned but of London as well for all the people who want to go out there.
So I make the point that perspective—the size of the picture—is a vital factor in planning. There are many matters which need to be looked at in the context of the county, if not wider. This, of course, is the reason why county structure plans are made in the first place, because that will be in the interests of the whole community, but the context of the perspective of the county should be considered. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ridley is right in wanting to maintain the effectiveness of the structure plan in everybody's interests, and ensuring that we have the right machinery to ensure that district authorities then proceed to carry out the structure plan correctly in their interpretation at local level.
In this context I would agree with my noble friend Lord Middleton; in my
882
judgment the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley is really a minimum. It is most important in everybody's interests that the structure plan be maintained. Therefore, I would hope that my noble friend would not find my noble friend Lord Sandford's amendment acceptable because it would significantly reduce even this minimum safeguard in Viscount Ridley's amendment. I would also hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford—he is very wise in these matters and has seen the scene from national as well as local level—would not be inclined to press his amendment. I feel that the amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will do something to restore the balance, which was not right. It has caused a great deal of anxiety in the Bill as it stands. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept it.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: While supporting the barrage of Barons who have supported, and no doubt will support, my noble friend Lord Ridley, I think I speak on behalf of the solidarity of Baronesses in pressing the merits of Amendment No. 193, which is perhaps a little stronger in wording. Its object is straightforward. It is to give county councils the ability to call in for their own decision those planning applications which the districts are minded to permit but which conflict with the structure plan policies.
This amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should be able to issue directions specifying the circumstances in which these powers of call-in should operate. This could be used, for example, to ensure that applications which raise national or regional issues would go to the Secretary of State himself, and that the counties' powers of call-in would not apply to minor applications which, although they might conflict with structure plan policies, would not raise genuinely strategic issues and should therefore be left entirely for the districts to decide. I believe that providing county councils with reserve powers on these lines would be the single most effective way of safeguarding structure plan policies, a cause which the Government, I am sure, seek to espouse but which a great many of us believe that parts of this Bill would seriously undermine.

883
I shall not rehearse all the arguments about the importance of safeguarding structure plans. These have been well put already. Suffice it to say that at a time when public expenditure is under increasing constraint and fewer resources are available for schools, hospitals, sewage works and so on, it becomes essential to give full support to the strategic planning policies designed to channel development to areas where it would make the most of existing and planned capacity. The country cannot afford to build duplicate public facilities in other areas just because those areas may have more immediate attractions for developers.
What are the other arguments for and against reserve powers for counties? The Government believe that these powers lead to duplication of development control functions and to delay. I do not share that view. The planning applications to which I propose that these reserve powers should apply are precisely those on which districts would be required to consult the counties under the Government's own code of practice. The time taken to formulate views and secure member-endorsement for county comments would be no shorter than the time taken for the county to settle the decision itself. Indeed, the Government's own mechanism could take longer.
The question of duplication is more difficult, because I would certainly accept that my proposals mean two potential levels of decision-taking. But surely my proposals for a very limited number of county decisions taken in the knowledge of districts' views involve no more duplication than the Government's own proposals for district decisions based on county views. The advantage of my proposals would be a better match between the planning responsibilities of the authority taking this decision and the planning implications of the decision itself.
Finally, let me underline the considerable significance of the word "reserve". The case for the amendment which I have put to your Lordships has been made to me by the Cambridgeshire County Council. The county tell me they have excellent working relationships with the six districts in Cambridgeshire, such that on no occasion since 1974 has the county felt it necessary to use its present powers of
884
direction to take a planning case out of the district's jurisdiction. There have been differences of view but it has always proved possible to resolve these by discussion.
The county council believe that this would continue with the amendment as presented today, but the very existence of a reserve power immeasurably strengthens the county's hand with these decisions with the districts. Without the support of reserve powers it is likely that the districts would from time to time come under irresistible local pressure to bend or breach structure plan policies, and with the Bill as it stands at the moment there would in practice be little that the county council or Secretary of State could do about it.
It has been pointed out to me that perhaps this amendment should occur earlier in Clause 75 to follow subsection (5) on page 64. I am looking to the Government for approval or, at the very least, encouragement, and would hope that any redrafting can safely be left to them. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships.
4.36 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: One is presented here with a sort of escalating tariff of choices. Lord Sandford's amendment would emasculate Viscount Ridley's amendment, which is modest enough as it is. In the first place I would with great respect—as we say when we do not mean that at all—recommend your Lordships' Committee to reject Lord Sandford's amendment. So far as the noble Viscount's amendment is concerned it is a modest change in requiring that consultations should take place by the district with the counties on these matters set out in the amendment.
I personally prefer the amendment in the name of the three noble Baronesses, Amendment No. 193. But having read my Guardian and having considered the entrails of various amendments I have a suspicion that the amendment that is going to be most acceptable to the Government is likely to be the noble Viscount's amendment. I regard Clause 75 in planning terms as the most objectionable in the Bill. It rests on one assumption: it is to speed up planning processes and to remove duplication of county and

885
district functions, and therefore the county councils' statutory development control powers are being abandoned on the basis of speeding up and removing duplication.
As a member of a county planning committee, that, in my experience, is a false position, a false assumption. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, mentioned that the arrangements in Cambridgeshire seemed to work very well between district and county. The arrangements in Merseyside, which have been in operation since 1976, are considered by the county planning officials to be among the most efficient and satisfactory in the country. They are accepted—and I speak with personal experience—by all the districts in the Merseyside area, and work admirably well in practice.
The arrangements reflect the county's desire to restrict its role in development control to fulfilling its function as the strategic planning authority. Delay and duplication are minimised by co-option of district chairmen on to the planning sub-committee of the county and the county giving an early strategic planning view and delegating on most decisions and reserve matters to the districts. The county involvement is limited to four headings: first, the county sees approximately 5 per cent. of all applications; secondly, expected views are given on average within three weeks; thirdly, the county council takes decisions on 0·5 per cent. of all applications; fourthly, it only requires four professional county planning staff, one of the lowest per capita levels in the country.
It is the power of direction and the right to choose which application it sees which has enabled the county to reduce its development control role, while at the same time protecting its strategic planning interests. That is why I prefer Amendment No. 193. Although the county has used its direction power only once since 1974, this statutory power has, in the county's view, ensured a greater degree of district co-operation and adherence to county policies than would otherwise have been the case. Furthermore, if districts are given responsibility for deciding which applications counties see, county councils may not receive applications on which they wish to comment, and districts may even withhold applications where they anticipate that county
886
opposition could conflict with a district's parochial interest to the detriment of the county as a whole. That is why I am not in sympathy with the second amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
Therefore, on the basis of what I have described as happening successfully in one metropolitan county, and which I am sure is happening elsewhere, the power of direction is the best way of ensuring that the county structure plan is protected with the least amount of trouble, expense and time. That is why I feel that amendment is the best of the three, or the better of the two alternatives we have. I should have liked to see in line 6 of subsection (7) of that amendment after "which" the words "in the opinion of the county planning officer" inserted, but if the Government approve of the concept of what the noble Baroness is proposing, no doubt they will, as she said, tighten up the wording in any event.
It seems to me that if we are believers in protecting the county strategy, we must ensure that there is either consultation, which is the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, or, better still, a right of direction, otherwise I think the whole of the structure that has been built up of structure planning could, unintentionally I hope, be destroyed by the Government by this one part of the Bill, and I therefore hope that one of the amendments will be accepted.
4.42 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: In rising to comment on my amendment, No. 192, my words may enable the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, to choose my amendment. If I must, I might support my noble friend Lord Ridley's minimum, as I would call it, Amendment No. 182A, but I would much prefer the Government to accept No. 192, which is tabled in my name, or indeed, which is very similar, No. 193, to which my noble friend Lady Trumpington spoke and which is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I support my amendment, or No. 193 as the case may be, because they protect the structure plan much more strongly than the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley. Before explaining why I think that is so, I should like my noble friend Lord Bellwin

887
to say whether the Government at present consider the structure plan to be, first, inviolate; secondly, important and; thirdly, redundant. If my noble friend replies that my amendment makes the structure plan too rigid—or shall I say inviolate?—I must remind him that structure plans can be altered by such processes as departure procedures and a review by the county council.
I make no bones about the fact that I consider that too much agricultural land is taken carelessly out of agriculture, and any one who came down by train, as I did today, could see just how much is taken. I believe that structure plans, to which the agriculture industry has devoted much time, should be kept to as rigidly as possible and the procedures for altering the plan made difficult. Only by that means, as I see it, shall we stop the needless and tragic waste of agricultural land.
As my noble friend Lord Ridley said, the Bill proposes to transfer planning powers to district councils, and although I hate to tell my noble friend Lord Sandford—and I have no intention of getting off my hedge between the county council and the district council; I intend to sit on it as comfortably as I possibly can, although I feel I am sliding off it just slightly—I am convinced that district councils will be far more tempted (indeed, they will be seduced) by their duty to their local constituents to alter structure plans whenever a chance is offered for development. There is absolutely no pressure whatever for a local district councillor to look any further than his local area, and if unemployment remains high, the councillor will welcome any development in his own little area regardless of the county structure plan, which is tied, as I understand it, to the national plan. This, carried to its logical conclusion, will cause even more overcrowding and loss of land in the South East corner of England and more dereliction and unemployment in the less-favoured North and West.
The crux of my worries throughout the few amendments I have tabled to the Bill is that the Bill makes it easier to break the structure plan. Rightly or wrongly, it is rumoured—perhaps my noble friend will counter this one way or the other—
888
that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has little time for structure plans. My noble friend must tell me whether or not that is untrue, and we in agriculture could stop chasing this fox which we have been chasing for a long time and perhaps chase a more constructive objective. Maybe it was put about to divert us. However, if there is to be weakening of the structure plan—and inevitably there will be if the Bill goes through as at present drafted—more agricultural land will be taken, unless a new scheme is devised. I believe that the Bill in this case is typical of the man whose spirit is willing but whose flesh is very weak.
4.47 p.m.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: wish to make a few observations in support of that speech by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I agree with him when he says that this clause and this group of amendments is of profound significance to the agriculture industry; of that there can be no doubt. There has been, as he said, a progressive decline in the area of good agricultural land in the United Kingdom. We know that it is required for other reasons, and they are mainly good reasons, or so it could be argued. For example, land is needed for industrial development, housing estates, schools, hospitals and roads, all of which are good reasons which deserve support. But agricultural land is currently being lost at the rate of 40,000 acres per annum and about 200,000 hectares have been lost to agriculture since the last war. The situation must therefore be watched carefully. This does not mean to say that the land cannot be used for other purposes, but we must watch it very carefully.
If structure plans are important to us all, they are of particular significance to our primary industry. If one can rely on them in any given area, then one knows where one stands; the farmer knows that his farm is safe for the foreseeable future and that he can plan ahead. All this has to do with another vital area, that of food production, which is of concern to the whole nation. If I understand it aright, the Bill as drafted proposes a fundamental change which undermines confidence in the structure plan. As thing are, county councils determine

889
planning applications in conformity with the provisions of the structure plan; but that would no longer be the case under the Bill as drafted. Furthermore, local plans would prevail over structure plans where there was a conflict between them. That is the central point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, reasonable man as he is more often than not, has failed to understand on this occasion. Short-term expediency may thus triumph over carefully prepared long-term plans. I fully understand the need to move quickly in certain planning cases and I agree that planning procedure needs watching and overhauling from time to time, but we must be careful not to move to the other extreme.
I received a note, as no doubt did other members of the Committee, from the National Farmers' Union and I thought they made two very important points. The National Farmers' Union suggested, first, that Ministers should publish the draft code of practice, to which reference has been made; that is, that the draft code of practice should be for consultation between county and district councils. This should be done, I think, before the end of the Report stage, so that your Lordships know exactly where you stand. I am surprised that no reference has yet been made to this point.
The National Farmers' Union also recommended that, where the Minister of Agriculture still has an outstanding objection after the council has declared its intentions, then the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales should be obliged to call in the plan for approval. That seems to me to be eminently reasonable, because the two departments would thus have a chance to find a solution that safeguards the national interests, which is the important consideration. I have considerable confidence in district councils, but if we lost that safeguard, we might let outselves in for much unreliable and irresponsible decisions from time to time in the future, and the country would suffer as a consequence.
In the last resort, I would support the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I prefer my own amendment, although I would also support
890
the amendment about to be proposed by the two noble Baronesses from Cambridge—
A noble Lord: Three!
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS:— whose advocacy is virtually irrcssistable to a Welshman.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May one word be said from the North, from Scotland, because although my experience has been entirely there and not in England, I border very extensively on the area of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and we have many times had conversations and consultations. I should like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said; I think that that amendment is a very valuable one. Like the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and Lord Stanley of Alderley, I would prefer to have the more definite proposals that are contained in their amendment. I would not support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the district councils' views; I think that that would weaken the situation. I am quite sure that in the area in which I live, and which I know, the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and, if possible, those of the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Lord Cledwyn of Penhros, would be ones that people would want to support.
I hope that the Government will realise that there is very strong feeling about this matter, and we should very much like them to accept the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, or the amendment which makes the position even stronger and which comes from Cambridge and from Wales. But from Scotland I would definitely support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: Perhaps the second of the noble Baronesses from Cambridge may now have a say. I think that most of the county councils support the Secretary of State's attempts to speed up and simplify the planning system, and I think that since 1974 most county councils have accepted that district councils are the right level at which to be clearly responsible for almost all the development control decisions. But I

891
believe that the Bill as it is now before us upsets the present balance and that the Government's proposals risk undermining the framework of the planning policies as set out in the approved structure plans. That could in turn lead to permission being granted for developments which might impose major burdens on county council expenditure on a scale or, a distribution, that was not in the county council's thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place at the moment, but he will recall that before the days of structure plans we had problems in his former constituency, where the county council made all the expensive preparations in regard to education in the village of Sawtry and the district council agreed that it should build far more houses in the village of Yaxley, on the other side of the road. We had all kinds of problems with bussing children, and so on. That is the kind of thing that can happen if there is not some kind of regard for the structure plan.
We think that the Secretary of State ought to have the power to enable applications for planning permission to be referred either to the county planning authority or to him, depending on the circumstances. We in Cambridgeshire believe that a stronger amendment, such as we have put forward, is justified, to include some sort of formal intervention by counties in a very small number of cases where they think that action by the district councils might breach strategic planning policies.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Trumping-ton, said, we have not as yet had any of these problems in Cambridgeshire, but there is always a first time and we want to be there to stop that. We think that our proposed amendment, No. 193, would leave the Secretary of State with his present powers to intervene in cases of genuine national issues, and would give him power to define the circumstances in which counties would be able to call in cases for their decision. This should apply only to genuine strategic departures from the structure plan.
Since we tabled our amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—we gather, after discussions with the ACC—has
892
put down the major amendment that we are discussing this afternoon. I understand that the ACC sees these amendments as being fairly satisfactory alternatives to those which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, tabled earlier. However, we in Cambridgeshire consider that the amendments, while quite unobjectionable and better than what is in the Bill at the moment, are still inadequate, because all they do is set out in the Bill itself, rather than in the code of practice, as proposed at present, the circumstances in which the districts should consult the counties on planning applications of county significance, and a rather insubstantial duty is placed on districts to carry out their development control functions and to seek the achievement of the general objectives of the structure plan.
We do not think that either of these amendments goes towards meeting the fundamental concern that, without the reserve power of direction exercisable by the counties, there is no really practical way of ensuring that districts do not from time to time perhaps give greater weight to local considerations than to the expressed views of the counties. If that were so, they could take decisions which might frustrate or subvert the basic structure plan policies.
So we think that perhaps we still need something stronger on the lines of our amendment. As I have said, we would support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in the first instance as being rather better than what is in the Bill at the moment, but we would hope that at a later stage your Lordships might support us in trying to strengthen it.
Lord DIGBY: In supporting my noble friend Lord Ridley and opposing my noble friend Lord Sandford, I should like to emphasise the genuine nature of the differences between counties and districts. Very often there is a conflict of interest between local voters and the general good, and there is no doubt that many local voters in town or borough can affect the opinion of their councillors. I think it is important in this matter that the question should not be left merely as being the opinion of the local planning authority.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I wish to intervene very briefly on what I think

893
is a very important matter. I like the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in particular the proposal contained in the part of the amendment at the foot of page 5 of the Marshalled List:
"(c) of any development of land in an area which the county planning authority have notified to the district planning authority, in writing, as an area in which development is likely to affect or be affected by the winning and working of minerals, other than coal;"
Having said that, I am also on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penhros in regard to agriculture. We have all received a NFU brief. It would be tedious if I were to read lumps from that excellent brief. All noble noble Lords here know what it contains, and it would bore this sensible Committee if I were to read lumps from it.
I believe that there comes a point where the structure plan and national interest must be taken into account. The winning of coal is of fundamental importance, and so is the production of food. Anyone who knows anything about farming will appreciate that a farmer needs time. He cannot put up with quick changes by either district or county councils when he is trying to bring new land into good heart. If he is dealing with marshland, or land above the 500, 600 or 700 feet contour, he wants to know where he stands if he invests not hundreds of pounds but, these days, thousands of pounds in draining, winning marshland, turning fallow land into productive land.
Whatever conclusions we reach, I believe that in the end the fundamental national interest in coal development and agriculture stand out shoulder high as needing reasonable and understanding attention from whatever Government, and whatever county councils or district councils, are in power.
Lord PARGITER: Before the Minister replies, may I put just a small point which is perhaps general rather than particular? I think it is important that legislation should be positive. At the present time the Government's proposals are not positive, and, while there may be machinery for departing from the structure plan, this should be very clearly set out, as has been done in the amendment. We cannot have absolute rigidity, obviously,
894
but it seems to me that the wording of the Government's proposals leaves the whole situation open to doubt, whereas it ought to be made much more positive in the form in which it is put into legislation.
5.1 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: We have had a very lengthy debate on what clearly is a most important part of the Bill, and one which, as has been shown, illustrates the concern which the Committee and your Lordships have for this matter. I am glad to deal together with the 10 amendments, in effect, if we take in the three which my noble friend Lord Sandford has put forward as well as amendments to the amendment. So let me try to deal with them all together.
The amendments we have been debating offer alternatives or alterations to our proposals in Clause 75 for re-allocating planning powers between counties and districts. What the amendments have in common is that they all deal with concerns about the way that development control—the actual deciding of planning applications—is in future to relate to the structure plans.
Where two tiers of local authorities are involved in a subject of course there will be friction from time to time—and here may I be allowed to make a very narrow parochial point? During the Second Reading debate I referred to the fact that in my own former authority they have some 9,000 planning applications a year, and that just down the road the county authority employed staff to go over each of those to ensure that they did not conflict with the structure plan. It has been pointed out to me that in fact that is not the procedure these days, and that they go over only a percentage of them. I am glad, with the permission of the Committee, to mention that because, that being so, it pleases me, and I think that is a step forward. No administrative arrangements could eliminate all friction completely, but there are better and worse arrangements, the worst of all being uncertainty about what the future arrangements are to be. We have lived too long with that uncertainty, brought about because it had become clear that the existing arrangements had few friends and would inevitably need to be revised and clarified in one way or another.

895
I think it is fair to say that the announcement of our proposals was greeted with a good deal of relief in most quarters; at least the uncertainty was to be ended. Since then we have seen an increasing concern in some quarters about the role of the structure plan under our proposals. I hope we can settle the point today and turn the attentions of the planning system once again in more profitable directions. To do so we need to clarify the Government's attitude to the role of structure plans in development control. Let me take first Amendments Nos. 184 and 192, which propose the same form of words—that is, a duty of the district council to "give effect to" the structure plan in deciding planning applications.
I accept entirely that district councils must pay proper attention to the structure plan in deciding planning applications. The duty to have regard to the development plan in force—and that would include the structure plan—is already enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and I am happy to reiterate how important the Government believe that duty to be. However, the effect of this amendment would be much more radical. It seems likely that the courts would interpret a duty worded in this way as meaning that the district would not have the power to grant permission for any application which departed from the structure plan. Not only would that be a major change to our proposals; it would be fundamental change in the status and character of the structure plan. Since there would be no power for counties to decide these cases, the only way any departure from the structure plan could be granted would be by appeal to the Secretary of State or by the Secretary of State calling the case in for his own decision. That would result in chaos.
I am sure that that was far from being the noble Lords' intention in moving these amendments. As I understand what they have said today, they were concerned to see a more general duty placed on districts to respect the structure plan. That, it seems to me, would be the effect of Amendment No. 184A. In this context, the question arises of how such an amendment would differ from the duty which is already in the Town and Country Planning Act. On the one
896
hand, it has been argued that this duty is both too obscurely hidden in the legislation and too vague, and that a clear and specific duty is needed in the context of the provision of this Bill. On the other hand, there have been anxieties expressed that a provision like the one in this amendment would cramp district councils in the legitimate and reasonable exercise of the powers that are to be conveyed on them.
The effect of Amendment No. 184A would not be to prevent a district council granting permission for a development which departed from the structure plan. There will of course be strict procedures to be gone through before a district can do so—consulting the county, advertising the proposal and notifying the Secretary of State. We have resisted proposals for any duty to be laid on districts which would prevent them from departing from structure plans in appropriate cases where they had followed the procedures. Nevertheless, I can understand the anxieties of those who fear that we seem to be disconnecting development control from structure plans. Let me assure them that that is not the case. The wording of this amendment is a fair representation of the Government's view of the relation between development control and the structure plan, and as such I shall be content to accept that amendment.
Perhaps I may now turn from the duties of districts to the question of safeguarding powers for counties. We have two amendments, Nos. 193 and 182, which would give counties the power to decide more applications themselves, either where the Secretary of State referred the application to them or on their own initiative. A power for counties to call in applications, as Amendment No. 193 would convey, has been much discussed as an additional safeguard within the system we are proposing. It has been presented as something which does not conflict at all with the principles of our proposals; that it would merely be an additional safeguard. That is not the case. The amendment strikes at the heart of our proposals.
County planning authorities at present have a power to direct a district to refuse a planning application which "would substantially and adversely affect their interests as a local planning authority".

897
This power of direction has been used sparingly or not at all in some areas. In others, it has been used indiscriminately. What is proposed in this amendment is a widening of that power. Counties would in effect have the power either to grant or to refuse planning permission.
Clause 75 of the Bill removes the wide and rather vague definition of "county matters" as including all developments which conflict with the fundamental provisions of structure plans. The amendment would reintroduce that kind of definition into the legislation. What is more, it would give county councils (and not, as at present, district councils) the power to decide whether the definition applied to any particular application. The result would be that a county council which wished to do so could actually increase its development control activity beyond its present powers. There would then be an actual increase in the duplication of work between the kinds of planning authorities. There would be uncertainty in the mind of the applicant for planning permission about who would be deciding it; and the clarification of responsibility which Clause 75 seeks to achieve would be completely frustrated.
Perhaps I may say that it is surprising, to say the least, to see that noble Lords opposite are proposing this amendment. When they were in power, they proposed to change the responsibilities for planning, as part of their "organic change" proposals which we discussed earlier, in a way not too far removed from what we are now proposing. They resisted the arguments of those who pressed for a county power of "call-in", and I must assume that they did so for the same reasons that we have done.
I must also point out that, as they are drafted, the amendments are technically deficient. The first subsection gives district planning authorities the power of direction over applications which conflict with the policies and general proposals of the structure plan. The second subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to issue directions specifying the classes of applications to which the power in the first subsection shall apply. The two subsections are therefore contradictory. For all these reasons, I must resist this amendment, delightfully moved though it may have
898
been, indeed, by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, supported so ably, as always, by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
The question then arises as to whether it would be acceptable, as Amendment No. 182 proposes, for the Secretary of State to have power to refer cases to the county. The principle we are seeking to establish in Clause 75 is that there should be a clear separation of powers between counties and districts, and that everyone concerned with planning—the applicant, the planning officer, the elected member—should be able to see clearly who does what: what is the district function, and what is the county function. At the same time, we are seeking to concentrate responsibility for development control with one tier of local government, to avoid the duplication that has too often characterised the present system—something for which Lord Wallace pleaded for earlier so ably. On these criteria, the amendment would fail. What is worse, if the Secretary of State were actively to use the power that would be conveyed on him, there would have to be involvement of the Department of the Environment in examining individual planning applications. A greater involvement of central Government is the reverse of what we are aiming to achieve, and I would strongly resist this amendment.
A more minor power was proposed by my noble friend, Lord Mottistone in Amendment No. 183. This proposed amendment adds little to the powers of district councils. Already under the Local Government Act 1972, district councils would have the power to arrange for part or all of their planning functions to be discharged by the county council. But it could be held that that power would not enable a district to pass an individual planning application to the county for decision. Noble Lords might imagine from that that a request for this power might have come from district councils. That is not so.
Finally let me turn to Amendment No. 182A, which deals with the arrangements for districts to consult counties. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Ridley that the classes of applications about which district planning authorities are required to consult county planning authorities should be included

899
in the Bill and not, as the clause currently provides, in a development order. The consultations that will result from the amendment are important. They will enable county planning authorities to contribute effectively to the decisions of districts on applications of significance to the structure plan or to their interests as local planning authorities. It is as well that the circumstances which oblige a district to consult the county should be clear in the Bill itself.
The classes of applications which are set out in the amendment are those devised by an official working party on a code of practice on consultation between district and county planning authorities. This working party has been looking at the totality of the arrangements for such consultation, including the statutory provisions—which were to have been included in subordinate legislation and which are now contained in this amendment—and the informal arrangements and guidance on implementing the statutory requirements which will be contained in a Department of the Environment circular. The working party's membership includes representatives of the department and of the three local authority associations.
Although the code of practice that has been prepared has not yet been formally endorsed by the local authority associations, the acceptance of this amendment will not prejudice it. Rather it will help to dispel the concern that has been expressed that structure plans will not be properly safeguarded. Taken together with, first, the requirement that all significant departures from the development plan must be notified to the Secretary of State for him to call in for his own decision if necessary and, secondly, the appeals system, these arrangements will constitute an effective safeguard for structure plans and the strategic role of the county.
There is a risk in placing these details in the Bill rather than in a development order. It is that, if at any time experience shows that the classes of applications are not what they ought to be, it will be more difficult to amend them than if they were in a development order. There has to be a balance between the security afforded by inclusion in the Bill and the flexibility provided by a development order. We
900
are prepared to accept the risk which inclusion in the Bill involves.
It is possible, under paragraph 19(3), for county planning authorities to authorise district planning authorities to proceed to decide applications which fall in the consultation classes without consulting the county. The Government hope that counties will do this whenever possible. We are anxious for all reasonable steps to be taken to reduce the flow of paper and the delays which unnecessary consultations can cause. We will encourage counties and districts to agree when consultations are not required. We will also encourage them to agree the circumstances in which there should be a consultation because a proposed development would be of major importance to the implementation of the structure plan.
The Government attach considerable importance to these consultations and are committed to seeing that they provide a sound means for protecting structure plans. We believe the local authority associations are similarly committed. But we have made it clear that if, exceptionally, it appears that the provisions are not being followed, we will use the powers available to intervene. I should like to comment quickly on some of the individual points made. I cannot cover many of them. We have been debating for nearly two hours in this one area; and this is still the Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Stanley made a point about structure plans. He asked whether I thought they were inviolate, important and—I think—desirable.
A noble Lord: And redundant.
Lord BELLWIN: I consider them to be important and all that I have said, I hope, confirms that. Redundant, no! If they were redundant, we should not be having all the trauma that we have been having in trying to get this part of the Bill right. When my noble friend asks whether they are inviolate, I would say that they cannot foresee every contingency; nor can they be changed quickly. If the system is to work efficiently, there must be arrangements, including suitable safeguards to enable the approval of applications which depart from the structure plan. These proposals in the Bill will not make it easier to depart from the structure plan. The safeguards of the duty to consult and the departures procedure

901
and the Secretary of State's powers of call-in will constitute an effective safeguard. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley would, I very respectfully suggest, paralyse the system by preventing any departure being made.
I now refer to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford, Amendment No. 182B. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend that the words "in the opinion of the district planning authority" should be added to make it clear beyond any doubt where the responsibility lies for deciding if the county must be consulted on a particular application. There is some merit in this. But in practice, although the words are not expressly stated in Lord Ridley's amendment, it is, in any case, the district which will need to decide if the circumstances fit the application. In the whole, it seems to me unnecessary to add the words, and I think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley can safely be accepted as it stands.
On Amendments No. 182C and 182D, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Sandford had to say. However, I think we are here rather getting into semantics. Either development on such a site would be prejudiced—in which case the district should consult the county—or it would not. The qualification provided by the word "significantly" tends to add, if anything, some unclarity. I would not want to accept this amendment.
In concluding, I want to say how I appreciate the statesmanlike approach that everyone has adopted in trying to make this part of the Bill better. It was something in which I myself was involved for a long time in discussions in another incarnation. It was part of the totality of the organic change scene then being discussed. Everybody realised that a compromise of some kind would make sense, provided, on the one hand, you were able to secure the very real concern of the counties that the structure plan was sacrosanct in itself, allowing for flexibility to the extent that I mentioned; and, on the other hand, that the districts were the people on the spot who would have to deal with the nuts and bolts, the sharp end—all those phrases which mean those who have to make it work. Here we have come to a compromise which I think all sides will say is not exactly what we want;
902
but, all right, it should make it better than it is now. In that spirit, the Government accept Amendments Nos. 184A and 182A. I hope that those who have put down the other amendments will accept that if they have not got all they wanted, we should at least see how this works for the future.
5.20 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY: May I speak to Amendment No. 182B? I regard it as a wrecking amendment to Amendment No. 182A. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned the working party and he quoted 30th April. Since then a lot has happened. The ACC certainly have not accepted the basic principle involved and are awaiting the outcome of this Bill before they do so. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on my behalf and in support of this amendment. I am grateful for the compromise that the Government have accepted. I feel sure that after this both sides—if there are sides—of the argument will work together to make the planning process as efficient and speedy as possible.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful for the thorough discussion on Amendment No. 182B and all the other amendments that we discussed at the same time. I am also grateful to my noble friend for his wide survey, review and decisive appraisal of what we have been discussing. More specifically, I am glad that he can accept Amendment No. 184 because I think that is one of the best things this debate has led to so far. It establishes the role of all concerned in relation to the structure plan in such clear, precise and accurate language. I am also glad that Her Majesty's Government welcome Amendment No. 182A, bringing as it does on to the face of the Bill important matters which it would not have been right to relegate merely to regulations.
There is still some degree of misunderstanding in this debate about the nature of the structure plan. It is not an infant that the counties must nurse possessively as though the districts were coming into snatch it, kidnap it and strangle it. It has been their duty to produce it. Now it is produced and approved, I suggest that it is common property which all concerned—districts, counties and many others—must work to establish and strengthen

903
for the benefit of the whole of the wide community to which it applies. That is certainly the way in which districts considered it. It is being designed for the benefit of the whole of the community, the county and the six, seven or eight districts to which it applies. I submit that it is in no one's interest to flout it, harm it, to diminish its importance or weaken it. It is one of the main frameworks against which districts will want to decide the applications that come to them.
It is not a handicap or hindrance; it is a great strength and help to have a firm structure plan against which to take decisions—all the more for those district councillors who are under intense local pressure to do something that conflicts with it. If the structure plan is there, they have something to fall back on and against which to justify their decisions. It is certainly not in the districts' interest to do anything to diminish the strength or firmness of a structure plan. They gain nothing at all by lacking a firm and agreed framework against which to work.
I was grateful for some but not all of the things put forward by the "Three Graces" from Cambridge. I was particularly grateful for the illustration that they gave us of the pattern of relationships that have developed between the counties and the districts. That, I am glad to say, is a pattern of relationships which is coming to prevail more generally up and down the country as everybody gets into their stride in the new planning framework. The point I would make is that that has not relied on the kind of powers which a number of amendments which have been sought today would invoke.
In respect of Amendment No. 192, moved so persuasively by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley—and even more persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—it is not my impression that farmers and landowners are unrepresented on district councils. The last district I visited was Radnor in Wales. The council was chaired by a farmer. I should be very surprised if the chairman of that district or the district itself had to rely on the structure plan to make sure that agricultural land did not go by default into development. That is a district—and there are many others—well capable of looking after its agricultural land in the way in which noble Lords would want
904
to see. I, like Lord Cledwyn, would be very happy to trust the district councils to do that job well.
So what it comes down to is that, like my noble friend on the Front Bench, I regard Amendment No. 182A as the clear favourite among the options presented to us, and I clearly favour it. The only remaining question is: Does it need Amendments Nos. 182B, C and D to make it better? I put those amendments in because they were in the document which represented the agreement reached by the working party considering these regulations on the date in question. The paper was issued on 30th April. I am very glad—for the time being at any rate—to accept the assurances of my noble friend on the Front Bench that Amendment No. 182 without Amendments Nos. 182B, C and D will be clear and will operate well. I should like to set an example to the rest of the Members of the Committee who have put down amendments about this matter and withdraw Amendment No. 182B.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made an impressive reply to the debate. The Committee are grateful to him for that. May I put one point to him; namely, the case where the Minister of Agriculture still has an outstanding objection after a council has declared its intentions? I suggested that it would be prudent, in the interests of the agricultural industry generally and the country, that that should be available to be called in so that there could be a discussion between his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture. Can the noble Lord say whether there has been full discussion between his department and the Ministry of Agriculture on this point, and whether the Minister of Agriculture and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, are aware of the point?
Lord BELLWIN: I do not intend to speak again on this subject. The noble Lord raises a point which comes under Amendment No. 206. The Committee can see how the amendment numbers are now engraved in my head! We will be discussing that.
Amendment No. 182B, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 182C and 182D not moved.]
Amendment No. 182A agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 184A:
Page 63, line 38, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be the duty of a local planning authority when exercising their functions under section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (determination of application) to seek the achievement of the general objectives of the structure plan for the time being in force for their area.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this amendment. It is part of the debate that we have had.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.29 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendments Nos. 185A to 190 en bloc:
Page 63, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (a)—
"(aa) the use of land, or the erection of any building, plant or machinery on land, for the carrying out of any process for the preparation or adaptation for sale of any mineral or the manufacture of any article from a mineral where—

(i) the land forms part of or adjoins a site used or proposed to be used for the winning and working of minerals; or

(ii) the mineral, is or is proposed to be, brought to the land from a site used, or proposed to be used, for the winning and working of minerals by means of pipeline, conveyor belt, aerial ropeway or similar plant or machinery, or by private road, private waterway or private railway."").

Page 64, line 15, leave out ("blocks or pipes") and insert ("products or artificial aggregates").
Page 64, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(cc) the erection of any building, plant or machinery which it is proposed to use for the manufacture of cement.").
Page 64, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(cd) the carrying out of operations in, on, over or under land or a use of land where the land is or forms part of a site used or formerly used for the winning and working of minerals and where the operations or use would conflict with or prejudice compliance with any condition imposed on a planning permission requiring the restoration of the land when the winning and working of minerals has ceased.").
Page 64, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(c) the use of land for any purpose required in connection with the transport by rail or water of cement, or the erection of any building, plant or machinery which it is proposed to use in connection therewith.").
Page 64, line 21, at end insert—
("(cf) the erection of any building, plant or machinery which it is proposed to use for the manufacture of bricks.").
The noble Lord said: There is a general connecting reason for these amendments, though there are detailed reasons for each amendment which I will briefly touch on in as short a speech as I can make. The overall intention of these amendments is to try to overcome the anomalous situation whereby the county council is the planning authority for minerals extraction, and the district council for works closely connected to it. This can involve duplication of inspection and expertise and thus has a direct hearing on the reduction of public expenditure. If accepted, these amendments will make the county a single planning authority for minerals extraction and for closely integrated processes.
Amendment No. 185A would have the effect of redefining the minerals county matters to include all processing of, and manufacturing from, a mineral which occurs at or adjoining the site of extraction and all processing of minerals which are physically linked to the extraction—for example, by pipeline or conveyor belt—even though they may be some distance apart.
With regard to Amendment No. 186, where processes which are closely connected with mineral workings are carried out on a site which is already subjected to control by the county planning authority, it is logical that they, too, should be county controlled. The production of concrete materials and of artificial aggregates is frequently undertaken at aggregate distribution depots; hence, they should be classified as county matters. This amendment seeks to achieve that and thus to avoid unnecessary duplication of control. The purpose of Amendment No. 187 is to make cement manufacturing a county matter and thereby integrate its planning with the extraction of minerals upon which it is totally dependent.
Amendment No. 188A covers the difficult period between the end of working

907
minerals or carrying out ancillary processes and the completion of restoration or the commencement of after-use of the worked area. It is perfectly right that district councils should be the planning authority after minerals working has ceased, and that the conditions attached to the original consent have been satisfied. In the interim period, however, the county council has responsibility for ensuring the restoration of the land and should, therefore, be entitled to deal with the development applications which directly bear on how or what restoration needs to be carried out.
The amendment seeks to avoid the situation whereby, for example, a county council demands tree planting to meet restoration conditions, and a district council gives permission for a development, the first part of which is to clear the area of trees. I trust that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, indeed all of them.
With regard to Amendment No. 189, there are a limited number of cement rail distribution depots in the United Kingdom, and these are strategically sited with respect to the 27 manufacturing works and the main centres of demand. The handling and storage of cement at these depots can be technically complex. The strategic siting of depots, the bulk quantities, the special handling precautions involved and the close integration of cement production with minerals extraction all point to the county being the right authority to judge planning applications. It has the necessary expertise and experience of minerals and general strategic matters. The question of whether the development of a cement depot is dealt with by the county council or the district council is dependent on whether the land is allocated for such character of use in the appropriate structure plan or development plan. There is, therefore, at present an inconsistency between one area and another and the amendment seeks to correct this position.
Turning now to Amendment No. 190, this amendment is designed to make brick manufacture a county planning matter. Although most brickworks are located on or adjacent to the site from which clay is extracted, and will thus be county matters from a planning viewpoint,
908
some will be divorced from the main sources of mineral supply. In such instances, it is logical that the authority responsible for the minerals extraction site, and probably with the technical expertise already of the specific needs of the brick—including tiles—industry, should have the planning function for the manufacturing site. Once again, this would avoid duplication of expertise and effort between district and county councils and would minimise conflicts and planning delays. I beg to move.
5.35 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: In response to the group of six amendments which my noble friend Lord Mottistone has proposed, I can at the outset say that I can give him satisfaction about four of them, but not about the other two. I do not propose to speak at great length about the amendment, but it would be very much better if I drew attention to each amendment separately, and I hope that that will explain the matter reasonably satisfactorily.
In moving Amendment No. 185A, may I say that my noble friend has pointed out its virtues. It is an issue which the department has been discussing with the CBI, and the department has also consulted the local authority associations. There is a broad consensus of view that it would be sensible to widen the definition of minerals county matters to clarify and unify responsibility for developments linked with mineral extraction sites. The result would be that quarries or mines, and their associated processing and manufacturing plant, where these are all part of an integrated unit, should be dealt with by the same planning authority. That is a simpler and more convenient arrangement for everyone concerned and I am happy for this amendment to be accepted.
Turning to Amendment No. 186, your Lordships will recollect that that is in regard to concrete blocks or pipes, and is to insert the words "of concrete products or artificial aggregates". In this context, my noble friend said that the Bill really provides that rail aggregates depots and aggregates wharves, together with some related activities at those sites, shall be county matters. This amendment extends the scope of the mineral related activities

909
on such sites which would be county matters. It does the same for such activities where they are carried on at or near the mineral extraction sites themselves.
The Government's view is that this would be a convenient extension to make. It will mean that most activities on those sites, which are related to the aggregates or their processing, will be dealt with by the same authority. At the same time, it does not involve a proliferation of small schemes being dealt with by counties, since there are only a limited number of sites around the country which are used for the rail and water transport of aggregates. The amendment will also help to concentrate in the hands of the county planning authorities responsibility for developments at mineral extraction sites. I am therefore content that this amendment should be accepted.
Amendment No. 187 relates to the erection of any building, plant or machinery which it is proposed to use for the manufacture of cement. In this context, once again, I am glad to give my noble friend some satisfaction. He has explained the arguments in favour of this change and I accept that we are talking about a small number of works which are very closely involved with the process of extracting minerals. I understand that the three local authority associations concerned have indicated that they are content with the proposal. I am therefore happy that this amendment, too, should be accepted.
Turning to Amendment No. 188A, in this context, essential though they are, the impact of mineral workings on the environment can often be severe. To mitigate these problems it is now the well established practice, accepted by all concerned, to provide, in the original planning permission conditions, conditions requiring the restoration of the land after the workings have finished. My noble friend did explain this point very well, if I may be permitted to say so, in introducing the amendment. But very difficult situations can arise, where other planning permissions are granted for developments, which make it difficult or, indeed, impossible to restore the land in the way that was originally intended.
The amendment appears to me to meet this point exactly and in a way which
910
would be acceptable to all concerned. The authority that imposed the condition—that is, the county—would be able to take a view on whether the new proposal was a reasonable alternative to the restoration that had been envisaged. I am happy to say that this amendment will be accepted.
Corning to Amendment No. 189, I regret that I have to say here that the Government are dissatisfied with the proposal. Here we are dealing with the use of land for any purpose required in connection with the transport by rail or water of cement, or the erection of any building, plant or machinery which it is proposed to use in connection therewith. The Government have accepted the principle that rail depots and marine wharfs for the distribution of aggregates should be made county matters. This was the first of the six amendments that we have been dealing with. We did so on the grounds that counties had a responsibility for the extraction of aggregates in their area, and since the supply of aggregates needed in a county may rest on a combination of production in the county and import by rail from production elsewhere it makes sense for the county planning authority to have responsibility for both aspects of the aggregate supply.
I do not accept that the case of cement distribution is a parallel one. The installations involved are not especially complex in character in comparison with other forms of distribution depots; nor is complexity in itself a reason for counties rather than districts to determine planning applications. Granted that cement is produced from minerals for which counties have special responsibilities, I do not see that the county responsibility should be extended to the distribution of the processed product. In that way the argument could be extended to any product produced from minerals. Where mineral matters are involved in cement distribution, districts will be able to consult counties for advice.
In the last of the amendments proposed by my noble friend in the group of six, we are dealing with brick works. Once more I regret to say that the Government are less happy than they were with the earlier amendments. The noble Lord has argued that because of the expertise in mineral matters that counties have

911
acquired, and also for the sake of consistency, all applications relating to brick works should be decided by counties. In the interests of consistency and tidiness we have accepted that processing of minerals carried on at or adjoining the site where minerals are extracted should be dealt with as a county matter. It is clearly in the interests of the mineral operator that he should deal with the same authority for all developments on his site, but I do not think the principle would extend to a brick works at a distance from clay workings without a direct physical link between them. I expect my noble friend has a particular situation in mind. But if we were to accept that I do not see why any other sort of manufacturing which involved processing of minerals should not be a county matter. For instance, steel works or chemical works would be a good example.
In our view, brick works raise planning issues which are closer to those of factories and other industrial processes than to mineral extraction. Certainly there may be aspects of brick work developments which involve expertise in matters involved in the workings of minerals—an expertise which is to be found in county planning departments—but that is something which can adequately be dealt with by consultation with the county authority. I could not accept that it requires the county to decide the application.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I would propose to comment on each of the amendments—the two that have not been accepted—when we come to them, as they are called.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 185A to 188A agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE: On Amendment No. 189, I have listened with interest to what my noble friend had to say. Perhaps I might be able to detect in that something which would give rise to my putting down an amendment at a later stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MOTTISTONE: On Amendment No. 190, I think that even more so in this case there are grounds for putting
912
down another amendment on this matter at a later stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 64, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This is another matter. It is really rather closely related to the earlier long debate we had and I was intrigued that none of my more expert noble friends saw fit to include this within their ambit. The main purpose of it is to probe further the assurances already given by the Government in another place on both 8th July—columns 419 and 420—and 17th April, column 2183. The assurances place considerable reliance on the code of practice. The code of practice which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in relation to an earlier amendment, and mentioned by myself in relation to an earlier amendment of mine, is one that is not with us. It is extremely difficult to judge—and this has happened before, if I might say so to the Government—in many cases, whether one is on the same side as the Government or in opposition, whether it is worth plugging away to get something inserted in the Bill, if one has not got a clear picture as to what the code of practice will look like. I hope that in replying to this amendment the Government will be able to give assurance that before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House—at the worst, on Third Reading—we can see at least a draft of the code of practice. This would make a considerable difference to what amendments we might care to put down later. Having said that, I would very much like to hear what the Government have to say to this amendment as it stands.
Lord BELLWIN: This amendment seeks to remove from the clause a subparagraph which gives effect to the main purpose of the whole clause. The division of responsibility for development control has given rise to disputes between authorities, to wasted work and to uncertainty for applicants and all concerned. I touched on this in a very long debate we had a little while ago. And at the heart of the confusion and dispute lies paragraph 32(d) of Schedule 16 to the

913
Local Government Act 1972. I hope my noble friend would not seriously propose that we should continue in the state of affairs that that paragraph represents. But in moving the amendment my noble friend was, I think, concerned to have clarified the arrangements the Government envisaged to accompany the provisions of Clause 75.
I hope he will be reassured by the arrangements for consultation with county planning authorities which are now to be incorporated in the Bill itself as a result of Amendment No. 182A. This will ensure that district planning authorities have a duty to consult counties about all those classes of application in which the county should have an interest in consequence of its responsibilities for the structure plan. That includes not only any material departure from the policies and general proposals of the structure plan but also developments which accord with the structure plan but which are relevant to the plan because of their size of character.
Counties will thus be aware of all proposals for development affecting the structure plan. They will have the statutory right to comment on the proposals and the district will be obliged, by the terms of Clause 75, to have regard to those comments. In addition, there are the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Direction 1975, which is made under the powers of the General Development Order and the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and has the force of law. Under that direction, a local planning authority who wish to grant permission for any proposal which is a substantial departure from a development plan must advertise the proposal in a local newspaper and notify the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The direction will need to be amended as a consequence of the wider powers of deciding applications which are being given to district planning authorities by this Bill. In making the necessary amendments we shall require that districts not only notify the Secretary of State of any proposals to grant permission for a substantial departure from the structure plan but also, in doing so, convey any views which the county has given in response to consultation. The Secretary
914
I of State will then have the opportunity to call in the case for his own decision. These arrangements seem to me to offer the assurance that any decisions taken to depart from structure plans will be taken in the open, with the full awareness of all concerned and with advice from the structure plan authority.
Of course, any system can be abused, but I do not agree with those who have claimed that the system we are proposing is particularly susceptible to abuse. Nor is there reason to suppose that district councils will flout its provisions. But it has been made clear in another place—and I do so again now—that we shall be watching carefully the operation of the new arrangements. The regional offices of the department are in contact with planning authorities in their areas. If problems arise in an area the Secretary of State has wide-ranging powers to take remedial action. I do not anticipate that he will often need so to do. It is certainly not the case that the new system will mean a much greater involvement of Whitehall in local planning, but if necessary the Secretary of State can and will use his powers.
He can issue a holding direction under Article 10 of the GDO to prevent a planning authority deciding an application; he can call the application in. As a last resort, in a case where permission has been granted harmfully and in contravention of the procedures, he can use his default powers to revoke or modify a permission. The burden of the compensation which would result would fall on the district planning authority concerned.
I have dwelt on the safeguards, and there are others, but in doing so I do not want to get them out of perspective. What we should be concerned with even more than the safeguards is the vast majority of planning applications where extreme issues do not arise. The proposals in Clause 75 will provide a better and more efficient system for dealing with those cases, and I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that the result of this amendment might very well perpetrate a worse system than the one we are proposing. If he does, I hope that he may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I did not wish to upset my noble friend with my amend-

915
ment. As I said, it was a probing amendment to find out how he was getting on with the code of practice, to which I did not hear him refer. Can he tell me when we can expect it?
Lord BELLWIN: The code of practice is in Amendment No. 182A. It is written into the Bill and there it will be.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Do I understand there is not a separate code of practice—that everything that is effective within it is in the Bill?
Lord BELLWIN: Amendment No. 182A gives the power for a code of practice to be there, and that is where it will be seen. The wording of the code of practice has been agreed, I understand, by all the parties concerned, and I am quite sure that once it has been agreed to the point where it can be published my noble friend will have access to it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am sorry to plug this point, but I do not believe that the code of practice has been seen by all the parties who might be concerned. If it could be, that would be helpful. I think in particular of the CBI. I am not sure about the National Farmers' Union. All sorts of people will want to see it, and it would be most helpful if we could.
Lord BELLWIN: I am told that the state of play over the code of practice is that the local authority associations, those most closely concerned initially with agreeing it, have had much consultation and discussion upon it and are at the point where it has been agreed. If it has not been agreed, certainly it is not far from being agreed, and when it is I am quite sure that it can be made available to any other bodies—certainly to those to whom my noble friend referred.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I ask my noble friend whether this will be before the Report stage of the Bill?
Lord BELLWIN: I understand that it will eventually come in the form of a circular. That will be the time for anybody who wishes to comment upon it so to do.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: There is considerable feeling about this
916
by certain parties, I believe by the NFU as well as by myself, who have not seen the code. It is our land. I hope my noble friend will expedite the code of practice so that we may be able to see it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I shall certainly find reason to put down a further amendment at Report stage to keep this under way. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 66, line 22, at end insert—
("(10) The following subsections shall be added after section 35, subsection (6), of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971:

"(7) Except in the case of applications for planning permission referred to the Secretary of State under the preceding subsections of this section, a County Planning Authority shall have power to direct that a District Planning Authority should refer to them for decision any application which conflicts with the policies and general proposals in the Structure Plan for the area in which the District Planning Authority is minded to permit.

(8) The Secretary of State shall have power to issue general directions applicable to County and District Planning Authorities specifying the circumstances or classes of applications to which the power of direction in subsection (7) above shall apply."").

The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that I cannot be so co-operative. There was support for our amendment from all sides of the Committee. While we are glad that the amendments moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, have been accepted because, as I said, they make the Bill a little better and a little more understandable than it was originally, we still think there is a fundamental concern about the reserve power of direction. In view of the support from all sides of the Committee, I must press the amendment.
Viscount RIDLEY: My noble friend Lady Trumpington, who has had to go to another meeting, asked me to apologise to the Committee on her behalf. If she had been here I am sure she would have weighed in with a powerful argument.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 193) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 105.

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Avebury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Pargiter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peart, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Balogh, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Banks, L.

Hale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Birk, B.

Henley, L.

Simon, V.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Longford, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Whaddon, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Milford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Denington, B.

Mishcon, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Exeter, M.

Mills, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Minto, E.

Alport, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Morris, L.

Armstrong, L.

Freyberg, L.

Mottistone, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Avon, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Balerno, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Newall, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Renton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ridley, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Cathcart, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chelwood, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cockfield, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Shannon, E.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Spens, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly,

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De La Warr, E.

Loudoun, C.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Eccles, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Elibank, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

May, L.

Westbury, L.

Energlyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
6.7 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 194A:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of Officers
.—(1) In the case of any person who on the date when this Part of this Act comes into operation is in the employment of a county planning authority, the Secretary of State shall by order make such provision as is necessary to ensure that, to the extent (if any) to which, by reason of the operation of this Part of this Act, that person would, apart from the order, cease to continue in that employment, that person is transferred, on a date to be specified in or determined under the order, to the employment of such district planning authority as may be so specified or determined.
(2) An order made under this section shall include such provision with respect to any person who is transferred by or under the order from the employment of a county planning authority to a district planning authority so as to secure that—

(a) so long as he continues in the employment of that district planning authority by virtue of the transfer and until he is served with a statement in writing referring to the order and specifying new terms and conditions of employment, he enjoys terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those which he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer; and

(b) those new terms and conditions are such that—

(i) so long as he is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged immediately before the date of transfer, the scale of his salary or remuneration, and

(ii) the other terms and conditions of his employment, are not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before that date.

(3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: We have just agreed an amended Clause 75. The effect of this clause will be to reduce the planning functions of county councils and to transfer some of those functions to district councils. As a consequence of those provisions there is likely to be a reduction in the numbers of planning staff employed by county councils and a consequential increase in the staff employed by district councils. It is important that the interests of the county planning staff who may become redundant as a result of these provisions should be protected.
The new clause which I have tabled provides for redundant staff to be transferred, on terms and conditions no less favourable than those which apply in relation to their employment with the county councils, to the district councils to whom the planning functions are to be reallocated. The transfer of responsibilities and functions to district councils or, in London, to the London boroughs has been a continuing process over a very great number of years. It is proper and right that arrangements should be made, as have been made in the past, for the protection of staff interests. I am sure that they should again be made on this occasion.
Lord BELLWIN: The effect of this clause would be as the noble Lord has said, to require the Secretary of State to make orders to transfer from the employment of the county council to the employment of a district council any staff who became redundant as a result of the transfer of the development control function to districts under Clause 75. The orders would also provide for protection of their terms and conditions of employment following transfer.
The purpose of Clause 75 is to remove a source of inefficiency: the new clause would in large measure preserve that inefficiency, and is quite unacceptable both on that account and because it is unnecessary. If I may recall to your Lordships the purpose of Clause 75, it is to remove the duplication and uncertainty resulting from the handling by both district and county planning authorities of development applications on certain reserved topics known as "county matters". If the district authorities were to be saddled with any of the counties' staff who would otherwise be made redundant, as well as retaining their own staff, the purpose of Clause 75 would be mostly negated. Frankly, I consider this to be a rather astonishing amendment.
The new clause is similar in terms to Section 255(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, which provided for transfer and protection of staff of authorities which ceased to exist as a result of the reorganisation of local government. That was a very different situation from the present one: about a million and a half employees were transferred, and special

921
arrangements were essential. Transfer and protection orders have also been made in some other instances, but the scale of the transfers has been very much greater than is now in prospect.
In the circumstances which would be covered by this new clause there is no need for such elaborate arrangements. I do not envisage that the new arrangements will lead to many transfers because district councils should be able to adjust to them without any increase in staff. Any transfers that did take place, would be covered by the normal recruitment and appointment procedures, and of course such staff of county planning authorities who are made redundant presumably will be eligible for compensation. This is an unnecessary amendment and we cannot accept it.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: In his reply the noble Lord said that he does not think there is a need for such elaborate arrangements as are detailed in the amendment, but I hope he will agree that it is necessary for proper arrangements to be made to protect the situation of individual members of staff, and if in fact district councils are recruiting additional staff, there should be some preference or priority given to county planning staff who become redundant as a result of this legislation. It may be that the details as proposed are not necessary, but I should have thought it was necessary for some protection to be made for the county staff. To pay redundancy compensation, when it need not necessarily be paid if a transfer could be arranged, seems to be not necessarily the most sensible arrangement.
Lord BELLWIN: I still fear that I do not follow the argument at all. First, I do not see in general terms why the district authorities need to employ any more staff to do only that which they are doing now; but if in certain circumstances they found that they needed to, I presume that they would recruit in the normal way, and I cannot think of anyone more qualified for those positions than those who had been working on similar work in counties. Obviously, that would be a potential source of skilled and informed people; but to lay down beforehand some rules on a hypothetical situation, I should not have thought was necessary.
922
The rules with regard to staff arrangements and redundancy are those which pertain throughout in the normal way and I really do not think it is necessary to set up something special.
Lord SANDFORD: As I explained in the earlier debate, the districts already have 12,000 planning officers and I should have thought that under present circumstances that number would prove quite adequate.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: More than enough!
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I will look at what the noble Lord has said in his reply and possibly return to this at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Fees for planning applications etc.]:
6.15 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendments Nos. 195 and 196:
Page 66, line 26, after ("amount") insert ("(a)")
Page 66, line 29, at end insert—

("(b) to a county planning authority in England or Wales in respect of a consultation relating to an application made to the Secretary of State for Energy under the Opencast Coal Act 1958;

(c) to a county planning authority in England or Wales in respect of any application by a body referred to in paragraphs 1(d), (h) and (i) of Schedule 16 for an authorisation which if granted would result in a deemed planning consent.").

The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships are aware, this clause deals with the question of making charges for the application for planning permission—something quite new. This has not yet been agreed, of course, and anything I may say in support of my amendments is on the assumption that the Committee agrees to Clause 76. I realise that may be a drastic assumption and I may be quite wrong.
If we accept the principle behind Clause 76, as someone who wants planning permission and puts the state to quite a lot of trouble and staff time in dealing with the application, then the

923
Government must stand by the logic of their proposals; and the Government themselves, in the form of Ministries or nationalised industries or, in the peculiar case of the Secretary of State for Energy under the Opencast Coal Mining Act (to which I shall refer later), must be prepared to pay in the same way as anyone else seeking planning permission or otherwise. It seems to me to be absolutely logical that we cannot exempt one class if we are going to do this at all.
In my own county at the moment we have a proposal by the Central Electricity Generating Board for a nuclear power station; we have a proposal from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for the burial of nuclear waste in the Cheviots; we have about six major opencast sites being proposed by the National Coal Board. I suggest that all of that is taking up three-quarters of the time and has done for some months and may be will continue to do so for some years to come. It will continue to be the concern of not only the county council planning people but the six districts where they are involved.
It is not my business to get involved in the debates on this matter, but quite an amount of time is taken up in fixing public inquiries and public meetings. County Hall is filled with people of all shapes, sizes and colours day and night on these matters—and quite rightly, because public concern is very real and very great. It has taken a great deal of time and, in this particular case, has cost local authorities a great deal of staff time. Counsel have to be briefed, and so on, so although planning permission is not particularly necessary, in Amendment No. 196 paragraph (c) "deemed planning consent", means that the Government give themselves consent but consult first. These matters seem to be worthy of higher charges than to the ordinary person who wishes to put up a couple of houses in the village, for which consent they pay about £40 a house.
I hope that the Government will accept that there is some logic in what I am trying to achieve. I am not saying that any charges levied should necessarily go to the county council; it may be that the district council should receive them. That is not the point I am trying to make.
924
It is just that the Government would hoist themselves with their own petard. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 195 and 196.
Lord SANDFORD: I should certainly like to support my noble friend, at any rate in his logic. If there is a case for charging fees to private applicants for planning permission there is certainly one for charging statutory undertakers such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, the North Thames Gas Board, et cetera, many of whose applications involve at least as much work if not a great deal more by the planning staff. If there is a case for accepting these amendments, I would want to support it and, if it is accepted, I should want to move a further amendment at Report stage to read "local planning authority" for "county planning authority", because the districts are as much involved as the counties.
6.19 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I rise only to test the view of the Committee on the logic of this debate in the form that it is taking. As I undertsand the amendment, moved with his usual clarity and brevity by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, it is that he does not like the idea of charging planning fees, but if one is going to charge planning fees he would like the system to be extended.
Before one has a debate in regard to the question of extending planning fees, and on the other amendments, it would seem sensible at least to hear some speeches in order that the Committee may formulate a view on the whole subject of whether planning fees are a good idea at all. I do not want to weary the Committee, but if it is thought to be in order I should like to speak to this amendment and say that, far from agreeing to the extension of planning fees, I think the whole idea of planning fees is wrong. Normally I realise that would form a speech on the question that the clause stand part, but I am endeavouring to save time during a very busy programme; and it seems to me, if I may repeat myself to make my point clear, such a waste of time to make long speeches on the subject of extension or non-extension when the whole principle is one that ought to be debated in connection with this amendment so that we do not have a repetition of it afterwards. If I found that was acceptable to the Committee—

925
and I look at the noble Lord the Minister when I ask this question—I would continue with my speech, but obviously I should hate to be speaking against the will of the Committee.
Lord BELLWIN: I should have thought that that was an eminently sensible suggestion. If my noble friend would feel happy that we should deal with the amendment in that way, it would be quite convenient so far as I am concerned.
Viscount RIDLEY: I will take it in any way the Committee wishes in order to get this matter dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rather cunningly inserted in my words something to the effect that I was not in favour of planning charges. I never said that. I said I expected I was prejudiced but we should come to this on the debate that Clause 76 stand part. I am quite happy to move my amendment and leave it for debate in this general way.
Lord MIDDLETON: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I wonder if it would not be more convenient to have this debate on the Question that the clause stand part.
Lord WIGODER: With some reluctance I dissociate myself from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I appreciate that there are a large number of general issues to be raised in the course of the various amendments and in the debate on the clause, but I would respectfully suggest that we are going to get into a state of considerable confusion unless we take the amendments seriatim, beginning with the one in front of us now.
Lord MISHCON: Since the whole idea of my intervention was economy of time, the last thing I want to do is to argue the point before the Committee now at any length. It seems to me to be the view certainly of some Members that it would be more convenient to take the debate I am talking about on the Question that the clause stand part. Therefore, I, reluctantly though I hope courteously, sit down.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: I had hoped that the helpful and constructive suggestion of my noble friend would have commended itself to your Lordships, because we are now discussing
926
what is a matter of very important principle, and although obviously from a procedural point of view we take the amendments seriatim, I very strongly believe it would have been preferable to have discussed first of all the principle involved before the amendments are actually moved, apart from the one already moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley.
The important thing about this is that it is introducing a new principle, and I am sure that all of us must to some extent be torn in our minds. I have recorded in your Lordships' House earlier this Session that I am a house builder, I am a planner and I am also a connoisseur of local government. By good fortune the views of the Housebuilders' Federation, the Royal Town Planning Institution and also the Association of Metropolitan Authorities coincide upon this issue. I have, finally, after a good deal of debate with myself, come down against the imposition of these charges. My noble friend Lady Denington at one stage very nearly converted me to supporting them, but after a very stern struggle with myself I came to the conclusion that the charges were quite wrong.
I want therefore to stress very much my objection to this, first of all in principle. The Housebuilders' Federation, for example has reminded us that the Department of the Environment itself in its Circular No. 9 of 1976 said that there is a presumption in favour of development and the permission should normally be granted unless it is clearly against the public interest or contrary to an approved policy. That seems to me to be a principle to which it is extremely difficult to take exception, and I am sorry that what I believe to be a basic right is being eroded in this way.
Perhaps if I might trespass still further upon your Lordships' tolerance and good nature, I could say also that I believe this is wrong in practice. It will add to the expense of development, it will slow down the building of houses and it could reduce the amount of available land. Those are all very basic objections. I should have liked to feel that we could have a general debate on this before we proceed to consider the very important amendments the noble Viscount and others have tabled.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I, too, share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, that apparently the very helpful suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not appear to have been accepted by the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, is absolutely right in that the clause itself introduces a new principle, about which people on both sides of the Committee I think have very real doubts. It would seem to me to have been much better to explore the whole issue as to whether there should be charges before proceeding in detail to consider whether any particular body should be excepted or included, or varied within it. Indeed if we do not do that it may well put some of us in a difficulty.
It is at least a tenable view that there should not be charges at all. It is an equally tenable view that if you are going to have charges there should be no exception to them, that there should be common fairness. If exceptions are suggested, I do not know how someone who does not like the idea of charges can be expected to vote in ignorance of what the final decision will be as to whether there are to be charges at all. I wonder whether the Minister would, notwithstanding the as always authoritative indication of view by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, indicate that in some way or other before proceeding to the detail of these amendments we could debate, in the form of a debate on the clause stand part or otherwise, the general principle of charges. One of the great merits of this House, as a House and when we are in Committee, is that we are very flexible. Indeed we are masters of our own procedure. Naturally no one wishes to press the view if the rest of the Committee dislike it, but as one who does very much share Lord Greenwood's view, I appeal to my noble friend to give it further thought.
Lord WIGODER: I do not want to pursue the point I was making. I was a little perturbed because it seems to me that there may be wholly different considerations on the question of charges for planning applications and on the question of charges for appeals; it may be they are two quite separate issues. I was perturbed that if we had a general debate the two issues might get intermingled rather undesirably.
Lord BELLWIN: I am, of course, a babe in arms in the way in which these things are done. Would it be possible to have a debate on the original amendments which could reach across the subject generally, and then at least one will know the views of Members? If we had a debate on clause stand part—which is very tempting and I personally would be very happy—what would we do about the individual parts of the other amendments? I could make it clear as we went along where the Government stood on some of the other points. I could make that clear because we have certain views now.
Your Lordships will have noticed that as we have proceeded this afternoon we have had two or three lengthy debates in which we have referred to a number of amendments and, as we have gone along and responded to those amendments from the Front Bench we have said that certain amendments are acceptable and certain ones are not acceptable. It might be helpful if we were able to do that if we had a general debate. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.
Lord MORRIS: I believe that the solution lies in the hands of the Committee itself. If noble Lords were to stick strictly to the point underlying their amendment and try to avoid going to the principle, then we should get to the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part, as quickly as possible.
Viscount RIDLEY: If the noble Lord were to accept my amendment, we should be there already!
Lord MISHCON: I am in a little doubt as to the will of the Committee. I rather gathered that the noble Lord the Minister was saying that he would not regard as unwelcome a general debate which took in the various amendments and which also went to the principle of the whole question of planning fees—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord MISHCON: It is very obvious that I have not correctly interpreted the views of at least some members of the Committee. As I have said, all I want to do is not to make an unwelcome speech at an unwelcome stage when my

929
endeavour is to persuade the Committee to my point of view. That seems to me to show a lack of tact for which I should not like to be responsible. If it be a fact that the Minister is now saying—and I should like the noble Minister kindly to direct his attention to this problem—no, he would prefer the individual amendments to be taken, in spite of what I have said, without any general debate taking place on what would normally be the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part, I shall again take my seat and take my turn.
Lord BELLWIN: I think that we shall probably have to go that route, but I should think that in doing so, inevitably general views will come out. We shall probably have to go that way. The problem about doing it with a debate on Whether the clause shall stand part is that we shall be debating something and coming to a conclusion upon something which we should have to return to and look at in detail. If we were to have a debate on Whether the clause shall stand part and vote on it, for example, or have it accepted, we could not do so without having taken in the individual amendments that are made. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, so rightly said, appeals and charges are not necessarily the same thing.
Lord MISHCON: I appreciate that.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question as a preliminary? I should like to know how the Minister interprets the phrase:
"A fee of the prescribed amount".
Could it mean a proportionate fee or different fees in relation to the importance of the planning permission in monetary terms, or what does it mean?
Lord BELLWIN: I am not sure where that comes in but, I understand it to mean that there will be different fees for different types of application. Indeed, the actual fees themselves are proposals that are being discussed at present and will presumably continue to be discussed. We have suggestions and proposals, but they are not by any means finally concluded. They will vary, of course—in the case of certain buildings—on a per square foot basis.
Lord MISHCON: I think that I have found a way of briefly addressing the Committee and possibly meeting the wishes of all parties concerned. As I understand it, this amendment seeks to extend the orbit of fees for planning applications. I wish to address the Committee, if the Committee will permit me, to beg that there shall be no extension: indeed, one even wonders whether there ought to be any question of planning fees at all. That strikes me as being a relevant speech to make on an amendment which seeks extension.
As has been rightly said by my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, the whole question of the charging of planning fees is an entirely new aspect. I should have thought that one principle which might commend itself to all sections of the Committee is that when an individual owns property he is subject to only one matter in regard to the use of that property so far as the public is concerned, and that is the question of whether or not his use of it or his development of it, be it a building or be it land, is contrary to public interest and public policy. That is a restriction that Parliament has, in its wisdom, very properly laid down and it is generally accepted. But it is a restriction upon a right and therefore, if a citizen applies to an authority to ascertain whether or not certain plans that he has in regard to that property are contrary to the public weal, it is a matter which is for the public weal and ought to be a matter, therefore, of public expenditure and not of private expenditure.
I turn to the next point as to why there should in my view be no extension of the question of planning fees. One ought to look at the whole question of whether planning fees should be payable at all. I point to the discouragement which will often unfortunately be there for citizens who are anxious to know whether what they are proposing to do in regard to their land or property is or is not a contravention of any planning regulation or whether or not it needs permission. Those of us who deal with these matters professionally know that very often an application is made to a planning authority for the sake of safety in order to make absolutely sure that the citizen in carrying out something that he proposes to do is not, in fact, contravening a regulation or indeed that, if he does require permission, he

931
has properly applied for it. In my view that practice will be discouraged if these fees are invoked.
So the Committee is aware of the type of fees about which we are talking—again I am speaking relevantly on the question of an amendment which seeks to extend them. I am looking at a consultation paper which was issued by the Department of the Environment and which is headed, "Charges for planning applications". At the back there is a list of suggested fees. I think that the Committee ought to be aware of what we are talking about in quantum. It lists residential outline at £40 up to a limit of £20,000 that is not the fee, but concerns the question of the value. It then lists residential detailed, £40 per dwelling, house or flat; householder—house extensions and alterations not adding to the number of dwellings—£30 by way of application fee; commercial, industrial and other buildings, plant and machinery £40 per 75 sq. m. We are talking about very substantial amounts indeed. The department is hoping, I believe, that they will reach some £30 million a year towards the expenditure which it estimates at £50 million a year.
My third point is that the very collection of these fees, the very question of deciding about these fees, will, I fear, create a new department in the planning authority—itself I would have thought a rather expensive matter, and therefore one to be taken into account.
In order that one may know that, so far as I am aware, there is not one atom of politics in this—I think I am able to quote them as authority for saying that generally those who are concerned with development, with building, with house ownership and so on are against this measure—may I invoke the Deputy Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, the Director of the Housebuilders Federation, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Greenwood, the Director of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, the Director-General of the National Federation of Building Trades' Employers and the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects who, together with many others, all joined as signatories in a letter to The Times of 5th August this year. The
932
last sentence of that letter reads, with some passion and plea to your Lordships:
"Accordingly, we hope that their Lordships will take the opportunity today"—
not knowing of our proceedings, they were hoping that the matter would be dealt with in Committee on one day on 5th August—
"of subjecting this proposal to critical scrutiny, and will in their discussion of the issue reflect the widespread public concern to which it has given rise".
I believe that my noble friend Lord Greenwood mentioned some of the bodies which have allied themselves in expressing the view that this is something that Parliament should look at very carefully, and their hope is expressed that Parliament will not permit this unwelcome precedent to be set. I do not propose to read out again the whole list of those organisations. I merely say that I cannot find one organisation connected with planning, with architecture—my own Law Society is one of the organisations which is against this—or with the whole question of building and development to say one word in favour of this imposition of planning charges.
I have made this speech—and I promise not to repeat it on clause stand part—on an amendment which, as I say, seeks to extend the orbit of planning charges. I hope that the Committee will regard it as the individual responsibility of every one of us to be very careful in listening to the arguments that are advanced in this debate, and I hope will decide eventually that the speech which I would have made on clause stand part is one that would find favour with them.
6.44 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: As chairman of a company that manufactures a necessary material for the building industry, I think that I should declare an interest at this stage. There is no doubt at all that the proposal to charge for planning permissions imposes an additional charge on building and construction, and therefore there is certainly a marginal significance in all this as regards my company. Therefore, in accordance with our normal custom, I declare that interest. But equally, having so declared that interest, as I understand our procedure, I am free to express my own views. I feel considerable apprehension about this

933
proposal, both from the point of view of principle and from a practical point of view.
From the point of view of principle, as I think a noble Lord opposite said a few moments ago, to impose a charge of this kind is rather unfair upon the person on whom it is imposed. After all, the existence of planning law—the need to obtain planning permission—is a general public interest. So far from being the particular interest of, say, a property owner or an industrialist, it is probably contrary to their interests, which means that there is an inhibition on what they would otherwise do, and from their direct and practical point of view they would be better off if we were back in the 1930s when there was literally no planning law. It is the interests of the community as a whole—of the environment—which has caused successive Governments to impose the elaborate planning codes which we now have.
This is, therefore, a system designed for the general public interest and is perhaps even more in the interests of those who do not have to apply for planning permission than those who do. It would seem, therefore, that this charge is in principle a very dubious one. It follows a very bad precedent. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, is not here because she would certainly have made the point that it follows the thoroughly bad principle indulged in a little time ago of imposing security charges on airport travellers; that is, imposing a charge for a service which it is the basic duty of the state to provide—that is, protection of the citizen against violence and outrage. It follows that bad principle.
From a practical point of view, leaving the principle aside, it is of course an attack upon initiative and upon development. The person who does not wish to extend his factory or his house or to develop his land does not pay it. The person who indulges in inertia, who just sits on whatever he has, does not pay it. But it is an impost that falls directly on the person who is trying to get ahead; he is trying to do exactly what the Government are urging us—and rightly urging us—to do the whole time: to develop, to expand, to build, to start new processes and to get ahead in a progressive way with new enterprises.
934
Yet it is proposed to impose this kind of selective tax just on the very people who are showing enterprise and trying to develop. Therefore, this again seems to me to be quite contrary to what the Government are suggesting. I do not know—perhaps my noble friend will tell us—how much the Government expect to raise by this impost. I do not know whether or not it is a large sum. If it is a large sum, then the damaging effect upon enterprise will be pro tanto the greater. If it is not a large sum, I should be interested to know whether calculation has been made of the cost of collection, and whether the noble Lord opposite is right in suggesting that we would have to add a finance officer to every local planning authority.
If there is to be this elaborate scale of fees, which has been suggested, presumably some administrative work would be required in assessing them, and perhaps there would be a system of appealing against the level of fees demanded. I do not know. But certainly if it is a fairly moderate charge, there must be some offsetting administrative expense. Again I hope that my noble friend will tell us whether the Government have in fact worked out how much the cost of collection would be. As your Lordships know, there are many taxes and imposts of one sort or another which some of us would like to see imposed but which do not make sense because the cost of collection would be too high a proportion of the product. It may well be so in this case. I think that my noble friend is a little impaled on Morton's Fork. Either the anticipated yield is large, in which case the tax on enterprise is quite serious, or it is small, in which case net of the cost of collection it may be very doubtful whether it is worth collecting at all.
Therefore, I indicate that I share the doubts which have been expressed not only by noble Lords in this Committee but, as has been said, by almost all the bodies concerned with industry and with building outside. My noble friend will be as aware as anyone of the concern which this has caused, and it is certainly the case as far as I know that no convincing case has yet been made against the quite weighty considerations which have been stated this afternoon, as to why this should be imposed. I always listen to

935
my noble friend with profound interest, but on this occasion my interest will be deeper still.
6.49 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: I wonder whether it might be helpful if I were to speak at this time. This is a Committee stage and we can all come back again if we have to. I think that it would be helpful if I were to make a few general observations to try to cover some of the points which my noble friend has mentioned and, of course, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred.
Forceful arguments have been made against the principle of the charges, and in the case of some aspects of this whole matter—and we are talking also of appeals as well as charges—we have accepted certain points. I think that we shall show as we go along that they will in fact no longer be at issue. Let me say straight away, to give a figure to put everything else I am saying into context, that the anticipated figure of receipts is about £30 million. Quite on which side of the Fork that leaves me—
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Right in the middle!
Lord BELLWIN: I would have hoped in the middle because then I steer clear of both sides. That is in fact the anticipated figure. What all the argument comes down to is one argument of principle and one argument of practicality. The principle is: is it fair that the applicant for planning permission should pay for his application? The practicality, will charges be a financial burden, as my noble friend suggested, a deterrent to development or even a drag on the economy?
If the principle is wrong the proposal cannot be justified whatever the practicality. But as to the point of principle, it has been argued that development control and to get planning permission takes away from the individual his property rights, and we are proposing to charge the individual for the privilege of seeking to have his rights restored to him. It has been argued that the justification for this inhibition of people's rights is the need to protect the public interest in the environment at large, and from that it is concluded
936
that the public, in the form of the taxpayer, should foot the bill for the process.
My noble friend also referred to the point: would it not stultify or penalise those very people whom the Government above all are anxious to encourage? The argument is not quite as watertight as it might seem. I am sure that no one is arguing that the individual—and for this purpose that includes a company whatever its size—should be allowed to do whatever it likes wherever it happens to buy some land. It is clear that on a highly-populated island like ours the only way to preserve any kind of quality of life in the countryside, towns, and cities is for there to be an element of control over what can be built and where.
Nor would anyone argue that control can be exercised without cost. Where there is a lot of development there are many cases to consider. Competent staff must be employed and the cost of that is substantial. Nor is this a country where it will be acceptable for such control to be exercised in an arbitrary way just by officials. The control must rest ultimately in the hands of the elected members. They in turn must be under the control of the law. None of these can exclude the rights of the individual to have his say and to appeal, if need be, to a higher authority.
But this process does not come cheaply. Many of your Lordships will be aware that development control costs local authorities about £50 million a year. The question is, who shall pay? The time surely is past when services could be thought of as free, because no service is ever free. Someone must pay the cost. Who shall it be? The ratepayer? The taxpayer? The individual, in his role as ratepayer and taxpayer, has made the position clear in recent years. He will not any more consent to be the unquestionable source of funds for public services.
Planning is a public service, yes; but why ask the individual in his position as taxpayer? Does that mean that taxation should foot the whole of the Bill? Is it not fair that the developer, be he an individual or in other instances a company, should contribute? For example, a driving test is a public service. The applicant does

937
not sit it to assure himself of his own ability. It is not optional. It is for the safety and wellbeing of the public, and yet we see nothing strange in the fact that the applicant pays for his driving test. No great question of principle arises. The issue is simply one of offsetting an item of public expenditure.
But if the principle is acceptable we must still be assured that the practical effects would be reasonable. This proposal does not mean an increase in the burdens on local government. There will not be an increase in local authority expenditure. What we are aiming to do is to transfer part of the funding of this service to the developer. There will not be an increase in spending, and we shall make the necessary adjustments to rate support grant and local authority expenditure targets.
Granted that the individual and business will reap the benefit of this measure through rates and taxes in what, I admit, will be a not easily seen form, then what will be the practical effect on the developer? How much shall we be asking for? My department issued a consultation paper earlier this year setting out the sort of scale of charges we envisage. It will be remembered that we are proposing to increase the size of house extensions which will be permitted without planning permission, the extension to the GDP from 10 to 15 per cent., which in itself will considerably reduce the number of applications of that kind that will need to be made.
For a house extension—which in few cases these days will be under £1,000 and could run to several thousand pounds—there will be a charge of £30. A complete new house costing, say, £25,000 will be charged £40. A factory of, say, £5,000 square feet, worth certainly over £100,000 will pay about £250. I hope your Lordships may agree with me that this sort of charge seems reasonable in relation to the value of the developments to which the charges apply. If I am indeed in the middle of the Fork to which my noble friend referred, I hope it will be in that the individual amounts are not large but the totality of £30 million is not without major significance.
I am not going to go into the whole of more detail that I have here. None of us
938
likes to pay for something that was once free, but we are becoming well aware that in fact nothing is really free and someone has to pay. The debate really concerns, who pays? Who is it right should pay? This is the thrust of the philosophy of the argument. I am interested to hear what your Lordships say because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly said, this really is not in any way at all a party political point. It is, what is it right and proper, in the context of current thinking on this sort of thing, that ought to be done?
The Government are not taking a rigid line. I may go so far as to say—not to save time but because I think it is all part of the one debate, and we can have it again on the amendment—that in terms of the charge for appeals we have considered carefully everything that has come. I hope my noble friend Lord Mottistone will not mind my saying it at this stage.
We believe we should not in fact proceed with the intention to charge for appeals for reasons I shall give in perhaps more detail. I mention it now as I sit down to indicate that we are not rigid at all in this. We feel that what we have suggested is equitable, and that is why we have put it forward.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Will my noble friend confirm my reading of the clause? Although he has given the Committee the figures of charges now contemplated, should the clause become law the Secretary of State could by regulation increase it almost indefinitely.
Lord BELLWIN: That is absolutely right. I was going to say that the final charge will be fixed by regulation. Yes, of course it can. Conversely, it could also be reduced if it was felt that was the thing to do.
Lord WIGODER: As no one has spoken yet from these Benches on this matter, perhaps I could briefly say that we on these Benches in the first place are entirely opposed to the concept of charges for planning applications, for the reasons that have been given. If there are to be charges made for planning applications, then it seems to us essential that provision should be made for the little man who wishes to make a small improvement to his own small property. It is for that

939
reason that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and I have tabled Amendment No. 200, which excludes the small man from the general provisions relating to charges for planning applications. I say no more about that at this stage.
The other matter I wish to refer to briefly is the associated question of charges that are proposed for appeals. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but, so far as I have been able to find out, this is the first time that a statute has sought to provide that a citizen wishing to exercise his statutory right of appeal should have to pay a charge for the privilege. This seems to us extremely undesirable as a matter of principle. It will be a precedent that will be extended to tribunals in all directions if we allow this particular proposal to go through.
Lord MISHCON: Would the noble Lord give way to save the time of the Committee? The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I had an amendment down to try to do away with the right of charging on appeal. When he was speaking just now, I thought I understood the Minister to say that that amendment had been conceded. If that is so, I thought I might save the time of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the Committee.
Lord BELLWIN: I can say that that is so; I said that earlier.
Lord WIGODER: I apologise in that case for making an observation which was entirely unnecessary; I fear that I missed that particular concession. Among so many what is one more? In the circumstances, I must tell the Minister how grateful we are that the point has been conceded and that the principle is recognised as being one of importance.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Can anybody tell me how we now stand in regard to my Amendment No. 201A? That is concerned with those making an application where the firm is getting help under the Inner Urban Area Act 1978.
Baroness STEDMAN: We have not reached that yet.
Baroness DENINGTON: While I do not wish to detain the Committee, there is
940
a case which has not been raised. I support entirely as a matter of principle that if a man owns his own house and wishes to put forward an application, he should do so without payment. I would apply the same principle to a person who owns his own factory or his own piece of ground with nothing on it. In such cases there should be no payment. However, I have been for years a member of the planning committee of Greater London and, before that, of the LCC, and I can assure the Committee that there have been thousands of hours and millions of pounds worth of officer time taken up considering applications involving big and important sites. Consider, for example, the Coin Street or Green Giant sites. People come along who do not even own the sites.
In some instances the real owners do not even know what they are doing. They come to County Hall with a scheme and the officers deal with it. Some of them are very complicated schemes involving central London sites. Sometimes the matter even reaches the committee to see if it would be inclined to approve that type of scheme. Height, bulk, residential, commercial—all sorts of considerations are involved and an enormous amount of time must be spent on such schemes. As I say, the man or concern putting it forward may not own the site or have any interest in it, apart of course from trying to get planning permission which he will then hawk round to see how much he can sell it for. That sort of person should have to pay, and pay heavily, so that that sort of exercise is restricted, but how we deal with it I do not know.
Lord DRUMALBYN: A couple of points have not been mentioned, one of them a philosophical point. My noble friend spoke about a service being paid for, but I think there is a confusion of thought here. What is being paid for is a right which was previously taken away by the public service, but that does not mean they are paying for a service. Even if we were to agree that there should be payment for that right, what happens if the right is refused? Does the charge still stand? Why should it?
Lord MONSON: Perhaps I should intervene briefly because I was one of the few noble Lords on Second Reading to come out in favour of these charges and,

941
in other words, support of the Government. My reasoning was based on the proposition that successful applicants stood to make a great deal of money if planning permission were granted and that these charges represented a drop in the ocean compared with the capital gains that could be made. That, with a qualification to which I shall come, remains my view today; I think, rather against the general feeling of the Committee.
My view was reinforced by an article in the Daily Telegraph on 8th October which revealed that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Heseltine, was thinking of abolishing the large-scale Ordnance Survey plans, as opposed to the ordinary Ordnance Survey maps, on the grounds that the maintenance of the large-scale plans was costing the country £20 million a year which was excessive in view of the need to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. The Daily Telegraph rightly echoed the view of the Serpell Review Committee that the large-scale plans were part of our national heritage whose maintenance was essential, and the paper went on to suggest that a proportion of the planning fees provided for by the clause which we are now discussing be diverted towards the maintenance of the large-scale plans on the grounds I have already mentioned—the capital gains to be made by successful applicants, and because the developments and changes which follow the grant of planning permission necessitate alterations to Ordnance Survey plans.
Having said that, I must admit that on Second Reading, when the Bill had only just emerged from the other place, giving us very little time to study it, I was under the impression that the fees would be charged on the grant of planning permission—in other words, that an unsuccessful application would attract no charge—but subsequently it has become evident that that is not the case and that fees are to be payable on application. That is how I understand it. That to my mind puts a very different complexion on the matter. I think it is absolutely right that fees should be payable on the grant of permission, but not that unsuccessful applicants should have to pay, and I should therefore be hesitant to vote for the provision unless the Government modify the clause in this respect.
Lord BELLWIN: I suggest that the Committee must make progress, and it might therefore help if I said a little about the amendment which we are discussing, and perhaps we can then reach some conclusion on the matter. This amendment is one of a number on what is a very broad subject dealing with consultations about, in effect, deemed consents, a task which is equivalent to considering and determining planning applications. Without going into the detail which is before me, perhaps I can just say that it becomes apparent that if we move too far in this direction we shall lose sight of the whole purpose of the charges, which is to offset public expenditure involved in development control. I wonder whether, in the light of other points that have been made generally, my noble friend may feel able, at least for the time being, to withdraw the amendment on the basis that he will have a chance to do something else with it later, should he wish to do so. That would enable us to move on into the generality of the whole subject.
Viscount RIDLEY: I cannot make out whether my noble friend is accepting my amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: No; I was asking my noble friend if he would be good enough to withdraw it at this stage.
Viscount RIDLEY: In the interests of supper, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDYS: At this stage the Committee might find it convenient if I were to move that the House do now resume. We could then take the remaining business on the Order Paper, returning to this Bill at 8 o'clock. Therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

INVERCLYDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
7.9 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed.

CITY OF DUNDEE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Lyell.)
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord who is moving the passage of this Bill. I have heard from his noble friend, who I regret to hear is ill, and he has answered all the points that I raised at the Report stage. It is now up to citizens of Dundee to ensure that what they want is carried out.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mansfield is indisposed this evening. Indeed, he has lost his voice, and that is the reason why I am moving the Motion now before your Lordships. I shall pass on to him the kind words spoken by my noble friend. As a great dog lover, may I say that I am sure that the citizens of Dundee will, through their elected representatives and their council, take all the steps that are necessary to see that dogs do not misbehave in the manner that is set out in, I think, paragraph 4 of the schedule? I know that my noble friend Lord Mansfield will be very grateful for the kind words spoken by my noble friend Lord de Clifford.
On Question, Bill passed.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.11 to 8 p.m.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND BILL (No. 2)
House again in Committee on Clause 76.
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 66, line 29, at end insert—
("Provided that no such fee shall be payable for any application to carry out development or work which would otherwise have been permitted were it not solely for the fact that the application is in respect of:—

(i) a building which is listed under the provisions of section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; or

(ii) land which is designated as a conservation area under section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; or

(iii) land which is affected by a Direction under Article 4 of the General Development Order 1977; or

(iv) land to which the Town and Country Planning (Landscape Areas Special Development) Order 1950 applies.").

The noble Lord said: Now that we have had a fairly full discussion on the principles behind charging for planning fees, I shall reserve what I have to say on that matter—and I may say that I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter had to say—until we have the debate on the Question, Whether the clause stand shall part? Clause 76 is an enabling clause, and it is widely drawn. It enables the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee in respect of
"any permission, consent, approval, determination or certificate";
and also, as the Bill stands at present, in respect of any appeal to him, but I gather that this may come out of the Bill. Yet the consultation document appears to contemplate only a fee for actual planning permission. Listed building consent, tree preservation order consent, conservation area and special development area approval would, it seems, not be subject to a fee. Nevertheless, as the Bill is now drafted, the power is there to charge in such cases.
For reasons which I shall explain, I believe that fees for some of the consents to which I have just referred should not be payable, and the purpose of this amendment is to provide that charges shall not be levied on applications in respect of property when an application would not normally be required had the property not got attached to it some conservation label. Many categories of property have special planning designations because they are of amenity interest or are important to the heritage. The owners sometimes have to make special applications which

945
would have been unnecessary had their property not been subject to the designation. For instance, the owner of a listed building wishing to enlarge his house within the tolerance of the general development order will, merely because it is listed, need consent from the planning authority, and under this Bill he might have to pay a fee.
Such a charge does not seem to me to be fair, nor does it seem to me to be in the interests of amenity. First, surely there should be a balance of justice between individual members of the public. As the Bill now stands, some individuals would be charged and some would not for carrying out virtually identical developments. Secondly, I very much doubt whether the public interest in conservation is best served by increasing the burdens on owners of amenity property, who have enough obligations and burdens already. If anything, such burdens should be eased, and not the reverse.
This amendment would exempt from fees planning applications in four separate categories. The first is listed buildings, where you have to apply to the planning authority virtually every time you do any work on them. An application for listed building consent is necessary even where minor alterations are made to a house which would otherwise have been permitted had it not been listed. Secondly, it would exempt land designated as a conservation area. In those areas buildings are protected as if they were listed, and apart from a few exceptions they may not be demolished except with listed building consent—and here the same arguments apply. I hasten to say that I have no quarrel whatever with the restraints in themselves. It is the unevenness of treatment which is objectionable, once you start charging fees.
Thirdly, Article 4 of the general development order enables directions to be made prohibiting development which would otherwise be permitted under the GDO. If the public wants planning restrictions to be placed on development in certain specific areas—and I have no objection in principle—then the public should pay, and private industry, be it agriculture or anything else, should not have to bear the extra burden in these exceptional cases. Fourthly, the special development order of 1950 requires owners who intend
946
to put up agricultural or forestry buildings, which would otherwise be permitted, to give to the local authority 14 days' notice in writing of their intention to do so and this gives the local authority the opportunity to require the applicant to receive their approval with respect to the design and external appearance of the building before any development is started. The special development order applies to specified areas in national parks, and I and your Lordships are presumably in favour of this restraint. But once you start charging fees for applications for approval, you place an undue burden on people with enough difficulties already by reason of the special geographical location of their businesses.
I should be most grateful for anything that my noble friend Lord Bellwin can tell me about the Government's intentions in regard to applications falling into the categories listed in this amendment, for two reasons. First of all, it is not clear from the consultation document how these are to be treated. Nor is it clear why, if they are to be excluded, it is necessary to draft the clause in the Bill so widely. Perhaps my noble friend would enlighten me on that point. Secondly, it may be that my noble friend will tell me that this kind of detailed amendment is better reserved for the regulations to be made under Clause 76. So it would be most helpful to me in deciding how to proceed with this amendment if I could elicit from the Government some indication as to whether such regulations would be likely to take into account the matters that I have raised. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. It is not very often that we see eye to eye on these matters, but on this occasion, particularly as far as subsections (1) and (2) are concerned, I entirely agree with him and I think he is absolutely right. One of the problems—and I found this when I was a Minister in the department where the noble Lord the Minister is now—always was to get people to take care of the listed buildings and to use them; and if, in doing so, they need planning permission to make it more comfortable or to enlarge them, or to do some sort of work on them, and they have to pay a charge for that permission, I think this could act as a very strong

947
deterrent to the survival of our listed buildings, which, as we all know, are an important part of our heritage.
It is so difficult—I cannot stress this enough—to keep these listed buildings within the living community, so that they are being used, and not only are being used but are being kept in good repair. I hope the Minister is going to tell us (because, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, says, the consultation document leaves it very wide and very open) that in fact they will be exempt, but I feel rather as Lord Middleton does. I think that an area as important as this—and I also include land which is designated as a conservation area—needs to be spelt out. Since in the case of this Bill (and I shall return to this later on in the proceedings) I think the Government are to be congratulated on some of the provisions they have included for listed buildings and conservation areas, it would be a great pity, I think, if this amendment was not accepted, unless the Minister can explain to us that in fact there is no need for Lord Middleton or myself, or other noble Lords on whichever side of the Committee who are concerned with these matters, to be worried about the situation.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Before the Minister replies, I think that the Association of County Councils would welcome the general feeling behind these amendments. May I ask the Minister whether the national parks would be included in this? Is there a special onus on people who live in national parks to develop in accordance with the national parks policy? I think it is important that this should be included if possible.
Lord BELLWIN: As I said earlier when we were speaking on this in the broader context, there are a number of details that we will gladly talk about; and people would like to do so for many reasons. On this aspect of the proposals to charge, I think we are probably not too far apart. First, we have no intention of charging for listed building consents nor for approvals required under the Landscape Areas Special Development Order. We will look again with sympathy at the circumstances in which a developer would attract a liability to charge because of an article for direction or because of the
948
proposed exemption of conservation areas from proposed changes in the size limits of development permitted under the GDO. We shall see to what extent it is possible to frame regulations so as to afford the relief that my noble friend has in mind without over-complicating or obscuring the scheme.
I hope that this is the feel that your Lordships will get from what I am saying on this aspect of charging. We feel that there are certain matters, some of which come within these amendments, which properly are to be decided in the context of regulations to be made under the enabling power which will set out the scheme for charging and on which there will be further opportunity for discussion. We want to keep the scheme simple. The more complications and the more exceptions we make to it, the more likely it is that things will go wrong and anomalies will arise and that the scheme will become expensive to administer. So far as this amendment is concerned, I think that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw this amendment. I have been able to cover his points. Would that I felt so confident in covering other points which may come under other amendments!
Baroness BIRK: Before the Minister finishes I should like to ask a question. He said that there will be no charges for listed buildings consent. I am talking about where there is a planning application to incorporate the listed building in some form of development, and not just listed buildings consent. I have in mind the building which should be restored and held. The noble Lord mentioned only listed buildings consent. Can he expand on that?
Lord BELLWIN: I am open to any points that noble Lords may wish to make. I am trying to stress that this is an area where there is scope for discussion and we will see whether we ought to do something that we are not doing. We want to know this. This is open to discussion at the moment. We have an open mind on this. We want the best we can get in the best way we can get it; and I would listen to any suggestions made.
Lord SANDFORD: I think that we can feel reasonably satisfied that the general approach to this as expounded by my

949
noble friend is right. We should all be glad to know that he is going to be generous when it comes to listed buildings, conservation areas and so on. On the other hand, when it comes to the generality of planning applications, I would urge that we do not want too many exceptions if the whole object of this exercise is not to lose its purpose. I should be content to leave to regulations this particular matter that my noble friend has aired, particularly as on page 67 of the Bill, in subsection (6), we see that this particular matter has to be approved by Parliament by Affirmative Resolution.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Bellwin has said. I appreciate what he said about this Government's intentions, with which I am happy. The fact remains that the power remains in the Bill. It is a widely-drawn clause and what might happen at some future date I hate to think. However, in view of what he has said, I should like to look carefully and read what he has had to say in Hansard, I believe that these assurances will be sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.16 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 66, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, in fixing fees the Secretary of State shall have regard to the total annual cost of the service provided by local planning authorities and no fee shall be so fixed that in any year the sum of the fees collected exceeds the cost of performing that service.").
The noble Lord said: I have been restraining myself. At one stage I nearly broke the restraint but was restrained by Lord Wigoder. I believe that we should talk to these amendments and disclose our true views about this clause on the Question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. However, to take my particular amendment, its purpose is to look forward to the future, because we have a fear that in future years the intentions of this particular clause within the Bill may be forgotten and the provision might be abused to provide a source of revenue unrelated to service. That is the point about this clause. It is to make
950
sure that local government does not spend too much money on providing a service which is not repaid by the people who use it.
So long as it is that way, that makes sense; but when it gets to the future it could be that those in authority will seek something different. We have heard that the amounts that at the moment the Government propose to charge for these various services are relatively modest; but we cannot be sure that in the future this will not enter yet another taxation system. This has happened before and it could happen again. We know from the experience of charging for nuclear installations inspections that this is not a fear totally without foundation. The object of this amendment is to put a restraint on Government through to the future to make sure that the costs charged do not exceed the costs of the services.
It seems to me that this amendment is a totally reasonable one and one that this Government would not be at all disposed to resist. I would hope therefore that my noble friend would see his way to accepting the amendment. Perhaps it is not technically perfect as to wording and could be improved, but the principle of the thing is to make sure that, as the years go by, the principle of this clause, which is to pay for services rendered, is restrained within that limit. I would hope that my noble friend could give me encouragement or suggest better wording himself; but, better still, to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: The fear has been expressed that the existence of the enabling power for planning charges in Clause 76 could provide this or some future Government with a means of taxation which could be used in a way which would have a particularly damaging effect on the construction industry or the situation at the time. Let me begin by making it clear that that is the reverse of the Government's intention. The purpose of planning charges is to remove part of the cost of financing the planning services from taxation and to finance it instead from a charge to the applicant. My noble friend Lord Bellwin has explained this in detail. Even were we to attempt to use the power for other purposes—and we have no intention of so doing—noble Lords would

951
ensure that that would not come to pass. Any charges to be imposed under Clause 76 will require an Affirmative Resolution of this House. I confirm that and I am sure it will be of interest, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who displays such an interest in Affirmative Resolutions.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry to interrupt, but I feel lost. Is the noble Lord replying to the same amendment as the amendment that was moved?
Lord SANDYS: I am replying in some detail to this amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Perhaps the noble Baroness was looking at the next amendment.
To those who fear what a future Government could do with such a power, this amendment could offer little comfort: there is no shortage of powers open to Governments to tax economic activity in general or property development in particular. The wording of the amendment could, however, create difficulties for even a genuine fee aimed at recovering no more than the cost of a service. This is the intention of the amendment. Any scale of fees that this Government introduce will aim to be as simple as possible in the interests of keeping down the costs of administration. That inevitably means some element of swings and roundabouts. Some applicants might pay rather more, and others might pay rather less, than the actual cost of processing their case. Equally, some local authorities will recover a greater, others a lesser proportion of the cost of the service they provide—depending, among other things, on the composition of their caseload and their efficiency. It seems to me that the amendment, as it is worded, could give grounds for inhibiting the simple approach. I hope that in the light of the assurances I have given, the noble Lord may feel disposed to withdraw his amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: Would it not be the case, if the legislation goes through as drafted, without taking into account the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that administratively each district authority over the country as a whole would have to take on an average of three more
952
officials to deal with the administration of the financing of these applications? Is it not also true that while this is talked of as being a means of saving money, in fact it is a means of transferring money from the public sector to the private sector? It is not really my duty to tell the Government what they ought to do; I am just indicating where they are going wrong. If they are seeking to cover these costs, would it not be better if they did something with the development land tax, which is the way the people who make successful applications for planning consents pay for the privilege of doing that, rather than involving themselves at huge administrative cost and huge addition to the number of public servants in the public sector who will have to be employed as a result of this legislation?
Lord SANDYS: With due respect—and I do mean with due respect in this case—to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, he is confusing a number of issues. The Government are at present reviewing the situation of the development land tax. Secondly, he has spoken of the question of transferring funds from the public sector into the private sector. Surely, in the case instanced by my noble friend Lord Bellwin—and he instanced the case of someone who sought a driving licence—there is a situation in which a fee is being charged for a public service. It is a very relevant comparison.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My noble friend said earlier that he hoped the assurances he had given would be sufficient to satisfy me. I really did not notice any assurances.
Lord SANDYS: The assurances are the assurances of the Government's intention. That should be good enough for my noble friend.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I have lots of faith in the Government; but I have not any faith in a government that might be formed by other parties in this House. Cross-Benchers perhaps might form a government. Who knows? All of us have a fundamental suspicion of government. I suspect that even those in Government have a suspicion of government. I do not think that that assurance really counts for as much as it should do. I am concerned as to the future and what might happen. I quoted an example. I will read carefully what my noble friend

953
has said. I will think very hard before deciding whether or not to put down an amendment on these lines at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.27 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 66, line 42, at end insert—
("(c) of 10 per cent. of the prescribed fees received in respect of any description of application by an authority in England or Wales to whom applications fall to be made to the highway authority consulted by that authority.").
The noble Viscount said: This has been a highly messy and unsatisfactory debate so far, interrupted by our refreshment. I have not had an answer yet to Amendments Nos. 195 and 196—probably because, as it is so powerful, my case is unanswerable. Nor have I had a chance to say what I think about the amendment to leave out Clause 76. I will come back on that.
I am concerned with this fairly simple point: If the introduction of fees for planning permission is agreed and decided upon by the Government, it must be recognised that in nearly all planning applications there is a considerable involvement of the highways authority, in that the highways authority is often put to a great deal of trouble and expense in helping to determine whether an application is acceptable or not. There are things to do with road safety, sight lines, improvements and so forth, and there is also consideration of future sight lines for roads wanted by the community. I will not waste time on this, but if there is to be a charge for planning permission applications, then it is only fair that the highways authority, which will need to put in a lot of time on this, should receive some percentage of these fees. For the sake of argument, I suggest that 10 per cent. is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: I hope that the general confusion will provide me with an opportunity to apologise for misleading the Committee at an earlier stage. I said that the AMA was opposed to this proposal. I was wrong then; they are wrong now, but I apologise.
Lord SANDYS: As my noble friend Lord Ridley chided the Committee and possibly the Government with having a messy discussion, my response could be this: In making that suggestion he omitted to explain his amendment in very much detail to the Committee. I might remedy that by informing the Committee of the purpose of this amendment. The effect of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing that 10 per cent. of the fees received by district councils from planning charges should be passed to the county highway authority they consult.
I cannot accept that the administrative expense involved in this proposal would justify any benefits to be achieved by it. We have accepted the principle that where counties decide planning applications relating to county matters, they shall receive the fee. But if the county is also to receive a proportion of the receipts for being consulted as highway authority, why should other organisations which are consulted not receive a proportion of the receipts, too? Why should the water authority, or the parish council or the National Coal Board or any other body consulted not also receive their share? The accounting complexity and paper-passing which would result would be of benefit to no one.
I suspect that the motivation for this amendment may also reflect a misunderstanding of these fees. They are not a means of increasing the resources available to local authorities. In estimating local authorities' expenditure for public expenditure purposes and for the calculation of grant, the receipts from charges will be fully taken account of. We do not, therefore, expect to see any increase in planning expenditure as a result of fees. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend may feel disposed to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount RIDLEY: I am not disposed, but I will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.31 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 66, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The secret is out.

955
My noble friend the Minister disclosed that he would accept this amendment and, just in case anybody missed it, my cosponsor the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made sure that everybody realised. However, I am doggedly going to justify this amendment, because it would be useful for the record so to do. It will not take very long, so I ask your Lordships not to settle back.
Whatever the merits for charging for planning applications, the idea of charging for appeals is simply wrong. It would be rationing justice by the purse and deterring applicants from lodging appeals even when they had good grounds for so doing. The right to appeal to the Minister is a vital and valuable part of United Kingdom planning law. It inevitably involves the appellant in considerable expense, and it would be unfair to impose an additional financial burden on him. That is the justification for the amendment. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister is going to accept it, but I am very sad that his advisers had cause to put this in the Bill in the first place. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: I do not propose to detain the Committee with any word at all in regard to the acceptance of this amendment, which I am glad to see. I was only going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that, in the same way as he wishes his views to be put on record for posterity, I hope he will remember that he has not done that in the Division Lobbies of this Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 200A:
Page 67, line 2, leave out ("or refunding").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that the Secretary of State has provided scope in the present wording of the Bill for introducing the concept of the refunding of fees. The district councils, who handle the greatest bulk of all these planning applications, have looked into the whole question of the refunding of fees and have come conclusively to the view that, on balance, there is very little advantage and an enormous number of difficulties in allowing such a thing to occur. Even to be provided with the discretion to make refunds will, in their view, be likely to cause much
956
more trouble than it is worth. The whole idea of having refunds is almost certain, in their view, to lead to very considerable abuse. I should therefore like to move this as a probing amendment, to see whether Her Majesty's Government have come to the same view. I beg to move.
Lord RENTON: I wonder whether I may inquire out of my ignorance what is the difference, in these circumstances, between "remission" and "refunding"? There no doubt is a difference; otherwise, presumably, the draftsman would not have used both expressions. But what is the difference?
Lord SANDYS: In response to the last question I shall have to take legal advice, because my noble friend is such a great expert in this field. I hope that he may be satisfied with that reply for the time being.
My noble friend Lord Sandford said that the authorities concerned with this amendment have reached their view conclusively. The Government are totally of the opposite opinion, and the result is that in the detailed proposals for planning charges which the department have issued for consultation we have not proposed any provision for refunds. I am aware of the arguments that any system of refund would lead to greater complexity and cost of administration. Nevertheless, we have received representations suggesting various categories of refund and I think that these should be considered on their merits. Nor am I confident that we can be sure of getting the charges right for all time at our first attempt.
I should not like to be without the power to prescribe refunds, if practice showed that there were cases where they would be the best way of dealing with particular problems or anomalies which are at present unforeseen. We are dealing with a completely new clause and a completely new principle and I am sure that that is entirely understood.
But my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was very clear in Standing Committee D at column 2214 of the Official Report of 17th April. These are his words:
"We should like to retain the words, 'or refunding' because we want to keep some flexibility in this part of the Bill when the regulations are

957
being drawn up. We take the view that there could be circumstances occasionally of a rare nature where it might be that a refund should be made to the applicant for planning permission."
The words of my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State reflect exactly the Government's view in this case.
We are working in a new field. The principle that a refund should be a reserve power to the Secretary of State is one which is very well established. This is a situation which is providing not a power within a local authority for a refund, but a power for the Secretary of State to exercise when he makes general arrangements for that purpose. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: Yes, I think I do, so long as I can be quite clear that my noble friend is saying that his view is the same as ours at the moment. He does not see the case for introducing refunds when the regulations are first introduced, but he wants to retain the power to provide for refunds if in the future, in some rare cases, the need for them should appear. Is that understanding correct because, if so, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord SANDYS: Yes. In general terms, that is acceptable. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of replying to the question about the difference between "remission" and "refunding". In shorthand, a "remission" means that you do not have to pay and a "refunding" means that you get it back.
Lord SANDFORD: With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.39 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 67, line 3, at end insert ("and shall provide for the remission of the prescribed fee in cases where the applicant (not being a body corporate) is the beneficial owner of the premises to which the application relates, and the premises do not exceed one hectare in extent.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wigoder and myself, to which he referred in the general debate
958
on this clause, which seems like yesterday, but was, in fact, about two hours ago. I think my noble friend made it perfectly clear that we are concerned about the small applicant with the small planning consent, and with trying to exempt him from the costs which the Government seek to place on applicants for planning permission.
May I say, first, that my noble friends and I on these Benches take the view that Clause 76 should be left out. If I had not been elbowed out in the crush to back the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to leave it out, my name would be there on the Marshalled List. But there are so many people who are anxious to leave out the clause that my name is probably about sixty-seventh on the list to do so.
In the event that the Government do not agree to leave out Clause 76, I thought that it would be valuable to seek to make an exemption for the smaller kind of application which comes to the average planning committee. I should mention that my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Ross, at Report stage in another place, moved the exclusion of what was the equivalent of Clause 76. He made the point, which I make now, that if we are talking of imposing a bill of a fair amount, £30 to £45 per person applying for a fairly small planning consent, in addition to the bill he is going to have to pay for byelaw consent, which is about £200 for a £25,000 house, and if he is fortunate enough to be also going to have to pay development land tax, there will be a situation where many people who should be applying for planning consent for a small application—individuals, not limited companies, as noble Lords will see from the amendment—just do not go to the trouble of applying for planning consent. Any of your Lordships who have been engaged in local government on planning committees know the enormous backlog there is at the moment, under the present law, without any fee, in enforcing planning procedures against people who have not taken the trouble of applying for planning consent. In very many cases years pass, and in many cases no action is taken against people who have carried out development without planning consent.
I suspect that for the smaller application of the nature we seek to exempt in this clause there will be a very much larger

959
number of people who do not go to the trouble of applying for a planning consent. This will result either in the law being flouted or in the appointment of a whole new army of enforcement officers to check on whether or not people have applied for planning consents. In the smaller application of this kind we are not talking about the person who is going to make a large profit on the development of a housing estate, which is a different matter; we are talking about a person who is developing perhaps the garden of his house, or whatever.
It seems to me that this is an area where in all conscience the small man, the small developer, the individual who is seeking either to make alterations to his house or to develop his garden, should be exempted from paying a charge for a planning application. If he is not exempted there will be a lot of avoidance of seeking applications. My honourable friend in another place used a vulgar expression to describe the gesture the small man would make to the planning authority. I think that would happen in a very large number of cases. In the other very important sense, exempting this group of people from the fee would cut down an enormous amount of work that would have to be done in the planning department of the local authority.
The noble Lord the Minister made a point, which I do not think is a parallel, about having to apply for a driving licence if one wishes to drive a car. Since he has chosen that analogy I would suggest to him that, while one has to have a driving licence to drive a car because it is a big and dangerous vehicle, one does not have to have a driving licence to drive a bicycle. Really, this is an exemption to exempt the cyclist as against the motorist. I invite your Lordships, on the Minister's analogy, to agree with me. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I wonder what the noble Lord would have said as to motor cycles; but that is another point. The first point I should make is that these matters are properly left to the regulations and not to the enabling power. Your Lordships will have ample opportunity to debate such points as these when the regulations, which are subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, are laid. In setting a scale of charges under the powers of Clause 76 we should certainly
960
need to take care that the levels we set were not an unfair burden. In considering such regulations, noble Lords would ensure that we did so. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that over half of all planning applications are for house extensions and other such domestic developments. Many other applications will be for developments where the owner of the premises is an individual rather than a company or organisation. The point I made earlier is absolutely valid. We are giving an extension to the GDL, which takes in so many of the applications that are made, from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. without the need for a planning application at all. It is very interesting to contemplate what that will do to the total number of planning applications that are made in any case.
We are anxious to avoid burdening the individual and it seems to me that in the circumstances, if we were to accept this amendment, the financial burden of the planning system would fall entirely on the company sector. At a time when our future depends so heavily on creating the conditions for economic development this seems to me a short-sighted policy. The individual does not gain in the end. The costs to an organisation are felt ultimately by the individual, as its customer or its employee.
From the wording of the amendment, I am not clear precisely how far the exemption would extend. For example, "beneficial owner" is not a term which is defined in planning legislation; nor is "premises". Though normally understood in everyday language to mean buildings, it has sometimes been interpreted by the courts in other ways. It might be held that for the purposes of Clause 76 it included land without buildings. The result of that would be that someone seeking to develop a field for a couple of acres of housing, the total worth of which could well exceed £300,000, could be exempt from charges. I wonder whether that is what the noble Lord has in mind; I suspect it is not. I would ask your Lordships not to accept this amendment. In so doing I repeat my assurance that in framing scales of charges we shall wish to structure them in a way which will not be an unreasonable burden to the individual, and that there will be further opportunity to discuss such matters when the regulations are debated.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I hope the Minister will realise that when we come to discuss regulations, be it on an affirmative or a negative motion, the one thing we cannot do is amend them. From that point of view it would be far better to get into the Bill some sensible exception to cover specific types of operation. For that reason, I would certainly support this amendment. There is no other one before us.
Lord UNDERHILL: What the noble Lord the Minister has said is surely justification for opposing the inclusion of this clause in its entirety, because if I listened correctly to the noble Lord he said that we just cannot chuck the whole cost of this on to the big developers. Therefore it means, in effect, that the Government have in mind making a charge on the small householder; and, as has been made quite clear, 50 percent. of the applications are for the small householder. It seems to me that this is a justification for opposing the clause in its entirety.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Following the point, which I myself was about to make but which was made much better by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, about the Minister's comment on the regulations, may I ask him this: If he wishes seriously to rest on that point, will he give an assurance now that when the regulations are brought forward, if they are ever brought forward under these proposals, they will exclude these small properties, as suggested in this amendment? As the noble Lord has said, this is the last opportunity—perhaps it will be the Report stage—for your Lordships to assert yourselves on this matter, because we cannot amend regulations. If I may take that point one degree further, we are entitled to reject an Affirmative Resolution—and this House has done it—but in a matter of this sort, which in a way is a measure for raising taxation, it might well be argued, and I myself would have some hesitations, as to whether this House was really morally justified in resisting the regulation. So we come back to this. If the Minister is to have this power can he give an assurance as to how it is going to be exercised?
8.50 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: No, at this moment I
962
cannot do that because I do not have the details before me. Certainly we can think about it and we shall gladly do so. However, we keep coming back to whether we approve the principle of what we are doing. It is very difficult to make an effective clause stand part speech, but I tried to explain why I felt it was not unfair that we should do this. I mentioned a sum of money which my noble friend said set me right in between the two prongs, at some £30 million. I felt that it was not unreasonable to make this kind of charge. Somebody has to pay, in any case. There is no doubt that somebody is going to pay all the way down the line, particularly so far as the small householder is concerned. We must bear in mind that we were talking about £30 on £1,000 and £40 on thousands of pounds. We should keep all this in perspective. We could talk of charges as though they were a massive new imposition, but it is not that at all. Yet in totality it is sufficient to be significant. However, in my opinion the protection for many of the small people to whom this amendment refers come from the fact that there has been a significant extension of the GDL, of the right to increase the works that people do on their house by some 50 per cent. more than now without a planning application. I cannot give the details which my noble friend requests, but I undertake to look at that aspect of it, only because I do not have the answers now.
Viscount SIMON: Is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that if one is unhappy enough to live in a national park one has to obtain planning permission for the smallest alteration to a house? People I know who wanted to put up a small porch on their door, which was probably not going to cost as much as £30, have had to pay £30 to get planning permission.
Lord BELLWIN: When the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, raised this point, I intimated that this was an area we ought to look at on its own, and that we will certainly do.
Lord RENTON: I wonder whether my noble friend would heed the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and bear also in mind that the Government are surely going to have to make up

963
their minds on the policy decision before very long. One hopes it will not take them very long to make up their minds—perhaps in the next few days. If they do make up their minds, it would give much greater satisfaction to your Lordships on both sides of the Committee if it were written into the Bill instead of being left to the uncertainty of a regulation.
Lord BELLWIN: I think that is a very fair suggestion, and with that well in mind I will certainly take the point away and see what I can do about it.
Lord BYERS: I wonder whether I may press the noble Lord and ask him whether that means he would be prepared to come forward with a properly structured amendment at Report?
Lord BELLWIN: I cannot go further than I have already gone. I believe that important points have been made. While I cannot accept the amendment, a method of work I have adopted with the many amendments I have had to different Bills is to take them away and think very seriously about them. If we feel we can meet the points made, one way or another we try to do something about it. But if I cannot do so, I cannot. Then it will be for the noble Lord himself to decide what to do.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Lord will be aware, there is a very substantial feeling in nearly all parts of the Committee about this amendment. Therefore I hope that before the next stage he will look at the matter with his right honourable friend. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is one of considerable importance—namely, that this is the last time that we shall be looking at the issue so far as this Bill is concerned. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter: it raises questions of propriety as to whether this House could reject the Affirmative Resolution when it comes before it. It is not good enough to say that we will wait until the regulations are made to find out what is going to be done. The House requires some form of guarantee at the next stage of the Bill. Speaking for myself and, I suspect, for many others, we very much hope that the Government will then come forward with a proper amendment on this point.
Lord SANDFORD: It would be very helpful if my noble friend could respond to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton and let us all see, before we allow the Bill to go, how the Government's thoughts are developing on the regulations. I hope that he will not go too far. These regulations will have to be laid and re-laid at not too infrequent intervals, in the light of a lot of things which will change from year to year. The first set of regulations will not remain in force for five or 10 years and I think that Parliament will have more than one occasion to look at each set of regulations and adjust them. Therefore it is a question of choosing a point somewhere between putting the regulations on the face of the Bill, which I do not think is practicable, and letting us see a little more than we can at the moment how the Government's thoughts are developing.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: Until about five minutes ago I had intended to divide your Lordships' Committee, but, in view of what the noble Lord, the Minister, has said and in view of the feeling which has been widely expressed on all sides of the Committee, I think that the right way to approach this would be to invite the noble Lord the Minister to bring forward an amendment which your Lordships could consider to protect the views that are widely held in the House about this area. If the Government do not bring forward such an amendment, I shall reserve my right to do so at Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.58 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 201A:
Page 67, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) In all cases where the planning application is made by or on behalf of a person or firm in receipt of assistance under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, the applicant shall be entitled to a full refund.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I listened to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with some hope. The notes which the Minister supplied on subsection (4) allow that regulations made under Section 1 or

965
Section 3 shall provide for the whole or partial remission or refund of fees. They continue:
"As indicated by Ministers in Committee in the Commons, it is not at present intended that any provision for the refunding or remission of fees should be made, but this subsection is included in the clause to enable some provision to be made in the event of it becoming apparent at some future date that circumstances could arise in practice where it would be unjust for a charge to be made".
I believe that the debate which we have had has clearly demonstrated that in practice circumstances could arise in which it would be unjust for charges to be made. So at Clause 76, page 67, line 3, I wish to insert the amendment on the Marshalled List.
The reason is crystal clear—that local authorities, and the Government, are seeking to encourage industry, and small firms in particular, to regenerate the inner city areas. This is the cri de coeur all the time about business. It does not make sense to give them a grant under one Act and to take back part of it by imposing a fee under another. If the Government take the attitude already demonstrated by the Minister that this point will be covered in regulations, this will be satisfactory. Or there could be a caveat that this should be treated as a money Bill or as taxation. Consequently, we should be in a peculiar position. The Minister will need to consult with other authorities. The debate has been encouraging. Therefore I hope that the Minister can say something encouraging so that I do not have to force to a Division this amendment which I consider, despite its brevity, to be of vital importance to the small businessman.
Lord BELLWIN: I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that we should not, in charging for planning applications, place excessive burdens on those who are revitalising the inner urban areas. I am not sure that I would accept that the kinds of fees we are proposing would be a disincentive to anyone. I say again that we are tending to get this completely out of proportion. We are mixing the principle with the practical effects. Our aim in setting the level of charges is to ensure that they will not be a discouragement to development. I have noted the noble Lord's argument. The issue is one that we should consider in the context of
966
the regulations under Clause 76 and not the enabling power itself.
Your Lordships will have the opportunity to vote on the scale of charges, which will require an Affirmative Resolution of this House.
I should mention two technical points. The amendment refers only to planning applications while the enabling power in Clause 76 covers other planning consents and determinations as well. The noble Lord may also wish to consider that under his provision the person or firm concerned would first have to pay the fee and then have it refunded. He might wish to consider whether to argue, when the time comes, that such applicants should be exempted to begin with. He might prefer that. I cannot be so helpful on this. By itself, this is part of the total of what the clause is setting out to do. I would not have thought that the noble Lord would particularly want to press this amendment which, for the reasons given, we would not be able to accept.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: In view of the noble Lord's more or less reasonable answer, I see no point in pressing for a Division at this time. I have listened carefully and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 20IB:
Page 67, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Local planning authorities may remit or refund a prescribed fee in respect of an application relating to industrial development on land which for the time being is designated as an Assisted Area").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Northfield, who is unable to be with us today, I beg leave to move his amendment which is in similar terms but has a different bias to the one moved by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. I suspect we shall get a similar answer, but I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: The noble Baroness is pretty right. There is not a lot of difference. I am very conscious of the risk that if we complicate the charging arrangements we shall create something which is expensive to administer—the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made earlier. The noble Baroness will be aware, for example, that

967
the boundaries of assisted areas do not coincide with the boundaries of local planning authorities. The local authority associations are not enthusiastic about operating discretionary refunds, which they fear will lead to a good deal of dispute and administrative work. Nevertheless, we shall weigh these arguments against the points made by the noble Baroness, before arriving at the final proposals we shall wish to make for the detailed regulations.
Baroness STEDMAN: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 76, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.4 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: I hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin will not hold the company that I keep against me. I would point out, however, that it was the noble Lords opposite who joined with me, and not I with them. Nevertheless, I welcome their company most warmly. We are joined in a matter of principle, above and beyond mere matters of partisan political ideology.
Before considering the merits or otherwise of charging applicants' planning fees, it is essential to consider the purpose of planning. The purpose of planning has rarely been better or more elegantly defined than by these words:
"The purpose of planning is not to frustrate or get in the way of development. It is to reconcile, ideally if possible, and by compromise if not, conflicting demands on and policies affecting land use in a small crowded island which needs to protect its countryside and wildlife, promote its agriculture, improve its housing and social and leisure facilities, and regenerate its industrial base".
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that those are the words of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, stated in his speech opening the Second Reading debate upon this Bill.—[Official Report, 5/8/80; cols. 1337–38].
Your Lordships will appreciate that implicit in these ringing words is that the major beneficiaries of planning law are the country as a whole, those who use the facility both directly and indirectly, both now and in future times—of whom the
968
applicant is only one. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Bellwin went on to say:
"We also believe it right that those who stand to gain directly from planning decisions should contribute to the cost of making them".— [Col. 1338.]
There are three implications inherent in the phrase:
"those who stand to gain directly from planning decisions".
First, that those who take planning decisions are providing a service. Secondly, that there can only be one direct beneficiary of planning regulations; namely, the applicant. Thirdly, that the applicant necessarily stands to gain.
To suggest to the planned that the planner, in raising a prohibition to improve or develop, is providing a service does not merit the dignity of any further examination. To suggest that there is only one beneficiary flowing from planning regulations and controls flies in the face of Her Majesty's Government's own definition of the purpose of planning. To suggest further that the applicant stands to gain when his application is refused must be met with derision. The only beneficiaries would be the lawyers, architects, civil engineers and the bureaucrats. Furthermore, if the application is granted the applicant, as we have seen, is only one of many beneficiaries, both directly and indirectly, now and in the future. In this context it should never be forgotten that where planning consent gives rise to profits this is at present dealt with through the development land tax, never forgetting the incidence in certain cases of capital gains tax.
The charges for planning control, it no doubt will be said, are linked with charges now applied to building control. One must recognise that some builders consider that the amount of inspection and work involved in building control is of some value to them. Following the Anns v. Merton decision, there is also a liability laid upon authorities, and builders may feel it worthwhile to have back-up insurance for themselves and their clients. In addition, there are fairly complex regulations in relation to building control and they ensure that the structures are built to safe standards.
But there is nothing in the area of planning control which actively compares

969
either with the work involved in building control or in the liability arising from any defects where local authorities are considered to have some responsibility. One apparent relationship between the proposed charges for planning control and those for building control is the consultative papers from the department estimating that each form of control costs around £50 million. I should like to ask the Minister how these figures have been arrived at and in addition what conclusions can be drawn as to the value of the control to the community and the percentage which the community should pay for the control exercised in its name and to its benefit.
I believe it is a matter of regret that Her Majesty's Government have chosen to ignore the learned societies and other organisations who formally objected to planning charges, charges which appear to be nothing other than a tax upon the enterprising. I find it astonishing that a Government wedded to the principle of creating a healthy environment for enterprise and consequent growth should consider this unstraightforward way of taxing development.
I endorse Her Majesty's Government's determination to cut public spending, but to do so by passing the cost of administering a planning service designed to benefit the public as a whole is unjust. The answer lies in the hands of the Government: less planning and what planning there is, administered and run efficiently and, above all, expeditiously. It is not only that I find the justification for this clause manifestly absurd and unjust; I, for one, bitterly regret that it should be a Conservative Administration which, wittingly or unwittingly, should seek to bring itself into disrepute by taxing endeavour and circumscribing enterprise. In the past noble Lords have demonstrated their ability not only to listen to the merits of a case but to act upon it in the voting Lobbies. I beseech your Lordships to persuade Her Majesty's Government to think again by doing likewise this evening.
Lord MISHCON: This ought not to be an appeal to a Conservative Administration or any political administration; it ought to be an appeal—if my noble friend Lord Morris will allow me to say so—to
970
the common sense of your Lordships. This House can so often be relied upon to use common sense when there is no need for party loyalties to be expressed. I put it in this way because the noble Lord the Minister made it perfectly clear that in his view no great principle was involved here. The Government were thinking in terms of this experiment, they came down with a view that an experiment was worth while, that this charge of planning fees was worth while and therefore it ought to be put into the Bill; and as I understand the position it has been left to your Lordships, free from any party loyalty or prejudice, to decide whether this innovation should find its way on to the statute book.
Equally, I think it is no way to persuade your Lordships to repeat arguments that have been advanced at length in the course of this debate. I should be very much of a defaulter if I did so because part of my plea, being heard in the first or second speech made in regard to this matter of the clause being left out, was that I should not have to repeat it and others would not have to repeat their remarks on the debate on the clause stand part. Succinctly I hope, in one minute I pray, to sum up the arguments as to why this Committee should go into the Division Lobbies (should that be necessary) on the Question, Whether the clause shall he left out.
First, it is an innovation. It has nothing parallel to a driving licence or anything of that kind. It is an encroachment upon the liberty of the individual who may own his little house or his big factory or whatever it may be, to charge him for what is after all the security of a public benefit. Secondly—and here I echo (with some pride I may say) the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—it is impracticable and it is wrong in practice to do this; and I am afraid the Minister did not find himself so conveniently in the middle of the charges total by way of what the Government may be able to collect. Without any doubt at all, when one is talking of collecting £30 million in one year one is at a pretty high level.
The third reason which is advanced against it is that it imposes hardship in individual cases. Briefly, it cannot be put right by exemptions in regulations which are going to come forward because

971
there will be so many arguments on the exemptions and the wording and the limits that the Government have not even made up their minds on how to do this. I should have said it was far better to leave out the clause and then, if the Government wanted to come back at Report stage with another clause listing all the exemptions which they think might get it back on the statute book, that would be the way to approach it, without the matter being deferred in this way. I think I can best get the support of the Committee—not, as I said, only that of my party, but of all sections of the Committee—on this commonsense matter by making a brief speech and urging that, if I may paraphrase Shakespeare, "If you have votes, prepare to use them now".
Lord MIDDLETON: In supporting my noble friend Lord Morris, may I first say that I am wholly in sympathy with and I applaud the efforts being made by this Government to control public expenditure, and I supported my own Government all last week in getting their crucial financial provisions through. As I said during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, any proposal that aims, as this one does, to recover £30 million of public expenditure must be looked at most carefully. However, I have to say that the more I look at this clause the less happy I feel about it, and I share many of the misgivings voiced earlier, and much more skilfully than I shall do, by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
If I may very briefly take what my noble friend Lord Bellwin told us earlier this afternoon, he said it seemed to him perfectly reasonable that a developer should meet a part of the cost of development control. He dismissed the argument that since control is in the public interest it is the public who should pay for it. I do not think one can dismiss this argument as easily as that. The Government are saying in effect—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin said it—that planning is a service and the people who use it should pay for it. I will not repeat the points already made, but surely the development control system is not a service to the applicant for permission, but a service to the community, and if the public wish to enjoy the advantages of the planning system they should be prepared to meet the cost.
972
Earlier this evening Lord Mishcon referred to, and no doubt many noble Lords will have read, the correspondence in The Times during the summer on the proposals to charge fees for planning applications. I think Mr. Henney and Mr. Rose hit the nail on the head when they wrote:
"Requiring payment for the return of an expropriated right is analogous to taking a man's wallet and demanding payment for its return".
I do beg the Government very seriously, at this late stage of the Bill's progress, to consider whether this proposal, however laudable in its aim, to claw back some of the cost of administering the planning system, may not be, as I think it is, based on unsound reasoning and therefore not worthy to go forward in this Bill.
Viscount HANWORTH: I have listened to the arguments put forward and I really do not think that any principle is involved in this. There is the question of finding the money to do this planning, and I think it is perfectly reasonable, with the reasonable fees that have been asked, that the people who want to build should pay. I really do not think this need become a major issue. We have got to have the money. It is reasonable that those who want to build should pay.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I have listened to the arguments and everything seems to be missed. This Government got in and was supposed to help the small businessman, the small shopkeeper. Say I am developing my little shop in a little Welsh village, and trying to compete with supermarkets, and I put up a new window, do I have to pay for the planning? If I have a little house and I want to build a little gazebo at the bottom of the garden to watch my trees, I have to pay for the planning. As soon as I change my house, the rate people come along. If I change a stable into a garage, somehow or other within 20 minutes the planning officer knows that Davies of Leek is improving the stable and he comes around with a henchman to tell me my rates are going up.
Of course we already pay; every bit of improvement we make is paid for on the rates. Nobody has mentioned that Everybody seems to think that we are getting something for nothing. There was

973
a phrase once, that the Englishman's home was his castle. Now it is going to be haunted by sheets of paper and people snooping around, to see if I am sticking up a gazebo. It is completely ridiculous and it is the wrong way to make money. Have we reached the point in social service where there is no service without money? How arid that is. The nation is not as poor as all that. We have survived two great wars and we can survive this Government.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to add my support to my noble friend Lord Morris. I shall not speak for long because my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Middleton have said all that I would like to say. My only problem is that in supporting my noble friend Lord Morris I am also supporting the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who made rather barbed remarks relating to me earlier. Therefore, I shall have a problem. But, in principle, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Morris.
9.21 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY: I should like to add a word of support for the Government because it seems as though they need some at present. We must decide whether we feel that a service of this kind should be free—which means, in fact, that somebody else has to pay for it, because it must be paid for; all the arguments have been deployed—or whether we think that a service of this kind should be paid for partly, if not wholly, by the users of the service. One calls in evidence services like the telephone; one does not expect that to be free. Other examples are the railways and the Post Office. Indeed, to come a little further down the scale, let us say that I wish to have a firearms certificate. I have to pay the police for the time taken in checking whether I should have one. That situation seems fairly analogous and no one objects to that.
We must accept that this is an expensive service. It is protecting the public from what are sometimes terrible things, and we should support the Government's wish to charge. If only your Lordships had seen some of the frivolous planning applications which I had to deal with as chairman of a planning authority, in which people put in for planning for hundreds of houses for every field that they
974
owned in the hope of catching the planners unawares, and in the hope that they could possibly get away with it. They had to be treated seriously because they were serious applications and they took a lot of time. If only your Lordships had seen some of the planning applications which have been rejected by planning authorities, applications for gazebos or buildings which would have permanently disfigured the landscape, then you would be totally grateful to the planning service which we have in this country, and which I believe to be the finest in Europe, if not in the world. It needs the help of charging that will make it more efficient. I hope very much that the Government are successful in resisting the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: This clause applies to Scotland. I wonder why? The Secretary of State has bowed out of a lot of this because none of the aspects of finance as regards rate support grant and capital control apply to Scotland. However, this matter does apply. I should like to know what the Secretary of State for Scotland did about it. It is now a better clause than it was originally because we have got rid of subsection (3). However, I must say that subsection (3) is the one that probably cost the Government a little more money than anything else, because I can assure your Lordships that it takes a long, long time for the civil servants to get round to appeals, and then those concerned must await the decision of the local authorities. Those appeals and the hearing of them probably cost more money than would be taken up by a thousand of the small owner-occupiers who will be caught in this.
Anyone who is used to reading parliamentary statutes is very sceptical of any Minister who comes along and says, "Ah, but we are going to be very reasonable." The words in the statute are:
"make … provision as he thinks fit"
for the payment of a fee. In fact this money is going to be so easy to raise. It will not take long for a Government with a majority to get a Motion through the House in respect of this type of matter. From that point of view, this, to my mind, is quite a revolutionary change.
It is taxation, but taxation upon whom? We have had some indication of the scale of the fees, and the Minister says that he

975
wants to make it simple. He talks about £40 on £1,000. I am thinking of myself as an owner-occupier who put an extension on his house three or four years ago. What can one get for £1,000? It will be a very simple change in that respect, but it will cost a person £40. The Minister said that it will not cost so very much for the commercial firms, the big developers. He is able to say that because there is so much going on as regards the small people. He instanced the £30 million and then went on to say how much of this would be taken up by the small people. Who are the small people? They are the owner-occupiers. For the kind of job that they are doing they will pay VAT. No doubt they will have to pay something now for the approval of building plans, and now this.
These are three things for which three years ago they did not have to pay anything. So you add the one to the other. It is the smaller businessman, the sort of person who is being pushed out of business, who does this kind of job. There will be an inhibiting factor in relation to this kind of cost. The point made from the Liberal Benches was I think so right—there are people who will try to get away with it. People have tried to get away with actually building a whole house without obtaining planning permission. I can remember a member of a local council in Kilmarnock—he was on the planning committee too—who received planning permission for a house in one area but who built it elsewhere in a different area and did not seem to think that he had done anything wrong. So there will be people who will go ahead with these things, and then we shall be faced with the business of enforcement. It will be very troublesome and I do not think that it will look very well when it is written up in the local papers and people discover just exactly what they have to pay for now when they did not have to pay for it before.
I hope that the Government will think again on this. To my mind the whole question is wrong. We must balance the interests of the individual against the well-being of the whole community. The great point that has been made is that of the success of our planning system. It has been pretty well agreed. Of course, there have been grouses as it
976
has gone on. Now we discover, about 40 years after having instituted it, that this is something that should be done. Why did we not do it before? Because we recognised that we were interfering with the rights of the individual, which were in existence long before we established the rights of the community through planning. If there is planning conrol, it is in the interests not of the person who uses it, but of the community as a whole, and so it is right that the community as a whole should pay for it. We should not be introducing this question of fees.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: A good many hours ago I made a speech in which I sought to suggest to your Lordships certain aspects of principle. I promise your Lordships that I shall not indulge in tedious repetition by repeating it. But if I may, I should like to comment on one or two points that have been made in the course of this extremely interesting debate.
First, I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Ridley that he seemed to brush aside the degree of innovation involved in these proceedings. After all, it is a fact that for at least 40 years—indeed, rather longer—planning has been regarded as a public service administered not in the interests of the individual applicant but in the interests of the community as a whole for the proper maintenance of the environment. To change that approach after over 40 years—and I am sure that my noble friend, sitting on the Conservative Benches, believes this—requires a good deal of justification. I also thought that he fell into certain difficulties in the use of analogy; we all do. He used the comparison of a gun licence. I would point out to him that one does not have to pay a fee if one applies for a gun licence and it is refused.
Viscount RIDLEY: Oh but you do.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Not if it is refused.
Viscount RIDLEY: If you apply for a firearms certificate, you have to send your cheque with the application.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: And if it is refused, your cheque is returned.
Viscount RIDLEY: I doubt it.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: If my noble friend's authority does not return those cheques, I suggest that it very urgently consults its legal advisers. No analogy helps us, as I am sure he would agree. It is a change of a quite important nature. In his reply on the earlier amendment, my noble friend—and this is the only reason I return to it—did not answer the question (he answered so many that I fully sympathise with him) as to how much of the £30 million that he sought to raise would be offset by administrative expenses.
We have heard a good deal during this debate of the possibility of various concessions and amendments. Most of them are excellent, but no one will know better than my noble friend that acceptance of them would not only lose the revenue involved, would be not only knocked off the £30 million, but would equally entail an addition to the administrative staff required to administer it. If the Committee is to consider this on the basis of £30 million we want to know what the net figure is. Although it does not itself touch on the question of principle, I agree, it is very relevant to the practical side of it.
Like other speakers I have not been terribly satisfied by my noble friend's indication that if he gets this power it will be exercised moderately, and the amounts exacted from the citizen who applies, successfully or unsuccessfully, for planning permission will be moderate. Of course, they will be under this Government. My noble friend cannot guarantee what another Government will do. I remind him of a rather sinister precedent of nearly two centuries ago when William Pitt introduced the income tax towards the end of the 18th century. He indicated it would be both modest and temporary. I am sure that he was as honest and sincere when he said that as is my noble friend this evening.
What my noble friend has to face is that he is seeking to introduce a new form of taxation. This is an extremely delicate and difficult subject. I find myself in great difficulty over this. The line your Lordships know I have taken from time to time is that we ought to support Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to get the national economy right. Some of us indeed have urged on them not
978
perhaps greater taxation but greater reductions in expenditure. If my noble friend can really get there and say that the raising of this £30 million gross is essential to the recovery of the national economy and can demonstrate that, I should be impressed, but I do not think he can.
I have great sympathy with my noble friend's position. There he is on that Bench, and I appreciate that it is difficult for him to concede something like £30 million gross, be it that, of revenue, although I think he has seen that with the gallant exception of our noble friend Lord Ridley the general feeling expressed in this Committee has been very unhappy about this, and critical. Can he relieve all of us of this difficulty? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that there is no refuge to be found in the regulations. But there is another stage of this Bill. Can my noble friend tell the Committee that between now and the Report stage he will consult his right honourable friend and indicate to him the general unhappiness in all parties in this Committee about these proposals and the difficulties which have been brought out in this debate? Can he do that?
I know if he says it he will do it. Will he say that he will go back to him on the whole thing—not just on the individual modifications which he has been generous in giving undertaking about—without commitment, because I realise having been a Minister that he cannot at this moment give a commitment, we would not expect him to; but he could discuss the matter urgently with his right honourable friend. If his right honourable friend is sensible about it, as he may well be, then he could thereby well relieve many of us in this Committee of being torn on the dilemma of either appearing to accept and not vote against a really deplorable new precedent, or the alternative of appearing not fully to support a Government for which most of us have on this side great enthusiasm and which we realise is struggling gallantly with a desperate economic situation. I hope that my noble friend can help us.
Lord GRIMSTON of WESTBURY: I intervene briefly because I feel the Government are a little lacking in support on this issue. Having witnessed the number of plans submitted on a frivolous basis and

979
then revised by the planning authority, I can only suggest that there is a large waste of money and a vested interest in keeping planning staff employed in many instances, and possibly architects as well. I wanted to make that remark because I feel the principle of planning charges should be commended to the Committee.
9.36 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: May I ask the Minister a simple question and a particular one which is not really on the general principle? In the consultation paper with which we have been provided, under the heading "Exemptions" is says:
"There would be no exemption for particular classes of applicant".
If a family contains a disabled member and the family wishes to make an extension rather larger than the new allowance, would not an exemption be made even in that case?
Lord BELLWIN: To deal with that last point first, if the noble Baroness, Lady David, were saying that if I could give her an assurance that there would be such an exemption she would then support the rejection of the amendment, I should be glad to answer her in detail. As it happens, I cannot give her a specific answer other than to say that in general terms I have tried to say all along when debating this issue (indeed, I have tried to say this when debating most subjects) that if any of your Lordships raised any aspect that should be looked at, we would gladly do so, but I suspect that this whole debate has gone much further than that now.
I wish at the outset to assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that we appreciate the way in which he made his points. I recognise his great wish to be helpful and I want him to know how much I appreciate that, regardless of whatever he does about this issue. I shall not go over the ground again. I made a "clause stand part" speech at the beginning—perhaps I should have made it at the end; I do not know, but I do not think so—and I think I need only comment on a few points that have been made since.
First, we do not look on these planning charges at all as a tax. They are not a tax but fees payable whether permission
980
is granted or refused, and they are designed to offset part of the costs of the system. That is all they are, and I suggest that one needs to keep a sense of proportion in looking at the matter.
The charges are very small in comparison with the value of the developments and it may be of interest to the Committee to know that about £8,000 million-worth of development passes through the system in a year. The annual yeild of the planning charges is intended to be £30 million; that is, £30 million out of £8 billion. A scheme of 50 new houses would attract a charge of either £2,000 or about £2,800, depending on how it was done, out of a total value of £750,000.
It seems to me that the whole debate really turns on the principle of the thing. My noble friend Lord Morris asked me where the figure of £50 million came from. The figure was produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the figure of £30 million was arrived at as a reasonable proportion of what could be recovered without setting charges at a level which would be a disincentive to development, because there is no way the Government want to do anything which would have that effect.
If we really thought that what we were proposing would be a disincentive to development, then there would be no further discussion at all about it. Yes, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, it is possible that a future Government might exploit charges to "milk" the development industry, but I do not think that that is likely, because it would be self-defeating. That would not be a fear for me.
I do not think that there is much purpose in trying to answer some of the other individual points made. I think that the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, were not correct. My noble friend asked me a very fair question: Is £30 million essential to the recovery of the country's economy? If it is not there, then it is £30 million that is not there. One would have to decide oneself what is essential. In an academic discussion that perhaps I might have with my noble friend on another occasion it would be interesting to learn what is the figure that makes it essential. I do not think that he and I are far apart on that.

981
I was disappointed in some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Morris, with whom I usually agree extensively on most things. I do not mind that he disagrees with us. I just wish that perhaps he had not put it quite the way that he did, but so be it.
At the end of the day my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter quite properly recognised the dilemma that I face in having to make decisions on this matter. In fact I do not have the freedom to manoeuvre; I do not have it at all. The Government believe—I must say it again—that this is not a tax; it is a fee. I thank my noble friend Lord Ridley for the points that he made and which I thought were fair. We genuinely believe that this charge would not at all be an imposition on individuals. One has to look at the figures to see how true that is. We are speaking of £30 or £40 for £25,000 worth of development. My goodness me! I just do not see how that could be a problem, and I would have to come back—
Lord HENLEY: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him here? It is £40 for the hope of £25,000 worth of development; it is not £40 for £25,000. There is a very big distinction in that.
Lord BELLWIN: I was not trying to say other than that. I am sorry if I was saying something that I did not intend to say, though I was not aware that I was. In any case, at the end of the day we should take all the other factors into account, not least the fact that by our willingness to free entirely from planning a big section of the GDO for individuals,
we have illustrated that we are committed to helping people to get on and to get things done without having to go for planning permissions. I invite at least enough of my noble friends, and I think one or two noble Lords opposite, to feel that the Government have justice on this issue. I say again that if it is felt that there have to be adjustments to regulations or whatever, then the door is wide open for that all the way down the line, and it will always stay wide open.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I shall be very brief. I did not speak during the main debate at all. The Minister has said that it is only £30 million, but what he has forgotten is that in the very recent past—and I should, I suppose, declare an interest because I am a lawyer and am apparently going to gain out of this—a developer has been confronted with, in addition to the matters that the Minister has mentioned, a payment for byelaw consent, a payment for Section 40 consents under the Highways Act, and additional payments for gas connections. Any developer is now faced with considerable additional cost, not just with this little planning charge that the Minister seems to dismiss. There is in this Bill and in the conduct of recent legislation a disincentive to development.
9.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 76, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hatherton, L.

Avon, E.

Digby, L.

Holderness, L.

Balerno, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Ironside, L.

Belstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Kemsley, V.

Bessborough, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Elton, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Exeter, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ferrers, E.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cathcart, E.

Freyberg, L.

Margadale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Marley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gowrie, E.

May, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Croft, L.

Hanworth, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Newall, L.

De La Warr, E.

Harvington, L.

Northchurch, B.

Orkney, E.

Rochdale, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swansea, L.

Redesdale, L.

Sandford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Renton, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Ridley, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Bacon, B.

Hampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Roberthall, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Spens, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jeger, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Killearn, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sudeley, L.

Denington, B.

Middleton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Minto, E.

Tweeddale, M.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Morris, L. [Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Peart, L.

Wigoder, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Winstanley, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 76, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
9.52 p.m.
Clause 77 [Local plans—expedited procedure]:
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 67, leave out from line 22 to line 38 on page 68.
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain your Lordships for very long on this amendment, with which perhaps it would be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. The reason I will not take long is not because I do not think it important, for I think it is; but I have a feeling that may be shared by some noble Lords that time is moving on and that we should like to get to bed before too late. The rubric of the clause reads: "Local plans—expedited procedure". That is what Clause 77 deals with. In doing that, it upsets the county structure and local plans—arrangements which, on the whole, have worked very well since the local government reorganisation.
So far as No. 202 is concerned, we are seeking to change the position that is now in the Bill and to return the legislation to the position before the Bill was put before your Lordships, in that the amendment will allow local plans of a district council to be approved in the absence of approval of the structure plans—which seems as though it is putting the cart before the horse.
Amendment No. 204 seeks to amend Schedule 11, since in that case the Secretary of State is allowed to amend a county's structure plan and to refuse or to waive an examination of the county's structure plan in public. Again, I should have thought that while expediting, admittedly, the plans procedures—that can hardly be disputed—it is a considerable invasion of the right of citizens to have a say in the way in which the county in which they live is arranging the future planning of that county for them, their children and their grandchildren. It seems to me that, while expediting the procedures, this is expediting them at considerable cost to the liberty of the individual and of the community to have its say.
My third amendment seeks to bring the law back to the position that it was in
986
before this Bill was published. This is even more serious because it seeks to give the Secretary of State an unusual power. In addition to having to consider objections raised at a public inquiry—which is obviously right—he is also entitled to take account of any other objections not raised at the public inquiry. One must ask oneself: Why were those objections not raised at the public inquiry? It gives one the feeling that possibly objections have been made on the side, in secret, by people who do not want their objections to be known and who have some reason for hiding their views. He can take into account any other considerations which appear to the authority to be material.
People go to a public inquiry—as they have done for years—thinking that only those matters which are discussed at the public inquiry can be considered. They will now find under the proposed new legislation that objections which are never aired at the public inquiry and any other considerations that the Secretary of State may care to dredge out from the recesses of his civil servants' pigeonholes are considered in deciding whether a plan or proposal or inquiry should reach a certain decision. I am not trying to exaggerate the case; I do not think I need to do so. It seems to me that this is a very novel addition, creating secret legislation in the cause and name of expediting the consideration of planning proposals.
All of us are in favour of expediting procedures for local planners but possibly at some time that expedition is won at too great a cost—namely, the cost of the private individual's or the community's right to have their views considered and to know that their views—and only their views—that are discussed in public are considered by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: It is interesting that the noble Lord is seeking the removal of powers of direction which the Secretary of State received in Section 12 of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. The new Section 15A which Clause 77 inserts into the 1971 Act follows Section 11 quite closely.
Since the structure plan must be approved by the Secretary of State before it becomes operative, he is bound to be

987
concerned about local plans which anticipate that approval, but there is a very strong case indeed for allowing local plans to proceed in advance of approval o f the structure plan in certain circumstances—provided that necessary safeguards are embodied in the legislation. These safeguards are present in the new Section 15A. The local planning authority can proceed with a local plan in advance of the approval of the structure plan only if the Secretary of State gives a direction authorising them to do so. This gives him an opportunity to ensure that national and regional implications are brought into consideration if a local plan is being adopted before approval of the structure plan. This opportunity is provided not only by the requirement that the Secretary of State must give his authorisation before the authority proceed with the local plan, but also by the consultation which has to be carried out before he makes the direction.
The noble Lord must make up his mind. What we are seeking to do is to give local authorities more flexibility to act and update their policies to meet any changed circumstances. There is always a safeguard that any proposals for modification have to be advertised. To refer to this as secret legislation really is stretching the bounds of credulity. I do not see it in any way as such. Indeed, this is another of the many attempts in this Bill to give flexibility and to get things moving. So long as there is a safeguard—and I have just explained that there is a safeguard—what are we afraid of?
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: The noble Lord the Minister has dealt only with the first amendment. Since the Minister seems keen to expedite the proceedings of this Committee, I moved the three amendments together and the first is the one which gives me least concern. It is the second and the third, Nos. 204 and 205, which I am more concerned about.
Some of your Lordships may already be aware that there is great concern being expressed by district councillors, and others who are interested in the district plans and structure plans for various districts, that their views will not be given
988
proper credence by the Minister. That is what concerns them more, and that considerations to which they have not had an opportunity of directing their minds will be considered by the Minister. That seems to me, as a lawyer, to be an unusual way of conducting administrative law.
Clearly, the Minister is very hardheaded. He is getting his own back on me for all the attacks he has had from his own side on the later clauses. But in order that we can proceed as far as possible this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I will discuss the matter with those people who brought it to my attention and, if necessary, will raise it again at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.2 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 69, line 27, at end insert ("and in what general respects it does not so conform").
The noble Viscount said: With this amendment I should like to take Amendments Nos. 202B, 202C and 206A. They are relatively trivial, I believe they are unexceptional and will only help to make the planning process a little smoother. The object of these amendments is to clarify the procedures to ensure that where a local plan does not conform with the structure plan, everybody will know why and where and what is to happen next. Amendment No. 206A merely states that if there is disagreement between a local and a structure plan, the local plan cannot automatically prevail. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I recognise that the local authority associations have misgivings about the position when a local plan is no longer in general conformity with a newly approved or altered structure plan. It is asserted that a provision on the lines proposed by my noble friend would remove uncertainty, but I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee the outcome of the discussions that have taken place with the local authority associations.
They have accepted that this way of removing uncertainty might be accompanied by unnecessary precision. In our

989
view, it will usually be apparent from the documents why the local plan is regarded by the county council to be no longer in general conformity with the structure plan. Moreover, there would be a risk of bringing the implications for local plans forward at the same time as decisions were sought on structural issues. This would be certain to cause delay.
The local authority associations have accepted that a better way to meet their misgivings would be to extend the provision in paragraph 5(c) of Schedule 11. I am pleased to say that another amendment, No. 206A, which is designed to do this, is on the Marshalled List, and I shall commend that to your Lordships as the best course. I cannot recommend acceptance of No. 202C, although the intention behind my noble friend's amendment is perfectly reasonable. It is quite right that those using a local plan should be aware of the county's decision. But Amendment No. 202C goes only part of the way; it will not help those who already have a copy of the local plan.
The present regulations setting out the procedure relating to structure and local plans do not meet this point, but new ones will be drafted shortly to amend the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1974, and we shall consider how to meet the point which my noble friend has raised. In the circumstances, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount RIDLEY: Yes, I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment on the grounds that it will be acceptable in principle.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 202B and 202C not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Additional amendments relating to surveys and plans]:
On Question, Whether Clause 78 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord RENTON: There is another strange misprint here. The reference to Schedule 10 should be a reference to
990
Schedule 11, and, to save my making another speech on the next clause, I should say that the same mistake is made in Clause 79, where it should be Schedule 12 instead of Schedule 11.
Lord BELLWIN: Again, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend, who really is so expert on these matters. He must be the absolute terror of the printers; and thank goodness that he is. I am grateful to him for pointing this out to us.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Amendments relating to surveys and plans]:
10.7 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 203ZA:
Page 150, line 20, at end insert—
("In section 7 of that Act (preparation of structure plans)—

(a) in subsection (3), paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;

(b) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (6):—

"(6) The written statement shall be illustrated by such diagram or diagrams as may be prescribed, which shall be treated as forming part of the plan"; and
(c) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (6):—
"(6A) The structure plan shall be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum summarising the reasons which in the opinion of the local planning authority justify each and every policy and general proposal formulated in the plan, stating the relationship thereof to expected development and other use of land in neighbouring areas where relevant and containing such other matters as may be prescribed; and the explanatory memorandum may contain such illustrative material as the local planning authority think appropriate".
In section 8 of that Act (publicity in connection with preparation of structure plans)—
(a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (1):—

(a) that adequate publicity is given in their area to the matters which they propose to include in the plan and to the proposed content of the explanatory memorandum relating to each such matter, and that the results of the survey under section 6 of this Act are publicly available"; and

(b) in subsection (2), after the word "State", in the second place where it

991
occurs, there shall be inserted the words "and of the explanatory memorandum".").

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 203ZA and to speak to the consequential amendment, No. 203B. This amendment seeks to separate out the policies on the structure on local plans from the supporting material. At present anomalies can arise because policies can be deleted, but not supporting material. A change in the regulations has already been made by Government and this amendment merely tidies up the primary legislation. I believe the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: Without making any speech on it, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this forward. Yes, we do accept it.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 151, line 2, leave out ("a report of").
The noble Viscount said: I shall be as brief as possible. I believe that, again, this amendment is not contested. It is just to simplify the process of altering the structure plan. I believe it meets the Government's wishes, and it helps everybody. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My noble friend will be glad to know that I accept in principle what is proposed here because it is a small but none the less useful contribution to our efforts to reduce time and money spent on the preparation of structure plans. We accept the purpose of this amendment, but it does appear to be inadequate. The changes that are needed have been identified and I would be glad to discuss with my noble friend what is required. I would expect this to enable him to bring forward the necessary amendment at Report stage. With that, perhaps he might feel able to withdraw this amendment and we will proceed in the way I have suggested.
Viscount RIDLEY: I am delighted to withdraw it, but I would much rather my noble friend put down what he does want on this point. It would save me a lot of trouble, and him, too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 203B:
Page 151, line 6, after ("section") insert ("subsections (3) to (6A) of section 7 and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the earlier amendment, which was agreed. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: In the few words we had on Amendment No. 203ZA I welcomed the proposal to distinguish the policies in general proposals in a submitted structure plan from the explanatory material. It is logical to extend this concept to proposals for the alteration or the repeal or replacement of an approved structure plan. I welcome this amendment in principle. But I understand that, as drafted, it will not properly achieve the necessary alterations, and I would say, as I said to my noble friend, that I would be happy to discuss with the noble Lord, between now and the Report stage, the amendment that is needed. With revised wording, I am sure we can bring it back.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: In view of those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
10.10 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 151, line 17, at end insert—
(". The following section shall be substituted for section 15 of that Act (alteration of local plans):—
"15.—(1) A local planning authority may at any time make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan adopted by them and may at any time, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan approved by him.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, a local planning authority shall, if the Secretary of State gives them a direction in that behalf with respect to a local plan adopted by them or approved by him, as soon as practicable prepare proposals of a kind specified in the direction, being proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of the plan.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section the provisions of sections 11(9) to (11), 12, 13 and 14 of this Act shall apply in relation

993
to the making of proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan under this section, and to alterations to a local plan so proposed, as they apply in relation to the preparation of a local plan under section 11 of this Act and to a local plan prepared thereunder, but as if the reference in section 14(4)(a) to section 9 of this Act were a reference to section 10 of this Act.
(4) Section 13 of this Act shall not apply in any case where it appears to the local planning authority, on consideration of proposals for the alteration or repeal and replacement of a local plan, that no matters which require a local inquiry arise—

(a) from the proposals; or

(b) from any local plan submitted with them under section 12(2) of this Act."").

The noble Lord said: It may be that the matter which this amendment deals with is also dealt with, but in a different way, by Amendment No. 206AA. My amendment covers this point. Schedule 11, paragraph 3, confers powers on the Secretary of State to dispense with an examination in public in relation to proposed alterations for repeals or replacements of existing structure plans in appropriate circumstances. In my view it is desirable that similar powers to dispense with the requirement for a public inquiry to be held in connection with proposals to alter, repeal or replace existing local plans should also be introduced for the same reasons as the power is required in the case of structure plans. This amendment so provides. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I recognise that there will be occasions when proposals to alter, repeal or replace a local plan adopted by the local planning authority or approved by the Secretary of State will be uncontroversial and that it could well be a waste of public money to conduct an inquiry. I also recognise that there are a number of objectors to local plans who are quite prepared to rely on their written objections and do not want to take part in an inquiry. In other words, I fully accept the principle behind my noble friend's amendment.
There is, however, an important consideration I must bring to the notice of the Committee. We must safeguard the right of an objector to be heard at a public local inquiry if he is not content for his objection to a proposed local plan to be considered on the basis of his written representations. The Council on Tribunals have been consulted and would wish
994
the discretion to local authorities to dispense with a public local inquiry to be limited to cases where no objector wishes to appear at an inquiry.
My right honourable friends and I would be happy therefore to accept an amendment to the effect that an inquiry need not be held if all objectors said in writing that they did not wish to appear before an inspector. I wonder whether my noble friend would be able to consider this alternative. In saying that, perhaps I should mention that when we come to Amendment No. 206AA we will accept it, but we feel that this one goes a bit too far.
Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to my noble friend and will be very glad to withdraw the amendment. However, I should feel much happier if my noble friend would go a little further and say that, having accepted the case I am making, he and his department, with all the expertise they can command, will propose Government amendments at Report stage if, in my noble friend's view, Amendment No. 206AA does not do everything which the two amendments together are seeking to do.
Lord BELLWIN: We will look at what my noble friend has said. We will accept Amendment No. 206AA, but if it should be that there is something additional along the lines of what my noble friend has said then we will consider it. As for this amendment, perhaps he would withdraw it.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: The Minister said that the objection should be in writing. If somebody does not object in writing, what is the position then?
Lord BELLWIN: That does not matter. It is when they do object in writing that this has to be taken into account.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 204A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 151, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (3) after the word "him" there shall he inserted the words "and shall so direct where an objection has been made, and has not been withdrawn, by the Minister of Agriculture.";").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when the Minister of Agriculture has objected to a local plan and has not withdrawn his objection, that plan, before being adopted, shall be called in by the Secretary of State so that the Secretary of State shall have a chance to understand the problem and, maybe, give a direction on that plan. Perhaps I may be forgiven for taking the Committee very quickly through the process of local plans by quoting one particular example. It is in Staffordshire, but it could occur anywhere else. Here a local plan was made. The National Farmers' Union and the Ministry of Agriculture objected to it. An inspector was called and, at great expense, people put their case to the inspector. The inspector ruled in favour of the National Farmers' Union in this case, and the Ministry of Agriculture.
I am sorry to tell your Lordships, however, that the council overruled the inspector's decision and, as a result of this, the council went ahead with the original scheme. It published a plan in the press. As a result, the National Farmers' Union and the agricultural lobby lobbied the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Agriculture. The result of this was a very long delay of some six to eight months. After all this, there was a somewhat garbled letter. The Secretary of State did not call the plan in but neither did he call the plan out—if there could be such a corollory—but made an unofficial recommendation that the council should develop another site before they developed the particular site to which the agricultural lobby, if I may include the Ministry of Agriculture, were objecting.
Under my amendment, which I hope my noble friend will see in a favourable light, the Minister of Agriculture would be called in at stage four, which is when the council decides to go ahead with the original scheme against the advice of the inspector and against the advice or the desires of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture could then oblige the Secretary of State to look at the scheme. I am not for one moment asking
996
that the Secretary of State should rule in favour of the agricultural lobby. I am far too modest to ask that. I am just asking him to look at it. He did not do this in this case and it caused enormous delay.
The two important points that would be achieved by this amendment are, first of all, the drawing of the Secretary of State's attention to the loss of agricultural land—on which I have bored your Lordships before tonight. Secondly, something which might appeal more strongly to my noble friend is the speeding up of the planning process. I can really see no alternative to my noble friend's accepting my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENHROS: May I briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who has made the case for this amendment very well.
During a previous intervention I indicated my general support for this. I should have thought that this was an amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary would be glad to support with enthusiasm, because it would mean that he recognised there was a rapport between his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture. The impression given by this Bill is that there is inadequate consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and with the general interests of agriculture. This may well not be the case in practice but, so far, there has been no indication that the Government understand the concern of farmers generally about the way this Bill is moving.
I should have thought that there was a very strong case for conceding this amendment. After all, if the Minister of Agriculture is still concerned that a particular case does not meet the objection which the agricultural community has made to it, and there is an outstanding objection by him and his department, then it is only reasonable that the Secretary of State should call it in and have a discussion with his right honourable friend. It is really a question of co-operation between departments and, if the Parliamentary Secretary can give the Committee an assurance that he is absolutely satisfied that there would be such consultation, then I should be quite happy to let this go by. But I am not yet quite satisfied that there is this general agreement and

997
that there has been the proper kind of consultation between his department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this. Therefore I should be glad to have the reaction of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Lord MIDDLETON: Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, the 1978 report by the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture—the Stain Report for short—made the recommendation that the present call-in procedure be strengthened to require the DoE at MAFF request to call in any case where there is an unresolved agricultural objection to a planning proposal. This was welcomed on all sides of the House when we debated it about 18 months ago. If I remember rightly, the recommendation was accepted by the last Government but so far this Government have not reacted to it. This amendment touched on the same point, but is more limited in scope. It is confined to MAFF objections in the case of the adoption of a local plan and, so far as it goes, I support it.
On the wider issue I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that it is time this Government reacted in some way to that particular planning recommendation in the Strutt Report. There is nothing political about it and its acceptance would go a long way towards safeguarding our food producing capacity. I do not see that it needs to be embodied in legislation and I am not asking my noble friend Lord Bellwin to make any statement at this stage. So far as my noble friend's amendment goes in that direction I am with him.
Lord MONK BRETTON: I wish to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, because I believe his amendment to be most important. I think that the further planning gets into the hands of smaller and more numerous authorities the less easy it appears likely that the Government will find it to be to control land take. Land take is a national matter and I think the amendment has a bearing on that aspect of it. While the amendment will not altogether satisfy what was recommended in the Strutt Report, at least it goes a considerable way towards doing
998
so and helping central Government in their aim of controlling land take.
I should now like to turn for a moment to what I believe are the considerable virtues of this amendment, particularly the words mentioned therein
"and shall so direct where an objection has been made, and has not been withdrawn".
Of course the Ministry can withdraw that objection very quickly the moment they see that the local authority concerned is taking good and sensible steps to avoid excessive land take but, if that local authority is not so doing, they cannot withdraw. By limiting it in this way I think it will be found that it encourages negotiations to continue. Section 206 may in the end not come into effect but the fact that it is there will ensure that matters are resolved quicker—I emphasise the word "quicker"—and at the same time taking the agricultural aspect into account.
Lord SANDFORD: This amendment is exercising into the realm of the machinery of government and I should have thought my noble friend would have no difficulty at all in confirming immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that, if there is a case of agricultural land being taken for development against which there are massive or heavy objections, he and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would, without any question, have consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture. The same would apply if there were a proposal from the Department of Energy to build a power station; if there were objections to that there would be consultation between the two departments; or if there were a proposal for building a motorway there would be consultations between the Ministry of Transport and the Department of the Environment, or in the case of docks between the Department of Trade and the Department of the Environment. All these consultations go on, in my experience invariably, when there are objections to these sort of proposals.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. But he would of course understand that in the case of a motorway there would be a public inquiry.
Lord SANDFORD: There would probably be a public inquiry if there were heavy objections.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: Without question.
Lord SANDFORD: The point I am making is that my belief is that the machinery of government requires a decision to call in a matter for a public inquiry to be taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the responsibility is his. This amendment will take away that responsibility and place it with the Minister of Agriculture, and I do not think that would be a correct division of responsibility. I think this matter of when and under what circumstances to call something in for public local inquiry is a decision for the Secretary of State to take—certainly after consultations, but it should be his own decision.
Lord BELLWIN: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has just said. It is the thrust of what I want to say. I would like to pay tribute to what I thought was the very clear way in which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley put his case. My noble friend's concern about the loss of high quality agricultural land is shared by myself and my right honourable friends in another place. Government policy for the protection of agricultural land is to ensure as far as possible that land of higher agricultural quality is not taken for development where land of a lower quality is available, and that the amount of land taken is no greater than is reasonably required for carrying out the development in accordance with the proper standards. There can be no misunderstanding about the recognition of the value of high quality agricultural land. But the needs of agriculture cannot be given absolute priority without regard to other requirements of communities, and hence the need for the planning system to resolve problems about the location of new development.
Let me say on the particular matter of calling in local plans for the Secretary of State's approval that every structure plan must be approved by the Secretary of State, but it is the intention that local plans will normally be adopted by the local planning authorities themselves.
1000
The object of approving structure plans is to give local planning authorities a clear indication of the planning issues in the county context, so that the authorities can proceed with the detailed work and the resolution of the remaining planning issues without the necessity to refer these detailed matters to the Secretary of State for his approval, as was the case under the old development plan system. The power to call in a local plan is regarded as a reserve power to be used only in a limited range of circumstances where intervention is clearly justified.
The circumstances in which the exercise of call-in powers of local plans might be appropriate are where the plan raises issues which are matters of national or regional interest or where the plan gives rise to substantial controversy which extends beyond the area of the plan-making authority. We would not regard it as appropriate for the Secretary of State to consider calling in a local plan where these wider considerations did not arise.
In deciding whether or not to call in a local plan the Secretary of State has the opportunity to consider any matter relevant to the local plan proposals. If there is an objection by the Ministry of Agriculture or any other department or body it can be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State, who is able to decide whether he should call in the local plan for his own decision. Having introduced a development plan system which is designed to leave the detailed decisions to local planning authorities, it would be to move in the opposite direction to introduce an obligation to call in a local plan. In fact, no local plan has yet been called in for decision by the Secretary of State but many local plans have been adopted.
I should like to say in conclusion that the amendment is not necessary to further the Government's policy of ensuring that the use of high quality agricultural land for development is regulated carefully. It is the Government's policy to keep to a minimum the intervention of central Government in local government affairs. As I have already said, it would seem to me to be wrong to single out a particular kind of objection for treatment in this way. It must be better, surely, to rely on the general power of the Secretary of State to intervene in appropriate circumstances.

1001
May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I thought that the point he raised was absolutely right; namely, the extent to which there would be collusion between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. Would they really work together and consult together in matters of this kind? In my view that is absolutely essential in matters of this kind. I am not only glad that he put the question to me in the way that he did. I can tell him that it was a point that I had intended to make myself in any case because I thought that it was the important part of the matter. Given the intention generally and where we are trying to get with this whole local structure plan situation, I think that the point he made was the right one and I thank him for making it.
I wonder whether, in view of the sentiments that I have expressed, my noble friend Lord Stanley may feel that at least, while obviously not being as happy as if we had been able to accept the amendment, he is able to accept the tone of what I am saying and perhaps not to press the amendment.
Earl DE LA WARR: I have been very dismayed as a farmer to hear my noble friend's answer. I think that he has dealt with a great deal which, if I may say so, is not relevant to my noble friend Lord Stanley's amendment. It seems to me that there is such admirable mechanistic sense in the amendment that my noble friend should deal with it much more sympathetically. All that he is being asked, as I understand it, is that the matter shall come to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture at the earliest possible moment, and certainly at a moment very much earlier than in the example which my noble friend Lord Stanley quoted. I do not believe that my noble friend has taken this point, and I ask him to reconsider it and try to do something a little better than uttering, if I may say so, pious hopes that the two Ministries will work together.
Lord BELLWIN: I am sorry that my noble friend feels it necessary to refer to what I said in that way. Pious hopes—well, I suppose that most of life is hoping, and piously is perhaps a better way of doing it than any other. But what I
1002
said—as indeed I hope as regards everything I say—I meant. When we talk about the need for both Secretaries of State to consult together in these cases, I am sure that that is the right way to deal with it. If my noble friend is questioning whether we are satisfied that the procedure, the systems, would throw it up in such a way that it could not be overlooked, or it could not slip through, then I think that would be a fair question to ask and I would want to look at it and be satisfied about it.
In view of the doubt expressed, I shall look at exactly what my noble friend Lord Stanley said, to make sure that we have tried to cover his points. But I hope in turn that he will perhaps look at what I have said as well, because I still believe that the principle of what we are trying to do is important. As long as we look at the individual problem situations that are brought to our notice and are forewarned of them—and I am well aware that there are a couple of cases which have given special cause for concern—then I think that that is probably at this moment as far as I could go. I hope that that may satisfy my noble friend.
Lord MONK BRETTON: I am rather worried, and I should like to mention to my noble friend Lord Bellwin that once land has gone for development it has gone for good. I should like to ask him one question. Do we have enough flexibility in this matter? For instance, should the grade of the land, and simply the grade of the land, be the only criterion to which we should work here? What about the aspects of a mixture of land and the effects on units concerned, and so forth? I remain very concerned about it.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: If everybody has spoken, I must tell my noble friend that I am not happy with his reply. First, I shall reassure him that I do not intend to divide at this moment, but I am not saying that I shall not return on Report and divide at that stage. I am sorry to say this, but I think that his reply was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Obviously, I did not put my case clearly, and he has not yet got the message.
I am sorry to delay the Committee, but this is an important point. There is concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said, that the farmers' problem

1003
over the loss of land has not been recognised in this Bill. I have said that before and I shall not go on about it. There is a large amount of land take, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, and from looking at the Bill it seems that it is not recognised in the department. Secondly, there is no compulsion for the Department of the Environment to abide by the Minister of Agriculture's petition. In this amendment I am asking only for him to be allowed to petition or ask for a Secretary of State to be called in. My noble friend Lord Bellwin said that of course this would happen. But it is not, in fact, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture who become involved in such small rows as I have mentioned in Staffordshire. It is regional officers, and it is between them. So it never comes before the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture.
I am simply asking that the case should be listened to. I shall not sit down because it is an important point that I wish to make I do not think that my noble friend I, as realised it yet. He said that there is limited use; my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has already spoken about the phrase "has not been withdrawn". There is ample occasion in the consultative arrangement for the local authority to withdraw their objection when a Minister of Agriculture has objected. I think that this is very important. I shall not go on because I am obviously being pressed to sit down; but I shall bring this back on Report and I shall divide then unless I get some satisfaction on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 152, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that where the local plan is specified in such a list as is mentioned in subsection (2)(ii) or (3)(ii) of section 15B of this Act, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply until such time as a proposal for the alteration of the local plan or for its repeal, and replacement with a new plan has been adopted or has been approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Viscount said: We have debated this point and I formally beg to move the amendment.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 206AA:
Page 152, line 8, at end insert—
("In section 15 of that Act (alterations of local plans) —

(a) in subsection (3) for the word "the" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the words subject to subsection (4) of this section, the"; and

(b) The following subsection shall be added after subsection (3) —

(4) The requirement in section 13 of this Act for a local inquiry or other hearing to be held shall not apply if all persons who have made an objection have indicated in writing that they do not wish to appear.").

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord has already indicated that he intends to accept this amendment. Therefore, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I move it formally.
10.39 p.m.
Lord SPENS Lord SPENS moved Amendment No. 206AB:
Page 153, line 27, at end insert—
(" . In section 22(2)(d) of that Act at the end there shall be inserted the words "or for any business purpose".").
The noble Lord said: My purpose is to help small businesses to get started with the minimum of frustrations, particularly in rural areas. On Second Reading I made two points which I said I hoped would be introduced into this Bill. The first was that no permission should be required for starting up a business inside one's own house, and the second, that in the case of small business applications to start up elsewhere the planning authority should have to give a good reason for refusing the application.
Our Select Committee on Long Term Unemployment has been taking a lot of evidence about small businesses. One of the problems coming through to us extensively is the difficulty they are finding in getting suitable premises. I was encouraged when I received after that Second Reading debate a letter from the new chairman of the Development Commission, who had apparently been listening on his car radio to a BBC report of a bit of my speech—a report which I did not know about. He waited until he

1005
had seen Hansard and then he wrote as follows:
"… through our agency, C.SIRA, we do all that we can to support small businesses in rural areas with loans, specialist advice, training and in other ways. The planning problems of small businesses which you mentioned are well recognised."
That is a bit of support from an important source for what I ask to be done.
Amendments Nos. 206AB and AC are designed to do that. They would amend the Town and Country Planning Act which Schedule 11 will do through being brought into effect by Clause 79. My two amendments are not interdependent and so I shall speak to the first one now. Section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act sets out various exceptions to the requirement that planning permissions have to be obtained for the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land. Subsection (2)(d) states that one of those exceptions is,
"the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such;".
My amendment would add to that "or for any business purpose". That, if I might suggest to the noble Lord, the Minister, would, in the words that he used a short time ago, cover nearly half of all planning applications if such an amendment were to be accepted. Therefore, the acceptance of it would reduce the costs of the whole operation enormously.
After that Second Reading debate, I received in my mail another letter dated 29th August which I should like to quote.
"I am engaged in battle with the local planners to obtain permission for my secretary (and perhaps one or two other personal support stall) to occupy, with filing and storage accommodation, 710 square feet next door to my study in a building in the grounds of my home. The grounds cover some six acres and the building is located in the centre of this area in a position where it is visible only from my own house.
"The planners are resisting my application on the grounds that the building is in the Green Belt and there is therefore a presumption against any development other than agricultural or recreational. They are unwilling to grant permission even for one secretary."
When we are trying to encourage the creation of new small businesses, that is a nonsense. I hope that you will give some sympathy to my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: There will be general
1006
sympathy with the underlying intention of this amendment. As a Government we believe we are widely supported in our determination to promote the small business sector. We intend to make development control less of a burden by changing attitudes on the part of those who operate the system so that where small businesses want to start up in residential or rural areas, planning permission is withheld or onerous conditions are applied only where there are cogent and specific reasons for doing so. This policy is to be set out in a circular on development control and will be applied in appeal decisions.
Such a discriminating application of control is, we believe, a far more practical and reasonable approach than that of abandoning controls altogether, for there is equally no doubt that some, even small scale, developments—the noble Lord referred to one in particular—in residential or rural areas can be very damaging to amenity. I am not suggesting that the case which the noble Lord cited is one of those, but activities which generate noise, smell, vibration, heavy traffic and unsightly clutter cannot go uncontrolled whatever the scale of the activity. I should point out that the curtilages of some dwelling-houses, especially in the country, can be very large indeed. The business activities that would be exempted from planning control by this amendment could thus be large-scale. Also, the amendment does not restrict the use of the curtilage of the house to a use connected with the occupation of the house. The business activities could therefore be carried on by someone other than the person living in the house. For these reasons I hope noble Lords will join me in resisting the amendment.
Lord SPENS: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that there will be a relaxation under the directions that will be sent out to planning authorities, and with that in mind I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.48 p.m.
Lord SPENS Lord SPENS moved Amendment No. 206AC:
Page 153, line 27, at end insert —
(" . In section 29(1)(b) of that Act at the end there shall be inserted the words ("; but

1007
such refusal shall not be given in the case of an application to establish a business employing less than ten employees unless it can be shown that the establishment of such a business would be seriously detrimental to the local environment.")
The noble Lord said: This covers the second point I wanted to raise; namely, that where a planning permission is made in the case of a small business it should not be refused for no very apparent good reason. Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which deals with the determination of applications, says in subsection (1)(a) that a planning authority may grant planning permission either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit or, under subparagraph (b), may refuse planning permission. My amendment would add to (b), in effect, that such planning permission would not be refused unless there was a very good reason for so doing. I think that what the Minister said in reply to the last amendment is probably sufficient to cover this one, but I should like his confirmation of that. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: The Government have as their policy to encourage and promote the establishment of small businesses, and wherever possible we are removing bureaucratic restraints. There was some demonstration of this on the first day of the Committee stage in a speech by my noble friend Lord Sandford when he pointed out that the associations between them had produced a list last year of a total of 1,000 controls which in their view should be dismantled, governing the relationship between central and local government. As your Lordships are aware, in September of last year the Government produced a White Paper whittling down that number to about 300—with which they were in agreement with the associations.
In development control we shall be setting out this policy in a circular which will ask local authorities not to withhold, or set onerous conditions to, planning permission for developments by small businesses unless there are strong specific reasons for doing so. That is a policy which local authorities will have to take into account along with all other considerations which are material to the planning application, including the provisions of the development plan for the area, the availability of infrastructure, the effect on
1008
public amenity, the health and safety and traffic implications, and the environmental considerations.
This amendment would go further in that it would actually prevent the refusal of a planning application in respect of the establishment of a business employing fewer than 10 people, except where it could be shown to be
"seriously detrimental to the local environment".
I do not know what that vague phrase would mean, but it is clear that the effect of it would be to preclude the local authority from refusing a planning permission for such a development, even if it were dangerous, or overloaded infrastructure, or was unsightly, or occupied land that was earmarked for some other purpose in the plan, or was in a Green Belt. In fact, the case to which the noble Lord referred was in a Green Belt. There are many important considerations that would have to be set aside in this way. I do not think it right to overset this balance of many, often conflicting, considerations in the way that this amendment would do. I think it is right that the employment and economic considerations should weigh heavily in the balance, but not that other considerations should be ignored.
I should also point out that the amendment is technically defective, in that it relates not to "development", for which planning permission is required, but to "the establishment of a business", for which as such no permission is required. I hope that noble Lords will join with me in resisting this amendment.
Lord SPENS: Again I thank the Minister for his explanation, and I must hope that the circular, when it comes out, will cover the points that I want. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord GAINFORD Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 206B:
Page 153, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph 7:—

"7A.—(1) The provisions of section 14(2) of this Act shall apply to a local plan prepared by a London borough council as it applies to a local plan prepared by a district planning authority and accordingly the provisions of section 14(5), (6) and (7) shall apply to a case

1009
where a London borough council has prepared a local plan with the substitution of references to "the Greater London Council" for references to "the county planning authority".

(2) Where in pursuance of paragraph 8(3) below a joint local plan has been prepared by two or more London borough councils, each shall apply to the Greater London Council in pursuance of the foregoing subparagraph.

(3) Where a joint local plan is prepared by one or more London borough councils and one or more adjacent planning authorities, each London borough council shall apply to the Greater London Council in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph and each of the other planning authorities (if they are district planning authorities) shall apply to the county planning authority for their respective area.

(4) Where a local plan is prepared by one or more London borough councils jointly with the Greater London Council the foregoing sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply.

(5) In the said Schedule 4, in paragraph 12(2) for the words "submitting it for approval" there shall be substituted the words "obtaining a certificate".

(6) In the said Schedule 4 in paragraph 7 for the words "12 and 14(5) to (7)" there shall be substituted the words "and 12".

7B. In section 15B of that Act the provisions of subsection (3) relating to alterations of a structure plan by a county planning authority, and the need for certification of local plans to conform with that structure plan as altered, shall apply to alterations to a structure plan prepared by the Greater London Council and, accordingly, in relation to such last-mentioned alterations for the reference in that subsection to "a county planning authority" there shall be substituted a reference to "the Greater London Council" and for the reference "every district planning authority" there shall be substituted a reference to "every London borough council"".")

The noble Lord said: This amendment would have the effect of extending the following provisions to Greater London. The first is Section 14(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which requires a district planning authority that has prepared a local plan to apply to the county planning authority for a certificate that that local plan conforms generally to the structure plan for the area concerned. The second is new Clause 15B(3) in Clause 77 on page 69 of the present Bill. It requires that when a county planning authority has approved proposals for alteration of a structure plan, it shall consider whether the local plans operative in the area to which the structure plan relates are in general conformity with the provisions of the structure plan as altered, and it shall prepare lists showing plans
1010
which do conform and those which do not.
I understand that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to extend such provisions to the Greater London Council during the passage of this Bill in another place, but due to the shortage of time available the necessary amendments could not be moved. If I am incorrect, I hope that my noble friend will point it out. This amendment seeks to ensure that these provisions apply. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My noble friend will be glad to learn that the Government support this amendment in principle. In fact, we are not able to accept it in its present form because it appears to be defective in one or two respects. For example, it does not refer to the new Section 15A of the 1971 Act, inserted by this Bill, which provides for alterations to local plans to be proceeded with, in certain circumstances, in advance of related alterations to the structure plan. There are one or two other alterations, too, which will be needed. To ensure that the timing of the steps required are compatible, we should like this amendment to include a provision that it would be brought into effect by order by the Secretary of State. However, the defects are minimal, and I would hope that my noble friend might come forward with the appropriate amendments at Report stage. I should be happy to discuss with him what appears to be required.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I would hope that perhaps the noble Lord himself might come forward with the amendment at Report stage, as in the case of an earlier amendment that I was talking about, where there were defects. I think that would be useful.
Lord BELLWIN: I was merely trying to put it very nicely the other way round, but what I am really saying is this. Let us by all means get together and jointly produce a form of words which will cover the point.
Lord GAINFORD: I am very grateful for my noble friend's remarks. This matter will be considered and brought up again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
10.57 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 206C:
After Clause 79, insert the following new clause:
" . Schedule [Amendments relating to enforcement of control] below shall have effect:
"SCHEDULE
AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL
Enforcement Notices
1. The following sections shall be substituted for sections 87 and 88 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971:—
"Power to issue enforcement notice.
87.—(1) Where it appears to the local planning authority that there has been a breach of planning control after the end of 1963, then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the authority, if they consider it expedient to do so having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations, may issue a notice requiring the breach to be remedied and serve copies of the notice in accordance with subsection (3) of this section.
(2) A notice under this section is referred to in this Act as an "enforcement notice".
(3) There is a breach of planning control—

(a) if development has been carried out, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, without the grant of the planning permission required in that behalf in accordance with Part III of the Act of 1962 or Part III of this Act; or

(b) if any conditions or limitations subject to which planning permission was granted have not been complied with.

(4) An enforcement notice which relates to a breach of planning control consisting in—

(a) the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land; or

(b) the failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land; or

(c) the making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse; or

1012

(d) the failure to comply with a condition which prohibits or has the effect of preventing a change of use of a building to use as a single dwellinghouse,

may be issued only within the period of four years from the date of the breach.
(5) A copy of an enforcement notice shall be served, not later than 28 days after the date of its issue, on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates and on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in the opinion of the authority is materially affected by the notice.
(6) An enforcement notice shall specify the matters alleged to constitute a breach of planning control.
(7) An enforcement notice shall also specify—

(a) any steps which are required by the authority to be taken in order to remedy the breach;

(b) any such steps as are specified in subsection (10) of this section and which are required by the authority to be taken.

(8) An enforcement notice shall specify the period within which any such step as is mentioned in subsection (7) of this section is to be taken and may specify different periods for the taking of different steps.
(9) In this section "steps to be taken in order to remedy the breach" means (according to the particular circumstances of the breach) steps for the purpose—

(a) of restoring the land to its condition before the development took place; or

(b) of securing compliance with the conditions or limitations subject to which planning permission was granted.

including—

(i) the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works;

(ii) the discontinuance of any use of land; and

(iii) the carrying out on land of any building or other operations.

(10) The steps mentioned in subsection (7)(b) of this section are steps which consist of the carrying out of work —

(a) which is specified in the enforcement notice; and

(b) which is for the purpose—

(i) of making the development comply with the terms of any planning permission which has been granted in respect of the land, or

(ii) of removing or alleviating any injury to amenity which has been caused by the development.

(11) Where the matters which an enforcement notice alleges to constitute a breach of planning control include

1013
development which has involved the making of a deposit of refuse or waste materials on land, the notice may require that the contour of the deposit shall be modified by altering the gradient or gradients of its sides in such manner as may be specified in the notice.
(12) The Secretary of State may by regulation direct—

(a) that enforcement notices shall specify matters additional to those which they are required to specify by this section; and

(b) that every copy of an enforcement notice served under this section shall be accompanied by an explanatory note giving such information as may be specified in the regulations with regard to the right of appeal conferred by section 88 of this Act.

(13) Subject to section 88 of this Act, an enforcement notice shall take effect on a date specified in it.
(14) The local planning authority may withdraw an enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another) at any time before it takes effect.
(15) If they do so, they shall forthwith give notice of the withdrawal to every person who was served with a copy of the notice.
(16) Where—

(a) an enforcement notice has been issued in respect of development consisting of the erection of a building or the carrying out of works without the grant of planning permission; and

(b) the notice has required the carrying out of any such work as is specified in subsection (10) (b)(ii) of this section; and

(c) the works required by the notice have been completed, for the purposes of this Act planning permission for the retention of the building or works as they are as a result of compliance with the enforcement notice shall be deemed to have been granted n an application for such permission made by the local planning authority.

Appeal against enforcement notice.
88.—(1) A person having an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates may, at any time before the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is to take effect, appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice, whether or not a copy of it has been served on him.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an appeal may be brought on any of the following grounds—

(a) that planning permission ought to be granted for the development to which the notice relates or, as the case may be, that a
1014
condition or limitation alleged in the enforcement notice not to have been complied with ought to be discharged;

(b) that the matters alleged in the notice do not constitute a breach of planning control;

(c) that the breach of planning control alleged in the notice has not taken place;

(d) in the case of a notice which, by virtue of section 87(3) of this Act, may be issued only within the period of four years from the date of the breach of planning control to which the notice relates, that that period had elapsed at the date when the notice was issued;

(e) in the case of a notice not falling within paragraph (d) of this subsection, that the breach of planning control alleged by the notice occurred before the beginning of 1964;

(f) that copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 87(5) of this Act;

(g) that the steps, required by the notice to be taken exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control or to achieve a purpose specified in section 87(10) of this Act;

(h) that the period specified in the notice as the period within which any step is to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.

(3) Where an enforcement notice relates to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of minerals, no appeal against the notice may be brought on the ground specified in subsection (2)(a) above.
(4) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
(5) A person who gives notice under subsection (2) of this section shall submit to the Secretary of State, either when giving the notice or within such time as may be prescribed by regulations under subsection (6) of this section, a statement in writing—

(a) specifying the ground on which he is appealing against the enforcement notice; and

(b) giving such further information as the regulations may prescribe.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure which is to be followed on appeals under this section, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—

(a) may prescribe the time within which an appellant is to submit a statement under subsection (5) of this section and the matters on which information is to be given in such a statement;

1015

(b) may require the local planning authority to submit, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement indicating the submissions which they propose to put forward on the appeal;

(c) may specify the matters to be included in such a statement;

(d) may require the authority or the appellant to give such notice of an appeal under this section as may be prescribed, being notice which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is likely to bring the appeal to the attention of persons in the locality in which the land to which the enforcement notice relates is situated;

(e) may require the authority to send to the Secretary of State, within such period from the date of the bringing of the appeal as may be prescribed, a copy of the enforcement notice and a list of the persons served with copies of it.

(7)The Secretary of State—

(a) may dismiss an appeal if the appellant does not comply with subsection (5) of this section within the time prescribed by regulations under subsection (6); and

(b) may allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice if the local planning authority fail to comply with any requirement of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of subsection (6) of this section within the period prescribed by the regulations.

(8) Subject to subsection (9) below, the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(9) The Secretary of State shall not be required to afford such an opportunity if he proposes to dismiss an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (7) of this section or to allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice under paragraph (b) of that subsection.
(10)If—

(a) a statement under subsection (5) of this section specifies more than one ground on which the appellant is appealing against an enforcement notice; but

(b) the appellant does not give informaton required under paragraph (b) of that subsection in relation to any of the specified grounds within the time prescribed by regulations under subsection (6) of this section,

the Secretary of State may determine the appeal without considering any of the
1016
specified grounds as to which the appellant has failed to give such information within that time.
(11) Where an appeal is brought under this section the enforcement notice shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
(12) Schedule 9 to this Act applies to appeals under this section including appeals under this section as applied by regulations under any other provision of this Act.
Appeals against enforcement notices—general supplementary provisions.
88A.—(1) On the determination of an appeal under section 88 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to the determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the enforcement notice or for varying its terms.
(2) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice, or give directions for varying its terms, if he is satisfied that the correction or variation can be made without injustice to the appellant or to the local planning authority.
(3) Where it would otherwise be a ground for determining such an appeal in favour of the appellant that a person required to be served with a copy of the enforcement notice was not served, the Secretary of State may disregard the fact if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him.
Appeals against enforcement notices—supplementary provisions relating to planning permission.
88B.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, on the determination of an appeal under section 88 of this Act the Secretary of State may—

(a) grant planning permission for the development to which the enforcement notice relates or for part of that development or for the development of part of the land to which the enforcement notice relates;

(b) discharge any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission was granted;

(c) determine any purpose for which the land may, in the circumstances obtaining at the time of the determination, be lawfully used having a regard to any past use of it and to any planning permission relating to it.

(2) The powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section may not be exercised where the enforcement notice related to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of minerals.
(3) In considering whether to grant planning permission under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the subject matter of the enforcement notice, and to any other material

1017
consideration; and any planning permission granted by him under that subsection may—

(a) include permission to retain or complete any buildings or works on the land, or to do so without complying with some condition attached to a previous planning permission;

(b) be granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit;

and where under that subsection he discharges a condition or limitation, he may substitute another condition or limitation for it, whether more or less onerous.
(4) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice, other than an enforcement notice relating to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of minerals, is brought under section 88 of this Act, the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permission for the development to which the notice relates and, in relation to any exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers under subsection (1) of this section,—

(a) any planning permission granted under that subsection shall be treated as granted on that application;

(b) in relation to a grant of planning permission or a determination under that subsection, the Secretary of State's decision shall be final; and

(c) for the purposes of section 34 of this Act, the decision shall be treated as having been given by the Secretary of State in dealing with an application for planning permission made to the local planning authority.

(5) On an appeal under section 88 of this Act against an enforcement notice relating to anything done in contravention of a condition to which section 71 of this Act applies, the Secretary of State shall not be required to entertain the appeal in so far as the appellant claims that planning permission free from that condition ought to be granted.".
2.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 89 of that Act (penalties for non-compliance with enforcement notice)—

(a) for the words "an enforcement notice" there shall be substituted the words "a copy of an enforcement notice (other than a notice alleging a material change of use of land or alleging that a particular use of land is in contravention of a condition imposed on the grant of planning permission"; and

(b) the words "(other than the discontinuance of a use of land)" shall cease to have effect.

(2) In subsection (4) of that section (continuing failure to comply with enforcement notice)
1018
for the words "£50" in paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "£100".
(3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (5) of that section:—

"(5) This subsection applies where an enforcement notice contains any requirement relating to a use of land or requires that any conditions or limitations shall be complied with in respect of a use of land or in respect of the carrying out of operations on land.

(5A) In a case where subsection (5) above applies, if there is a contravention of a requirement of the enforcement notice—

(a) where the requirement in question is a requirement to discontinue the use, any person who uses the land or causes or permits it to be used in a manner in which the notice requires that it shall not be used; and

(b) in any other case, any person who is responsible for failure to comply with the requirement,

shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or on conviction or indictment to a fine; and if the use is continued after the conviction he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 for each day on which the use is so continued, or on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(5B) In subsection (5A) above "the statutory maximum" means the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (that is to say £1,000 or another sum fixed by order under section 61 of that Act to take account of changes in the value of money).

3. In section 90 of that Act (power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a), after the word "served" there shall be inserted the words "a copy of"; and

(ii) the word "further" shall be omitted;

(b) in subsection (7), for the words "£50" (daily fine for continuing offence) there shall be substituted the words "£100"; and

(c) in subsection (9)—

(i) after the word "that" there shall be inserted the words "a copy of"; and

(ii) for the words "87(4)" there shall be substituted the words "87(5)".

4. In section 91 of that Act (execution and cost of works required by enforcement notice)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word "steps", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "which by virtue of section 87(7)(a) of this Act"; and

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the word "notice", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been"; and

(ii) for the words "87(2)" there shall be substituted the words "87(3)".

5. In section 92(1) of that Act (effect of planning permission on enforcement notice) after the words "service of" there shall be inserted the words "a copy of".
6. The following section shall be inserted after that section:—
"Register of enforcement notices.
92A.—(1) Every district planning authority shall keep, in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order, a register containing such information as may be so prescribed with respect—

(a) to enforcement notices; and

(b) to stop notices,

which relate to land in their area and to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies—

(a) to enforcement notices issued; and

(b) to stop notices served,

after the passing of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1979.
(3) A development order may make provision—

(a) for the entry relating to any enforcement notice or stop notice, and everything relating to any such notice, to be removed from the register in such circumstances as may be specified in the order; and

(b) for requiring a county planning authority to supply to a district planning authority such information as may be so specified with regard to enforcement notices issued and stop notices served by the county planning authority.

(4) Every register kept under this section shall be available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.".
7. In section 93 of that Act (enforcement notice to have effect against subsequent development)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a) (which provides, among other things, that compliance with an enforcement notice in respect of the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works does not discharge the notice) after the word "the" there shall be inserted the word "completion,";

(b) in subsection (5) (offence of reinstating or restoring buildings or works demolished or altered in compliance with enforcement notice) for the words from "and shall be liable" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine."; and

(c) the following subsection shall be added after that subsection:—

"(6) In subsection (5) of this section "the statutory maximum" means the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977
1020
(that is to say, £1,000 or another sum fixed by order under section 61 of that Act to take account of changes in the value of money.".
8. In subsection (7) of section 94 of that Act (certification of established use)—

(a) after the word "notice", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been"; and

(b) after the word "where" there shall be inserted the words "the copy of".

Listed Building Enforcement Notices
9. The following sections shall be substituted for sections 96 and 97 of that Act:—
"Power to issue listed building enforcement notice.
96.—(1) Where it appears to the local planning authority that any works have been or are being executed to a listed building in their area and are such as to involve a contravention of section 55(1) or (4) of this Act, they may, if they consider it expedient to do so having regard to the effect of the works on the character of the building as one of special architectural or historic interest, issue a notice—

(a) specifying the alleged contravention; and

(b) requiring such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such period as may be so specified—

(i) for restoring the building to its former state; or

(ii) where the authority consider that such restoration would not be reasonably practicable, or would be undesirable, for executing such further works specified in the notice as they consider necessary to alleviate the effect of the works which were carried out without listed building consent; or

(iii) for bringing the building to the state in which it would have been if the terms and conditions of any listed building consent for the works had been complied with.

(2) A notice under this section is referred to in this Act as a "listed building enforcement notice".
(3) A copy of a listed building enforcement notice shall be served, not later than 28 days after the date of its issue, on the owner and on the occupier of the building to which it relates and on any other person having an interest in that building, being an interest which in the opinion of the authority is materially affected by the notice.
(4) Subject to section 97 of this Act, a listed building enforcement notice shall take effect on a date specified in it.
(5) The local planning authority may withdraw a listed building enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another) at any time before it takes effect.
(6) If they do so, they shall forthwith give notice of the withdrawal to every person who was served with a copy of the notice.
(7) Where a listed building enforcement notice imposes any such requirement as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(ii) of this section, listed building consent shall be deemed to be granted for any works of demolition, alteration or extension of the building executed as a result of compliance with the notice.
Appeal against listed building enforcement notice.
97.—(1) A person having an interest in the building to which a listed building enforcement notice relates, may, at any time before the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is to take effect, appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice on any of the following grounds—

(a) that the building is not of special architectural or historic interest;

(b) that matters alleged to constitute a contravention of section 55 of this Act do not involve such a contravention;

(c) that the contravention of that section alleged in the notice has not taken place;

(d) that the works were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building;

(e) that listed building consent ought to be granted for the works, or that any relevant condition of such consent which has been granted ought to be discharged, or different conditions substituted;

(f) that copies of the notice were not served as required by section 96(3) of this Act;

(g) except in relation to such a requirement as is mentioned in section 96(1)(b)(ii) of this Act, the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary for restoring the building to its condition before the works were carried out;

(h) that the period specified in the notice as the period within which any step required thereby is to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed;

(j) that the steps required by the notice for the purpose of restoring the character of the building to its former state would not serve that purpose;

(k) where such a requirement as is mentioned in section 96(1)(b)(ii) of this Act is imposed, that the works required by the notice exceed what is necessary to alleviate the effect of the works executed to the building.

(2) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
(3) A person who gives notice under subsection (2) of this section shall submit to the Secretary of State, either when giving the notice or within such time as may be prescribed under subsection (4) of this section, a statement in writing—

(a) specifying the grounds on which he is appealing against the listed building enforcement notice; and

(b) giving such further information as the regulations may prescribe.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure which is to be followed on appeals under this section, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, may make any such provision in relation to appeals under this section as may be made in relation to appeals under section 88 of this Act by regulations under subsection (4) of that section.
(5) The Secretary of State—

(a) may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with subsection (3) of this section within the prescribed time; and

(b) may allow an appeal and quash the listed building enforcement notice if the local planning authority fail to comply with any requirement of regulations under this section corresponding to regulations made by virtue of subsection (4)(b), (c) or (e) of section 88 of this Act.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) of this section, the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(7) The Secretary of State shall not be required to afford such an opportunity if he proposes to dismiss an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of this section or to allow an appeal and quash the listed building enforcement notice under paragraph (b) of that subsection.
(8) If—

(a) a statement under subsection (3) of this section specifies more than one ground on which the appellant is appealing against a listed building enforcement notice; but

(b) the appellant does not give information required under paragraph (b) of that subsection in relation to each of the specified grounds within the time prescribed by regulations under subsection (4) of this section,

the Secretary of State may determine the appeal without considering any of the specified grounds as to which the appellant has failed to give such information within that time.
(9) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the listed building enforcement notice shall be of no effect pending

1023
the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
(10) Schedule 9 to the Act applies to appeals under this section.
Appeals against listed building enforcement notices supplementary.
97A.—(1) On the determination of an appeal under section 97 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to the determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the listed building enforcement notice or for varying its terms.
(2) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice, or give directions for varying its terms, if he is satisfied that the correction or variation can be made without injustice to the appellant or to the local planning authority.
(3) Where it would otherwise be a ground for determining such an appeal in favour of the appellant that a person required to be served with a copy of the listed building enforcement notice was not served, the Secretary of State may disregard that fact if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him.
(4) On the determination of such an appeal the Secretary of State may—

(a) grant listed building consent for the works to which the listed building enforcement notice relates or for part only of those works;

(b) discharge any condition or limitation subject to which listed building consent was granted and substitute any other condition, whether more or less onerous;

(c) if he thinks fit, exercise—

(i) his power under section 54 of this Act to amend any list compiled or approved under that section by removing from it the building to which the appeal relates; or

(ii) his power under subsection (10) of that section to direct that that subsection shall no longer apply to the building.

(5) Any listed building consent granted by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of this section shall be treated as granted on an application for the like consent under Part I of Schedule 11 to this Act, and the Secretary of State's decision in relation to the grant shall be final.".
10. In section 98(4) of that Act (penalty for continuing failure to comply with a listed building enforcement notice) for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".
11. The following section shall be inserted after section 99 of that Act—
"Effect of consent under section
99A.—(1) If, after the issue of a listed building enforcement notice, consent is granted under section 56A of this Act
56A on listed building enforcement notice.
for the retention of any works to which the listed building enforcement notice relates, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken which would involve the works not being retained in accordance with the consent.
(2) If the consent is granted so as to permit the retention of works without complying with some condition subject to which a previous listed building consent was granted, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken for complying with that condition.
(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a failure to comply with the listed building enforcement notice before the relevant provisions of that notice ceased to have effect."
12. The following section shall be substituted for section 100 of that Act:—
"Enforcement by, or by direction of, the Secretary of State.
100.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local planning authority and, (in Greater London, also with the Greater London Council), to be expedient that a listed building enforcement notice should be issued in respect of any land, he may issue such a notice; and any notice so issued by the Secretary of State shall have the like effect as a notice issued by the local planning authority.
(2) In relation to a listed building enforcement notice issued by the Secretary of State, the provisions of section 999 of this Act shall apply as if for any reference in that section to the local planning authority there were substituted a reference to the Secretary of State."
13.—(1) In section 103 of that Act (enforcement or duties as to replacement of trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders, in subsection (3) (appeals to the Secretary of State) the words from "and the provisions" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.
(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection:—

"(3A) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State, which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based.

(3B) On any such appeal the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(3C) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the notice under this section shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.

(3D) On the determination of an appeal under this section the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to his determination, including where appropriate, directions for quashing the notice or for varying its terms [in favour of the appellant].

1025

(3E) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the notice under this section [or give directions for varying its terms] if he is satisfied that the [informality, defect or errors is not material]".

(3) In subsection (5) of that section, after the words "enforcement notice", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been".
14. The following section shall be substituted for section 104 of that Act:—
"Penalty for non-compliance with notice as to wasted land.
104.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a notice has been served under section 65 of this Act.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, if any owner or occupier of the land on whom the notice was served fails to take any steps required by the notice within the period specified in it for compliance with it, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(3) If at any time after the end of the period so specified any of those steps have not been taken, and any person does anything which has the effect of continuing or aggravating the injury caused by the condition of the land to which the notice relates, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(4) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (1) of this section has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the owner of the land he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who then became the owner of the land (in this section referred to as "the subsequent owner") brought before the court in the proceedings.
(5) If, after it has been proved that any steps required by the notice have not been taken within the period allowed for compliance with the notice, the original defendant proves that the failure to take those steps was attributable, in whole or in part, to the default of the subsequent owner—

(a) the subsequent owner may be convicted of the offence; and

(b) the original defendant, if he further proves that he took all reasonable steps to secure compliance with the notice, shall be acquitted of the offence.

(6) If, after a person has been convicted under the preceding provisions of this section, he does not as soon as practicable do everything in his power to secure compliance with the notice, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable—
1026

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 for each day following his first conviction on which any of the requirements of the notice remain unfulfilled; or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(7) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with a notice is a reference to the period specified in the notice for compliance with it or such extended period as the local planning authority may allow for compliance with the notice."
15. In section 108(1) of that Act (enforcement of orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of building or works)—

(a) for the words from "section" to "thereof" there shall be substituted the words "section 51 or 51A of this Act, the use of land for any purpose is required to be discontinued, or any conditions are imposed in relation to the land"; and

(b) in subsection (1)(a) (fine for continuing offence) for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".

16. In subsection (2) of section 109 of that Act (enforcement of control as to advertisements)—

(a) for the words "£100" there shall be substituted the words "£200"; and

(b) for the words "£5" there shall be substituted the words "£20".

17.—(1) In section 243(1) of that Act (which limits the right to question the validity of enforcement notices, listed building enforcement notices and notices under section 65 which are served on owners and occupiers of waste land) the words "on which such an appeal may be brought" shall be substituted—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "specified section 88(1)(b) to (e) of this Act"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "specified section 97(1)(b) to (e) of this Act".

(2) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (2) of that section:—
"(2) Subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not apply to proceedings brought under section 89(5) of this Act against a person who—

(a) has held an interest in the land since before the enforcement notice was issued under Part V of this Act; and

(b) did not have a copy of the enforcement notice served on him under that Part of this Act; and

(c) satisfies the court that—

(i) he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the enforcement notice had been issued; and

(ii) his interests have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him with a copy of it.

(2A) In any case where the enforcement notice was issued before the coming into force of Part VII of the Local Government, Plan-

1027
ning and Land Bill subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if—

(a) in paragraph (a), the word "served" were substituted for the word "issued";

(b) the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph (b):—

"(b) did not have the enforcement notice or a copy of it served on him under that Part of that Act; and";

(c) in paragraph (c)(i), the word "served" were substituted for the word "issued".

(3) In subsection (3) of that section the words "on which such an appeal may be brought" shall be substituted for the words "specified in section 105(1)(a) to (c) of this Act".
18. The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 246 of that Act (appeals to High Court relating to enforcement notices and similar notices):—
"(1) Where the Secretary of State gives a decision in proceedings on an appeal under Part V of this Act against—

(a) an enforcement notice; or

(b) a listed building enforcement notice,

the appellant or the local planning authority or any other person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or require the Secretary of State to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court.
(1A) Where the Secretary of State gives a decision in proceedings on an appeal under Part V of this Act against a notice under section 130 of this Act, the appellant or the local planning authority may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or require the Secretary of State to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court".
19. In section 207(2)(b) of that Act (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to planning control and enforcement) for the word "or", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words ", notice or copy of a".
20. In section 271 of that Act (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to listed buildings) after the words "service of" there shall be inserted the words "copies of".
21. In section 247(1) of that Act (ecclesiastical property)—

(a) after the word "notice" in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or copy of a notice"; and

(b) after that word, in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or copy".

22. In subsection (2)(c) of section 280 of that Act (rights of entry) for the word "or", in the second place it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "notice or copy of a".
23. In subsection (1) of section 284 of that Act (power to require information as to interests in land) after the word "notice", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "copy of a notice".
24. In Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (functions under, and amendment and modifications of, enactments relating to town and country planning)—

(a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 24(1)(b):—

"(b) issuing enforcement notices under section 87 or serving stop notices under section 90,"; in paragraph 29, for the word "served", in both places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "issued"; and

(c) in paragraph 51(2)—

(i) after the word "made", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the word "issued"; and

(ii) after the word "make" there shall be inserted the word "issue"."").

The noble Lord said: I wish we were able to deal with this amendment as smoothly as we dealt with the last few amendments because, again, this amendment really deals with a matter which should have been included in the Bill. It seeks to improve the enforcement procedures, and was agreed between the local authority associations and the Government, which was reflected by its inclusion in the No. 1 Bill. Of course, one hardly need say that that Bill is in fact still awaiting its Second Reading by your Lordships' House. In particular, this amendment increases the penalties for breach of the regulations, in line with inflation. Through passage of time, those penalties may not be as high as they should have been. I understand that it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the lines of this amendment when parliamentary time is available. This, I hoped, would be in the next Session of Parliament, but I am given to understand that that is highly unlikely; and even more problematic is the Session afterwards.
What I find very odd with regard to the Government's willingness or otherwise to accept amendments to the present Bill to bring in some of the universally accepted provisions in the earlier Bill is the arbitrary way in which they accept those amendments they are prepared to accept and not those they are not prepared to accept, and the arbitrary nature of them. Amendment No. 9, moved by the noble

1029
Viscount, Lord Ridley, brought back into this Bill a 12-page schedule, and this was accepted. Admittedly, my amendment brings back into the Bill a rather longer schedule than the schedule brought back by Lord Ridley, but it does not really seem that the length or the size of the schedule is any good reason why it should not be included.
I understand that because of the hurried way in which the No. 1 Bill was cobbled together there are some technical faults in the schedule as it now stands. But the department, I believe, knows exactly the nature of the faults. Indeed, the department, if pressed very hard, could come forward with a schedule at Report stage which would meet the particular faults which have been detected in the schedule since it was first included in the No. 1 Bill. I feel very strongly that it would be wrong to leave this matter over for another two or three years because of lack of parliamentary time and that it would be wiser to grapple with this problem now and to do something in the present Bill rather than defer it until parliamentary time becomes available.
I hope that the noble Lord will take that point. The proposals are ones which will be positively welcomed by all concerned with effective planning, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to be as co-operative with regard to this particular amendment as he was with the amendment of Lord Gainford and with my two earlier amendments in trying to knock them into shape. I am sure that that would be the right thing to do with this amendment as well. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Before my noble friend answers that, understand entirely what has happened and it would be very unfair of me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about some of the details of the amendment he has put down. But as a person who, from time to time—indeed, not altogether infrequently—has to use these parts of the Town and Country Planning Act, I should be interested—if one looks, for instance, in page 23 of the Marshalled List, at the new subsection (2) of the proposed inserted new Section 88B of the Town and Country Planning Act—to know why one cannot ask for the grant of planning permission
1030
"where the enforcement notice related to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of minerals"
when we have not got most of the rest of the minerals bit of the No. 1 Bill in this Bill at all. I do not think that, standing on its own as this subsection would, without any of the other provisions as to minerals, an insertion of that sort would be very sensible.
On the next page, page 24, there is a new subsection (5) of Section 88B which, with the greatest respect, appears to me to be inconsistent with the provisions of the new Section 88(2)(a) on page 19. I only say that to the noble Lord because, as a matter of fact, a number of people's rights, a number of people's emotions, a number of people's money and a good deal of time and energy goes into this sort of activity under the Town and Country Planning Act. If we put it in—and I understand that he says that there are deficiencies noted by the department—and do not get it right at this stage of the Bill in the second House, we are probably going to do a good deal of damage. Therefore, I counsel a little caution before my noble friend accepts the amendment of the noble Lord opposite. I think perhaps it would be better if it were considered a little further.
Lord PONSON BY of SHULBREDE: I think that I should be quite satisfied and I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, would be satisfied as well, if the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, were able to give us an assurance that the Government would be able to come forward with a Bill on the lines of this amendment during the next Session of Parliament.
Lord BELLWIN: I am grateful to my noble friend. He illustrated the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, knew I was going to make; namely, that there is no difference between us as to the motives. We recognise the tremendous amount of preliminary work that was put into this, even going back to 1975, by George Dobry and other such eminent people who were concerned in this field. The fact is that for whatever reason the schedule is a complex one; it contains a large number of drafting errors. Therefore we could not possibly take it on at this time.

1031
I must compliment the noble Lord on having his signals plugged in so well that he was telling me—and I was listening with interest—when it was likely that we could come forward with something else. I was going to say that it was our intention to come forward with this in the proper form as soon as the legislative opportunity presented itself. When he said it would not be next year or the year after, I was listening with fascinated interest. So far as I know, we certainly have not got round to discussing that. I cannot tell him when because I truly do not know. He will have to be content with the knowledge that there is no difference about wanting to do it. We must take the point—we all do, surely—that that unquestionably has to be right. The amendment is longer than many Bills; it has 23 pages. It is something on its own.
We all want the same thing. I hope it will not be too long, but I cannot tell him exactly when it will come. I hope it will be not as long ahead as the noble Lord fears and that his fears are not so well founded as he feels.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Before I withdraw the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord can assure the Committee that he will use such pressure as he possesses to see that this legislation is brought forward sooner rather than later.
Lord BELLWIN: I certainly undertake to speak to colleagues on this point to see where we stand with it. There is no difference between us on leaving it.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: May I withdraw the amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 [Further planning amendments]:
11.8 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 156, line 18 at end insert:—
("( ) The following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (4) of section 36 of that Act (appeals against planning decisions):—
"and that person shall not less than seven days before reporting to the Secretary of State consult the applicant and the local
1032
planning authority on the findings of fact to be included in his report and shall have regard to their comments."").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the Secretary of State being misled by factual errors in an inspector's report. It seems there are such arrangements in Scotland to give an opportunity of up to 14 days. In my amendment we ask for only seven days for the reporter, as he is called, to provide a copy to every party to the inquiry and to consider comments on it.
There have been examples recently in England which show a need for such an arrangement in this country. There was an appeal in Staffordshire where the inspector left out of his report an undertaking not to leave open and unrestored at any time more than 10 acres of the site. That undertaking was fundamental to the applicant's case. There was another one about minerals extraction, which I will not go into. Suffice it to say that there are examples where inspectors have made errors of fact, and the object of this amendment is to give an opportunity for errors of fact to be put right before a report is made to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: This amendment would add an additional stage to the procedure for all those planning appeals which fall to the Secretary of State to decide if there has been a local inquiry. It goes wider than the recommendation of the Franks Committee which was adopted in Scotland, that the parties should, if they wished, have an opportunity of proposing corrections to the factual part of the inspector's report in such cases. The report would have to be sent in every case and would give an opportunity for submitting further argument.
I do not wish to rest on points about technical defects in the drafting, though I think it worth mentioning that if the principle were accepted a more detailed procedure would have to be provided. But I cannot, when we are looking for every possible means of speeding up the procedure on planning appeals, accept a proposal which would lead to more delay, and, in my view, quite substantial delay, in all appeals submitted to the Secretary of State. It might be a different matter if significant errors were frequent, but it is actually very rare for a material

1033
error of fact to be shown. I wonder whether my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether my noble friend would reconsider that reply, because I should have thought it was very unlikely that it would lead to any considerable delay. This is a common aspect of procedure at inquiries under various Acts, and it seems to me imperative that the parties should have an opportunity to correct the facts, not to produce new arguments. It cannot lead to new arguments. It is a question of correcting the facts, and this is all that is being asked for. I commend this amendment to my noble friend.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am very sorry, but I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I can think of a number of cases where I should have been all too pleased to have had an opportunity to correct quite inadvertent facts and omissions in an inspector's report, which led to subsequent litigation and was of no great advantage to anybody. The difficulty is that it is not just a matter of the applicant and the local planning authority.
These days, for no doubt extremely good reasons, inspectors South of the Border—and, I am sure, reporters North of the Border—are prepared to allow virtually anybody who wishes to come and make representations, to have his say. The pure volume of, first, the actual planning appeals and, secondly, the parties or the people who have taken part in them, would seem to be a wholly different matter in England and Wales from what it is in Scotland, and I should have thought it was simply the amount of paper work that made this impracticable.
There is no difficulty, in the end, if a mistake of fact has been made. There is an appeal procedure. If it is sufficiently important, the courts will correct it. There is an opportunity for sending it back. Thank goodness! it is not used very often. But I really think that to give an opportunity for all the parties who had made representations before the inspector to have the opportunity to comment, even if they could succeed in doing it, with the postal services, in seven days, would involve the Government in a very
1034
great deal of time-consuming work which would not be warranted.
Lord DRUMALBYN: With great respect, that is not what the amendment says. It says,
"consult the applicant and the local planning authority".
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: That is what I complain about.
Lord DRUMALBYN: But it does not follow that you have to consult all the parties.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: If you do not consult all the parties who have been allowed, under the discretion given to the inspector at the inquiry, to correct all the facts that they said they had adduced at the inquiry, you will simply have trouble compounded. You will simply have to allow all the people who have had their say at the inquiry to join in this procedure. There is no alternative.
Lord BELLWIN: I am very grateful to both of my noble friends for their constructive comments. Of course, in that it is the Government's line, I feel happier with the observations of my noble friend Lord Colville. From everything which I have seen—and I know this only from another side—I believe that anything we can do that will avoid putting another step into the proceedings must be the right thing to do. For that reason alone, I hope that my noble friend may feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and I must confess, with the greatest possible respect to my noble friend the Minister, that I am much more convinced by my noble friend Lord Colville than I am by him. However, perhaps if we have an opportunity to read very carefully the report of what has been said, we may come back at the next stage. There is still a point which has not really been taken up by anybody; that is, the appeals that seem to prove the point which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pinned upon. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 156, line 45, at end insert—
("The following sections shall be inserted after section 54A of that Act—
"Listed Buildings
54B.—(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to amend any list compiled under Section 54 of this Act and the amendment consists of the addition of a building to the list, he shall first give notice of the proposed amendment to the owner of the building which is proposed to be added to the list.
(2) The notice to be given under this section shall identify the building which is proposed to be listed and shall state—

(a) the grounds for making the proposed amendment;

(b) that objections and representations to the proposed amendment may be made in writing to the Secretary of State within 28 days from the date of the service of the notice;

(c) that if no objections or representations are duly made or any so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may then confirm the amendment of the list.

(3) If the Secretary of State, having received objections or representations which are duly made, proposes to confirm the amendment of the list and the objections are not withdrawn, the matter shall be referred for determination by the Lands Tribunal.
(4) In this section "owner" has the meaning ascribed to it by subsection 7 of section 27 of this Act.
Power of Directions
54C.—Where a notice has been given under section 54B of this Act, it may include a direction that the provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to the building as if it were a listed building; and a direction so given shall take effect from the date on which the notice is served until—

(a) the date on which the owner of the building is given notice under section 54((7) of this Act that the building has been included in the list, or

(b) the date on which the Secretary of State gives notice that the building will not be included in the list, or

(c) the date on which the Lands Tribunal makes an order directing that the building should not be included in the list, whichever is appropriate.

Power of the Lands Tribunal
54D.—The Lands Tribunal shall have power, on the application of any person who is the owner of a building which is proposed to be included in a list compiled under the provisions of section 54 of this Act, to make an order directing that such a building shall not be included in the list, on being satisfied—

(a) that the building is not of special architectural or historic interest; or

(b) that the practical benefits of the inclusion of the building in the list are
1036
outweighed by the disadvantages thereof, or by such other circumstances of the case the Lands Tribunal may deem material

but in any other case shall make an order confirming that the building should be listed,".")
The noble Lord said: We come to listed buildings again. The purpose of this amendment is to give to owners of listed buildings two things that they do not now have: first, a chance to be consulted before the building is scheduled, and second, a right of appeal against a proposal to list. To me it seems quite extraordinary that these rights do not already exist. It is also to protect a building that it is proposed to list, during the consultation process, in a less cumbersome and more satisfactory way than that already provided for by the building preservation notice procedure.
The listing system imposes on an owner substantial legal obligations, breach of which can expose him to criminal proceedings. Even though Section 54(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 obliges the Minister to consult persons and bodies who have a special knowledge of historic buildings, there is no obligation to consult the owner, the person most directly affected by the listing. Many listings are made, quite understandably, on the basis of rather cursory examinations. I know of one case where a building was listed in the mistaken belief that it was the work of a particular architect. If the owner had been consulted by the department he could have told them that it was not.
I should like to explain, as briefly as possible, this rather long amendment. New Section 54B, which by means of Schedule 12 to this Bill is to be inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, provides for notice of a listing proposal to be given to the owner. This notice must describe the grounds upon which the proposal is based and must give the owner 28 days in which to object. If the Secretary of State does not accept the owner's objections or any representations made therewith the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal. I should say that subsections (2) and (3) of this proposed new section are modelled on the Tree Preservation Order Regulations 1969. Unlike an owner of a listed building, an owner of trees has a right to be

1037
consulted and a right of appeal before a TPO is confirmed.
New Section 54C provides for protection of the building during the consultation period or pending the outcome of an appeal. The effect of such a direction would be, as it were, to freeze the situation from the moment the notice is given. I believe, as I shall explain in a moment, that this is a very necessary provision. A similar power already exists for a local authority under Section 58 of the 1971 Act, but protection under that section, I believe, lasts for only six months.
New Section 54D establishes the Lands Tribunal as the body to decide a listing appeal. I suggest that a planning inquiry, with the inspector appointed by the Minister, would not be appropriate because it is the Minister who also decides whether or not to list the building. There already is a precedent for referring this sort of matter to the Lands Tribunal under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1935; and there are good reasons, with which I shall not weary your Lordships, for making this the body to decide a listing appeal.
Finally, I suggest that, by making the listed building system fairer, one would make it stronger. For example, let us take the Firestone building in West London. Under the scheme I am putting forward by this amendment, that building would have been protected from the moment the owners were notified that a listing was being considered. I have no close knowledge of the case, but I suppose there is a chance that, had there existed an appeal procedure where the views of the owners could have been taken into account, then its demolition might conceivably not have been carried out over that bank holiday weekend. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: The new clause would prevent the immediate listing of buildings of special architectural and historic interest. In consequence, it would become impossible to take speedy and effective action to protect such buildings when threatened with demolition. This problem is not solved by the related provisions of new Section 54C, to which I shall refer in a moment. Under the new section where the Secretary of State proposes to list a building the owner will
1038
have to be given notice of the proposal. He will have to be identified, and he may even have to be traced in order to do this. The owner will then have the right to object. If he exercises that right and cannot be persuaded to withdraw his objection, the matter will have to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination.
In a case where the proposal to list is in response to a threat to demolish, the delay involved may prove fatal since it will enable demolition to be carried out before listing can be determined. This problem is not solved by Section 54C, and I shall explain why when dealing with that section. It will be noted that under the present system of control the owner, and indeed the occupier, who may well be a different person, has to be informed of listing under Section 54 (7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Although there is no formal right to object, it is open to the owner and occupier to raise arguments directed to the criteria of special architectural or historic interest.
Alternatively, or in addition, such arguments can be pursued in connection with an application for listed building consent when it is possible to look at a specific proposal to carry out works and weigh the merits of that proposal against the merits of the building. I suggest that the existing procedure provides the best way of protecting the rights of the owner and occupier while at the same time ensuring the survival of buildings of special architectural and historic interest. The new clause will undermine the present system of control.
I should like to say something about the Lands Tribunal. It is an admirable body, but it is primarily concerned with the problem of land valuation, and I do not think it has either the expertise or the staff to deal with questions relating to buildings which are thought to be of special architectural or historic interest. I observe in passing that the new clause is silent about the way in which the Lands Tribunal is to deal with the matter. I am informed that the Lands Tribunal has always refused to regard itself as having any planning function. In its work under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act it is essentially dealing with power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land. Section 54 is

1039
about contractual matters, not public law. That section does not require specialist knowledge, and it certainly does not require the making of a judgment on criteria such as those affecting listing. Nor does Section 84 give the tribunal a government function, which is what Section 54 is concerned with.
There is a substantial body of case law to support our view that the tribunal would not wish for, indeed is not fitted for, the functions which this amendment seeks to put upon it, and I am quite sure that it would not welcome the enormous additional burden this new section and the following two seek to throw upon it. So far as I am aware, the tribunal has not even been consulted. That is why we could not accept this part of the amendment.
Clause 54B will not enable buildings to be given immediate protection, as is possible under the present system, because the protection it offers will take effect only when the owner has been identified, traced and given the requisite notice. It follows that it will not be possible to deal with an immediate threat to demolish. By the time protection is afforded under the new clause there may well be nothing to protect. We have all seen the regrettable disappearance of the Firestone factory before it could be listed. This new proposal, I suggest, will result in a multitude of Firestones, and I am certain that is not what my noble friend wants.
I have already in connection with Clause 54B voiced the objections which I have just made to the involvement of the Lands Tribunal, but this new clause would take matters further. Not only would it involve the Lands Tribunal in considering questions of special architectural and historic interest, but paragraphs (b) and (c) would appear to take the tribunal into questions of planning control and beyond, since there is no restriction on the circumstances which the new clause would permit the tribunal to deem material. This could allow owners to range very wide and go far beyond the range of the tribunal's existing functions. It would inevitably take the tribunal into areas with regard to which it has no expertise. In connection with this, it is relevant to point out that the tribunal could well find itself involved in difficult questions of planning
1040
control which it has no power to decide in a planning context. It would clearly be inappropriate for the Lands Tribunal to decide such matters when it has no effective responsibility for planning control.
I have much more about this, but I hope that in view of what I have said my noble friend may feel that the points are valid and therefore will not pursue his amendment.
Baroness BIRK: While I supported the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in his last amendment, I find that I cannot in thus amendment. I entirely agree with what the Minister has said. The proposal is lengthy, complex and time-consuming, and introduces procedures which are totally unnecessary. The Minister is absolutely right when he points out that, although the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, may have been different, the protection to listed buildings would be far less than with spot listing and the present procedure. It is perfectly true that spot listing is sometimes tripped up, as it probably was over the Firestone building. With the present procedure, however, it is up to the Secretary of State and not removed from him to a Lands Tribunal which is concerned with land values and not with listed buildings and protection, and the definition of whether a building is of historic and architectural interest. I am therefore glad that the Government will not accept this amendment but will leave the procedures as they are at present.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am sorry to keep disagreeing with my noble friends on this side of the House, at least in the text of what they say, but I think that my noble friend has a point. If it cannot be met by this amendment, and I think that the argument is overwhelmingly against it, could my noble friend on the Front Bench consider this? It is very easy to spot list a building because it is under threat or because some event in the locality has required the department to have a good comb through their list, and add about 50 per cent. more because some threat is seen. When it comes, as it will do or may do in due course, to the question of getting a listed building consent for an alteration or a demolition, that is the time when one can

1041
question whether the building was properly listed in the first place.
Unfortunately, a number of questions are asked in Parliament about the number of listed buildings to which listed building consent has been given in any particular year. Those questions never discriminate between the cases where the matter was obviously concerned with a Grade 1 building, where the greatest possible care has to be taken, and the one that was spot listed without more than five minutes' notice, where it is perfectly possible to argue that the department, in granting a listed building consent, was merely acknowledging that a mistake had been made in the first place.
It is very easy for those in charge of these matters to advise Ministers, who are rightly very sensitive about these matters, that once a building has been listed there is a prima fade case against any listed building consent whatever being granted. That cannot be right if you have no appeal procedure of the sort that my noble friend has suggested. If Ministers were a little more ready to concede the possibility that a mistake had been made by those who listed it, perhaps in a hurry, and that there was after all an opportunity for reconsideration of this matter at the listed building consent application stage, then I think that my noble friend would have achieved something. Can the Minister say two words on that?
Lord BELLWIN: I am, again, very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I should like to take it away, think about it and discuss it with those who have special knowledge of this field.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think that it is worth reiterating, if thought is given to an appeal procedure, that I hope that the Minister will stick strongly to the point that the Lands Tribunal must not come into this. At the moment we have to accept the decision of the Lands Tribunal on valuation because we recognise their expertise in valuation. But, if one feels that they are part of the planning procedure, it weakens the acceptance of their decisions on things to do with valuation. Let there be an appeal by all means, but not to the Lands Tribunal. That would injure the real work they have to do in the field of valuation.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am most grateful for what my noble friends Lord Bellwin and Viscount Colville of Culross have said. I do not see why, if the Department of the Environment goes to the trouble of listing a building, it should not go to the trouble of finding out to whom it belongs.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin has deployed some very powerful arguments as to why my amendment is the wrong way to achieve what I am trying to do. I shall read most carefully what he has to say, and perhaps come back later. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 156, line 45, at end insert—

("(3) Notice of an application made under subsection (1) above shall be given to the local planning authority within whose area the building is situated at the same time that the application is submitted to the Secretary of State.

(4) In subsection (3) of this section "local planning authority" shall, in relation to a building in Greater London, include the Greater London Council.")

The noble Baroness said: In Schedule 12 the Government have proposed a new system whereby if an application has been made or granted for any development involving the alteration, extension or demolition of a building any person can apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate. Once granted, this certificate would, for a period of five years, preclude the Secretary of State from listing the building and stop a local authority from serving a building preservation notice on it during that period.
The point of this amendment is that we believe it is essential that a local authority should be notified of such an application at the same time as the Secretary of State is asked for a certificate, so that they have the time to make appropriate inquiries and representations. This is not the time to go into the problems of the five-year period, where I can see there are certain "pros" but there are "cons" as well, but the local authority will eventually learn of such an application when the DOE writes to them for confirmation that the building is the subject of planning permission, although it may then be too late for effective representation. As I

1043
am sure the Minister is aware, when this was discussed in Committee in another place the Minister, Mr. Tom King, said that there were some drafting errors in it but that he would be happy to consider this point, and I hope that now the Minister is going to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: We are glad to accept the amendment.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 209B:
Page 156, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Before the issue of any certificate under sub-section (2) of this section, the Secretary of State shall notify such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of, or interest in, buildings of architectural or historic interest.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is rather similar and I hope I shall get the same response from the Minister. This is on the same point but states that the Secretary of State
"shall notify such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of, or interest in, buildings …".
Here I am referring to amenity bodies such as the Ancient Monuments Society, the Council for British Archaeology, and so on, which in fact are listed in Appendix 3 of Circular 23/77, which was issued by the department when I was a Minister there.
The intention behind this amendment is to try to ensure that the same bodies are notified—not consulted; I hope the Minister will note that the word is "notified"—before the Secretary of State decides not to list a building which is under threat. I think this amendment is entirely compatible with the amendment which the Minister has just accepted and I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are quite happy with this addendum. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: This amendment requires the Secretary of State first to consult a particular body of persons having special knowledge of buildings of interest before giving a certificate. The Historic Buildings Council are his statutory advisers. They are busy people who give liberally of their valuable time
1044
without payment, and Her Majesty's Government are indebted to them for that. We are not prepared to ask them to shoulder a further and as yet unquantifiable burden in examining every application under this provision. We do not know how many applications will result from it—it might be 20 or 200 or even 20,000. The council will be available to give their advice where it is needed, as they do already in listing matters, and really that is as far as we are prepared to go.
Nor could we accept, if that is what the noble Baroness intends, that the persons to be consulted shall be the national amenity societies. They are not the bodies of persons which were referred to in the 1971 Act and they cannot be presumed to be the persons referred to here. They are of course consulted by local planning authorities about applications for listed building consent involving demolition. If consent is refused there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. They are not consulted before a building is added to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and we cannot give them a privileged place in the determination of applications made under this provision. I have much more that I could say on similar lines, but I think it all comes down to the fact that we really do not want to accept this amendment.
Baroness BIRK: I think the Minister made that very clear. He did use the word "consult" which was originally in the amendment, but the word is now "notify", which is rather different. If we can be satisfied that the local amenity societies will be aware of this in their localities so that they do have the opportunity to make representations to local authorities, obviously in the face of opposition from the Government there is no point in pressing it, certainly at this time of night. I am glad the noble Lord understood that what I was getting at was not that all these applications should go to the Historic Buildings Council, which would obviously be impossible, but should be considered within the different localities. As long as there are means by which they are made aware of this and know that these buildings are going to be tied up for five years without being able to be listed, then one could see how that works and

1045
see the amenities societies' reports. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.37 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 158, line 37, leave out ("56A") and insert ("55(2A)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is required to correct a technical error. Section 56A (5) is intended to prevent the new time-limiting condition from being applied to consents granted for works already carried out under new subsection 55 (2A). Instead of referring to subsection 55 (2A), Section 56A (5) incorrectly refers to Section 56A. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 158, line 38, at end insert—
("12. In section 101 of that Act delete the word "unoccupied".").
The noble Baroness said: This is rather a tricky little amendment. Up to now, under the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act, local authorities have had power to carry out urgent repair works to listed buildings after giving not less than seven days' notice to the owner. This power is currently restricted to unoccupied buildings. It is felt essential, and has been put forward by several local authorities, that in order to protect our heritage they should have power to carry out urgent repair work to any listed building whether occupied or unoccupied.
I said it was tricky because I am well aware of the problems that may arise where a house is occupied. There are listed buildings both occupied and unoccupied which are falling into decay. It does seem to me that local authorities should have discretion—there will not be a mandatory power—if they can do so (it is a question of resources) to insist on repairs to a building that is occupied. Where the person living in the building is unable to afford to do the repairs, it would be impossible for the local authority to claim back from him, but we are all aware of listed buildings which have been shamelessly neglected by owners who could repair them but will not do so. If the local authority does the repairs itself, it can reclaim the cost. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: We share the noble Baroness's concern to strengthen local authorities' powers to require repairs to listed buildings, but I fear that the proposal in its present form is not acceptable. Entering occupied premises against the wishes of the owner to carry out work is always open to the very real objection of the invasion of privacy and rights of property.
As the noble Baroness will well know from her own experience in my department, finding a solution to the problem of securing repairs to neglected listed buildings, whether occupied or not, is far from easy. For example, Section 115, which empowers authorities to serve a repairs notice on unoccupied or occupied buildings requiring works to be carried out for the proper preservation of the building, has no teeth unless an authority is prepared to follow it up with compulsory acquisition under Section 114. Understandably, many authorities are reluctant to make a compulsory purchase order. While they want the building repaired, they do not necessarily wish to own it.
Nevertheless, we accept that there is a case for strengthening the powers currently available and have in fact completed a considerable amount of preliminary work aimed at augmenting the present powers by introducing an alternative to compulsory purchase under Section 114. This would involve seeking a court order to carry out the repairs specified in a notice served under Section 115 if they have not been carried out within the statutory two month period. If the order were granted, the authority or the Secretary of State could also seek to recover the cost of the work. The procedure would be complicated by the fact that there is a limit of £2,000 on the amount that can be recovered in the county court—higher claims have to be the subject of an order from the High Court.
Unfortunately, there simply has not been time to work out the details of this procedure and consult the local authority associations in time for their inclusion in this Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will agree that it is important to get any amended procedure right and I hope, therefore, that with the assurance that the department have proposals in mind which they will discuss in due course, she may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness BIRK: As the Minister is not accepting the amendment, I can now say that it was probing in nature and what he said was what I was hoping to hear—namely, that the department is considering it and it is something that it has in mind. I hope it will bring forward legislation when it has sorted out what, I am the first to admit, is an extremely difficult problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 210B not moved.]
11.43 p.m.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS moved Amendment 211B:
Page 159, line 38, at end insert—
(". In section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (4) there shall be inserted the words "Other than in conservation areas"; and

(b) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection:—

"(4A) A local planning authority shall have the power to declare by resolution that a conservation area within its area, or any part thereof, shall be an area within which there shall be applied the limitations on the display of advertisements contained in Regulations made under subsection (3) hereof in respect of areas of special control":
Provided that, before passing such a resolution, the local planning authority shall publish a notice of the proposed resolution and consider any objections which may be communicated to it in writing.".").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give to local planning authorities the power to declare a conservation area to be an area of special control for the control of outdoor advertising. Section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 provides that an area which requires protection on grounds of amenity interest may be defined as an area of special control for the purpose of controlling outdoor advertising. But, while the power to designate a conservation area is conferred upon the local planning authority, the power to designate an area of special control is reserved to the Secretary of State.
From the information given to us by local authority associations it is clear that many local authorities would much like to control advertising in areas of
1048
special amenity interest, such as conservation areas, but that they are deterred by the need to argue their case with the Department of the Environment, which may order a public inquiry to consider objections. The result is that out of over 5,000 conservation areas in England and Wales, hardly any of them have as yet been separately designated as areas of special control.
Up until now these powers have mostly been used, very properly, for the restriction of advertising in the countryside. The relatively few conservation areas—less than 2 per cent.—which are protected in this way, are mostly villages which happen, by chance, to be situated in a large rural area in which advertising is restricted. Thus, in respect of the vast majority of conservation areas—over 98 per cent.—the powers provided for this purpose are not being used. The clear intention of Parliament is consequently being ignored.
In order to remedy this situation we consider that local planning authorities should be given the power to designate the whole or part of a conservation area as an area of special control without the need to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. In this connection it should be noted that in respect of other much more important issues, such as the adoption of local plans which may radically affect the whole character of a town, the final decision is entrusted to the local planning authority unless the Secretary of State in very exceptional cases decides to intervene.
We do not, of course, wish to deprive shopkeepers of their right to advertise on their premises their names and the goods and services that they provide. What we particularly want to restrict are glaring posters on the blank walls of the corner houses of side roads all along the high street. These posters, such as the ones that advertise the beer that reaches every part, are mostly unconnected with the neighbouring shops and traders. Equally, we wish to discourage large advertisement hoardings, such as those around the vacant site opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum, which for several decades have disturbed the harmony of an area of architectural quality.
I know that there are some who consider that objections should be examined by an independent person appointed by

1049
the Secretary of State. But I suggest that it is wrong to think that the democratically elected local authority is not both anxious and well qualified to weigh local views and interests.
It is, of course, not our intention that objections should be lightly brushed aside. In fact, it will be seen that since we first tabled this amendment in order to make our intentions clear, we have added a specific proviso, which requires the local authority to publicise its proposals and to give due consideration to any objections which may be submitted to it. Likewise, I wish to make it clear that we are not suggesting that local authorities should automatically restrict advertising in all conservation areas all over the country. What we are proposing is that they should have the discretionary power to do so where they consider it appropriate.
I also think it right to draw attention to the advice given in a circular on this subject issued by the Department of the Environment, Circular No. 23/77. After recognising that many conservation areas include commercial centres, the circular specifically asks local planning authorities:
"to ensure that advertising displays do not detract from the appearance of areas of architectural or historic interest".
But that, of course, is precisely what conservation areas are. Thus it will be seen that all we are asking is that local authorities should be given the power to do what the Government have themselves asked them to do.
This amendment has the full support of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and of the Association of District Councils, the two types of authorities concerned with this matter, and it is in complete accord—and I wish to emphasise this—with the main purpose of this Bill which, as the very first words of its Long Title state, is:
"to relax controls over local government".
I hope, therefore, that in that spirit the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: I had the privilege of following in the noble Lord's footsteps in two great departments of state, and I have the greatest admiration for what he has
1050
achieved. I am therefore delighted to be associated with him in commending this amendment to your Lordships, and I should indeed hesitate a very long time before disagreeing with the noble Lord on a matter of this kind.
As the noble Lord explained, whet we are seeking to do is something which is so simple as to be obvious. We are asking the Secretary of State to allow local planning authorities automatically to be able to do what he himself has asked them to do. There is nothing very revolutionary in that. The converse, of course, is complete nonsense. Mr. Heseltine has won a well deserved reputation for his action in conservation matters. I hope tonight that he is going to enhance that reputation still further by allowing the noble Lord to accept the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, has moved.
11.51 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: May I say how delighted I am to be associated with the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys. His record in the field of conservation needs no praise from me; it is apparent to everyone who is the least bit concerned about this matter. When the legislation was originally put forward I had thought that this omission was a mistake on the part of the drafters of the Bill. Then I received a letter from the Law Society telling me, as a member, that I ought to oppose the amendment that I had already put my name down to support, on the grounds that local shopkeepers should be given the opportunity before a public inquiry of making their feelings felt about advertising in conservation areas.
The amendment that the noble Lord put down to this amendment between the publication of the first and second Marshalled Lists has covered that problem. The words
"Provided that, before passing such a resolution, the local planning authority shall publish a notice of the proposed resolution and consider any objections which may be communicated to it in writing"—
are a perfectly adequate protection for local shopkeepers, advertising agents and others who have an interest in this matter.
My experience in local government over a fair number of years on the planning

1051
committee is that every opportunity is given to people who want to object to a proposal by a local authority to in any way limit their freedom, to have it discussed, debated and considered at the local authority level. The noble Lord was right when he said that this is a Bill which is supposed to give more freedom to local government, and this is an excellent area where we could give considerably greater freedom to local government and at the same time make the appearance of conservation areas that much more attractive.
I think in particular of an area, a splendid square in the town in which I live. It is said to be the best square in the United Kingdom outside Edinburgh. I do not know whether that is true or not. It has been made a conservation area, but its appearance is considerably marred by the fact that the local authority is not able to control the extremely garish advertisements not only proposing the advantages of a certain kind of beer or lager, as the noble Lord suggested, but also the virtues of firms of estate agents, purveyors of secondhand furniture, and a variety of other uses which diminish enormously the beauty and attraction of this square.
The reason given for making the conservation order was its architectural beauty. Now it is completely marred, not by the architecture of the square but by the quality and unattractive nature of the advertisements which the local authority is unable to do anything about because of the enormous, complex and expensive machinery that was involved in making the kind of order it is suggested the local authority should be entitled to make.
Most of us here are concerned about conservation not only in rural areas but, perhaps more importantly, in urban areas, particularly in the North of England where, God knows! we have little enough to conserve. Mrs. Jennifer Jenkins was in my part of the world recently and she said, "You have some absolutely lovely Victorian, Edwardian and late Georgian buildings here. Why have you not done something to improve the external appearance of them?" We had to tell her that the procedures for doing that were long, complex and expensive. Therefore, as a person living in a northern industrial
1052
town, I welcome this proposal as being perhaps more important than conserving rural areas and villages in rural areas. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment, which I hope will have the support of the Government.
Baroness VICKERS: I support the amendment, which has been so excellently moved. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, I thought the Bill was designed to give more relaxation from the Minister and more control to local authorities. Under this process, however, every special control scheme will have to receive the approval of the Secretary of State. Surely it is better to leave this to the people on the spot, for they can get hold of their local authorities, put their complaints to them and get things moving much more quickly. I know the public have a right to object to special control proposals at a local public inquiry. I have attended many such inquiries and on occasions have given my views, but public inquiries take a long time and are expensive. Also, when the inspectors arrive they often have little knowledge of the local people and the matters into which they are to inquire.
We have received a great deal of literature—expensive literature in many colours—from the Outdoor Advertising Council but we have received nothing from the Chamber of Commerce, which represents local shopkeepers, and I was therefore interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, because not only in the rural areas but in the towns there have been no protests by the local shopkeepers on this subject, and I hope the Minister will give full consideration to the points that have been made so that we may see local government being given more authority under the Bill than seems to be the case at the present time.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: I cannot believe the Minister will not consider with great sympathy the points that have been made. Peter Ustinov in his autobiography said that when his Polish mother arrived by boat for the first time in England she thought every town was called Bovril and that it was only when she reached the biggest Bovril of them all that it became apparent to her that she was in London. While that is a slightly

1053
exaggerated view of what might take place, my noble friend has raised a very important matter and I wish to support him.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I just want to issue a little warning from this side of the Committee. I am thinking of what those of us who come from the country districts see in our schools. While coming through the lovely city of St. Albans earlier today I was stopped by the traffic lights when I saw glaring above me a mighty advert declaring, "Tell your kiddies to collect the labels off these beans so that your school can get what it wants". What a pathetic state for education to be in! That apart, I can think of nothing worse than advertisements all over our country villages, although nobody objects to the local butcher or whatever advertising local plays or other events in his shop window at Christmastime. Such adverts can be quite cheerful in fact.
Lord SANDFORD: I rise to confirm what my noble friends have said in support of the amendment—namely that it is strongly supported by the Association of District Councils.
12 midnight
Lord DRUMALBYN: It would be a pity if the debate were to pass without any voice being raised in favour of the present situation. As I understand it, the primary difference between a conservation area and an area of special control lies in the fact that in a conservation area the local authority has control over all advertisements individually. It can prevent advertisements from being set up; it can cause them to be taken down. The position is different in an area of special control. As my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys mentioned, in such an area the only advertisements allowed are those in which the size of the lettering is limited, which give the name of the advertiser, state the goods that he sells or the activities that he pursues, and are displayed on his own premises. Advertisements not displayed on premises belonging to the advertiser are not allowed, regardless of whether they would be on special sites, pillars, bus shelters, or wherever. That is the position.
1054
Under the present law, all such advertisements must come down as soon as an order is made. However, because of possible interference with advertisements that may have been displayed for 30 years, it is thought right that before such an order is made the Secretary of State must be consulted and give his approval. Notice must be given in the form of the draft order; that has to be publicised. In the last 30 years there have been objections in only a third of all the cases that have been the subject of local public inquiries.
The opinions of others have not been mentioned. It must not be assumed that everybody is as allergic as some Members of your Lordships' Committee to the appearance of advertisements. In order to protect these rights, and to give an opportunity for objections, it is thought right to give this power of appeal. It is not a control by central Government of local authority; it is a power of appeal; and the person who presides over the local public inquiry is an independent person, who is totally impartial.
Surely this is the right procedure. My noble friend who, as has been said, has done so much in the Civic Trust for the improvement of amenity, must surely know what is the position in a conservation area. There is already a control of individual advertisements, and therefore a control of all advertisements in that area. As I say, that is totally different from what happens once part of that conservation area is made into an area of special control.
May I remind the Committee that the area of special control is intended to give protection on grounds of amenity. As I say, it is a blanket control. Commercial advertisements would be restricted to business premises and to non-illuminated advertisements on the premises, stating the name of the trader and the goods sold, or other activity carried on there. However tasteful and harmonious the advertisements might be individually, however much they might fit in, they would simply not be allowed in an area of special control. They would not be allowed to be erected; worse still, those already displayed would have to be taken down. No compensation would be payable, except for the cost of taking them down. At present, such undiscriminating restrictions can be imposed only by order of the Secretary of State.

1055
What the amendment proposes to do is to give local planning authorities power to declare an area of special protection by resolution, and the only preconditions are that before the resolution is actually passed a copy of the proposed resolution must be published, and any objections in writing must be considered. There are no plans; no requirements as to the form of publication or as to the period for the public to think about it; no written notice given to those individuals likely to be affected by it: just dull uniformity by resolution.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: May I interrupt my noble friend? Why does he say "might"; that before passing such a resolution the planning authority "might" publish a notice and "might" consider any objections? It says here quite clearly:
"… before passing such a resolution, the local planning authority shall publish … and consider any objections which may be communicated to it in writing".
Lord DRUMALBYN: I apologise to my noble friend. It must have been a slip of the tongue; I meant to say "must". I am told I did say "must"; I am much obliged.
So that is the situation. I really do not think it is right to depart from this on the slender grounds given. In the last 30 years there have been only three local public inquiries a year. Surely that is not too big a price to pay for the freedom of the individual.
Baroness BIRK: I have my name down to this amendment, and in order to shorten the proceedings I must try not to take part in the debate, but I really must, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been saying—and I know that certainly his past experience in the advertising field has been great. I am afraid he has a lot of this quite wrong. He has made the same mistake as there is in this glossy publication referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. Mr. Michael Shersby, MP, is reported as saying, in Hansard, that
"the proposal was deliberately excluded"—
this was when the Bill was brought forward again—
"because it would be absurd to try to ban advertisements entirely in conservation areas. Some
1056
such areas have within them a thriving commercial centre".
What seems to have been lost sight of since it was moved and then supported by my noble friend Lord Greenwood is that this is giving local authorities the power to exercise control in the most sensitive parts of the most sensitive conservation areas. It does not mean that the whole of a conservation area becomes controlled; it does not mean that any part of it need be controlled. What it does mean is that, instead of the matter going to the Secretary of State, the local authority can exercise its own discretion on an issue of concern to its own people, and exercise its own view as to the quality of the environment. Through the Housing Bill and also through this Bill we have seen the number of powers taken away from the local authorities. Here is an opportunity for local authorities to be encouraged to take an interest in their own environment. Who in fact make up the local authorities? There are local businessmen, there are professional men and there are people who have as great an interest in advertising their own wares as the noble Lord and others who take the same view as he does.
All we are asking is that at a time when the sophistication and complexities of the visual content of advertising have become so enormous that advertising is harmful to conservation areas and areas of beauty, it should be up to the local authority to have the chance to decide. The addendum to this amendment really covers the position for anybody who wants to object or who feels that it is unfair to them. I think we must be quite clear that we are discussing what the amendment is about. We are not discussing what another amendment might or might not say. This is what the amendment says and we should stick to that. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment which, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn (who, with great respect, has got it a little wrong), has had the support of all noble Lords speaking from all sides of the Committee.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said most of what I would wish to say. In view of the fact that my noble friend Lady Vickers said that the industry had not made any stand against this, the views I will convey reflect those of the Confederation of British

1057
Industry. The noble Baroness has just tried to persuade the Committee that there is no serious ground for complaint or worry about this amendment. But the proposed amendment would allow local authorities to make any conservation area into an area of special control for advertisements without the important current safeguards of having to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment and of having a local inquiry. The amendment refers to consideration of any objections in writing. This is very different from a local inquiry. It would facilitate a total ban on commercial poster advertising in many large town centres. It has been put to us that everyone wants that. I do not think they do. Throughout the United Kingdom it would eliminate even small posters in bus shelters and kiosks such as often enliven shopping precincts; and, on the whole, many of our fellow citizens welcome them.
The most important point is, clearly, that this is against the general interest of British trade and industry. It is ridiculous to suggest that advertisements have no purpose in life. If that were so, people would not want to spend millions on them. As to the question of making extra Government control, this is no increase on the present situation. The Government control, as my noble friend has said, has had to be exercised in a very limited way. I am afraid that most of my noble friends and the noble Lords opposite who spoke in favour—not to mention my noble friend who moved the amendment—have emphasised one side of the picture to convey an impression which, on the whole, is not strictly giving the right picture at all.
Lord NEWALL: May I say one or two words in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said in suggesting that there is not very much support against this amendment? I have a lot of respect for my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys and for many others who spoke in favour of the amendment. I am amazed by some of the things I have heard. There is one massive point which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn mentioned. There seems to be no difference made between the areas of special control and the other areas we have been talking about. The special control areas were
1058
designed primarily for the countryside and for special places round castles and cathedrals and so on. Conservation areas cover busy shopping centres for which special control was never intended.
The planning authorities already have full powers to control advertisements in conservation areas. They do not need any more. They have the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1969 as amended in 1972 and 1977. If, perhaps, they are not doing their job, that is no reason to blame the advertising people. The majority of the general public like advertising in their shopping areas and it is in their interest as well as the interest of local traders. The special advertisement control is confiscatory; it bans a lot of advertisements without any compensation at all. Parliament has given local traders the right to object to special advertisement control orders and to have their objections heard in any local public inquiry. The House of Lords has been quoted many times for giving the tights and private liberties to individuals. I do not think that the amendment is any good.
12.15 a.m.
Lord BELLWIN: I congratulate my noble friend on the eloquence with which he has introduced this amendment and I recognise that it is supported by the associations representing metropolitan authorities and district councils and by the Civic Trust. My noble friend has shown all his well known qualities of assiduity and resolution; and I pay tribute to his own and his supporters' sincerity on the amendment because I know that they are concerned to see that conservation areas are indeed what their name implies. It is therefore with particular regret that I find myself having to resist his amendment because—however well-meaning and sincere its intentions—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I consider that the amendment is misconceived and its practical effect may well be misunderstood by my noble friend and his supporters, for reasons I will try to explain.
But let me first identify what I hope is common ground between us; namely, a desire to improve the quality of outdoor advertising in conservation areas throughout the country. My noble friend and his supporters believe that it would

1059
greatly help to achieve this objective if every planning authority in the country had the power to declare, by means of a resolution carried by a majority vote in planning committee, that any conservation area within their own area should become the equivalent of an area of special control of advertisements, so that considerably stricter controls over outdoor advertising would then apply to it. I believe that this approach is misconceived, both in principle and in practice. To explain why I take that view I must ask the Committee to consider in some detail the statutory provisions on which these two different environmental designations are based and their practical operation.
My noble friend's approach in this amendment is misconceived because he mistakenly equates conservation areas, designated under the provisions of Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, with areas of special control of advertisements, defined in Section 63 of that Act. In fact, the two types of area serve quite distinct planning purposes. Conservation areas are simply defined by local planning authorities wherever the authority decides that an area of special architectural or historic interest merits that designation: their main purpose is to enable an authority to take steps to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and there is no provision for the planning authority's decision to create a conservation area to be questioned in any way, or for it to be approved by the Secretary of State.
The result is that there are now just over 5,000 conservation areas in villages, towns and cities throughout England and Wales, comprising a very wide range in the quality of their environment. Some of them have additionally been designated as "outstanding", but that is largely intended to enable certain grants to be paid: it is not an assessment of their environmental quality. In any event, that provision is being altered by this Bill. By contrast, areas of special control of advertisements are specified in subsection (3) of Section 63 of the 1971 Act as being
"either rural areas or areas other than rural areas which appear to the Secretary of State to require special protection on grounds of amenity".
1060
The result is that a little over one-third of the entire land area of England and Wales has now been designated by planning authorities, and approved by Ministers, as being within areas of special control of advertisements. Virtually all the land covered by this designation is predominantly rural and it has always been accepted that a special case would have to be made out on amenity grounds in order to convince a Minister that an urban, or predominantly urban, area should become an area of special control, and thus involve stricter standards of control over outdoor advertising.
I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friend that, in planning terms, conservation areas are not, and were never intended to be, environmentally equivalent to areas of special control of advertisements. That is why we consider that planning authorities should not be enabled simply to pass a resolution which would provide, in effect, that the two different types of area are to be regarded as exactly equivalent to each other for the purpose of controlling outdoor advertising.
My noble friend has argued most ingeniously that this amendment is consistent with one of the Bill's main purposes, because it seeks to remove yet another control exercised over town halls from Whitehall. But I am afraid his argument overlooks the reason why there is a procedure, carefully specified in Schedule 2 to the Control of Advertisements Regulations, for a planning authority to have to obtain the Secretary of State's approval, usually following a public inquiry, for any proposal to make an order defining an area as an area of special control of advertisements.
This is not just a question of removing yet another tiresome, bureaucratic control over local government. There are two excellent reasons for requiring ministerial approval for one of these orders. First, the introduction of an area of special control means that outdoor advertising will be more strictly limited within that area than it is elsewhere: for example, posters for general advertising are completely prohibited and there are stricter limits on the permitted height of advertisements above ground level. The result is that some of the existing advertisements in the conservation area which do not conform to the stricter limits would have

1061
to be either removed or modified; in other words, existing use rights would be taken away or reduced.
I have much more on similar lines which I think makes the case, but I should like to conclude by saying that I hope my noble friend accepts that there is no difference between us about the desirability of improving the quality of outdoor advertising in many conservation areas. Where we differ is in our choice of means. My noble friend believes that planning authorities ought to have this additional power to make a resolution and they should be freed entirely from ministerial control in exercising it. My answer to him is in three short parts.
First, I consider that planning authorities already have adequate powers to control outdoor advertising in conservation areas and elsewhere, and they do not therefore need this additional power. Secondly, I believe that ministerial approval is an essential part of the arrangements for designating areas of special control of advertisements, if local planning authorities are to remain publicly accountable and the stricter controls over advertisements in an area of special control are to be accepted as fair and reasonable by people whose legitimate interests are involved. Thirdly, I think we should give the advertising industry an opportunity to show, by means of their voluntary initiative in introducing a code of practice for
outstanding conservation areas, what improvements can be made without further legislation for this purpose. I therefore wonder whether my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment and to use his good offices with the local authority associations, and, as President of the Civic Trust, to foster this voluntary initiative with all his considerable energy.
Lord DUNCAN-SAN DYS: I must say that I am very disappointed by the reply given by the Minister. I cannot help feeling that he himself may feel a little unhappy about it, because there is obviously so much feeling in favour of this amendment, as there was on the Second Reading of this Bill. The definition of an area which it is appropriate to designate as an area of special control is an area of special amenity interest. The definition of a conservation area is an area of architectural or historic interest. If an area of architectural or historic interest is not an area of special amenity interest, I do not know what it is. I hope that the Government will think again between now and Report stage. Meanwhile, I am afraid that I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment.
12.24 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 211B) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Avebury, L.

Sandford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Simon, V.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Croft, L.

Minto, E.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Peart, L.

Underhill, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whaddon, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Renton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor)

Avon, E.

De La Warr, E.

Balerno, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Bellwin, L.

Digby, L.

Hatherton, L.

Belstead, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Boardman, L.

Elton, L.

Holderness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Kemsley, V.

Cathcart, E.

Fortescue, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gainford, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gowrie, E.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Margadale, L.

Newall, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

May, L.

Pender, L.

Sudeley, L.

Middleton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Westbury, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Young, B.

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

12.33 a.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 159, line 48, at end insert—
("16A. The following section shall be inserted after section 99 of that Act:—
"Effect of listed building consent on listed building enforcement notice.
99A.—(1) If, after the issue of a listed building enforcement notice, consent is granted under section 55(2A) of this Act for the retention of any work to which the listed building enforcement notice relates, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken which would involve the works not being retained in accordance with the consent.
(2) If the consent is granted so as to permit the retention of works without complying with some condition subject to which a previous listed building consent was granted, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken for complying with that condition.
(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a failure to comply with the listed building enforcement notice before the relevant provisions of that notice ceased to have effect.".").
The noble Lord said: It is necessary to ensure that, when a listed building enforcement notice has been served and listed building consent is subsequently granted under paragraph 6, the enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in relation to the works for which consent has been granted. Under new Section 99A(1), the requirements of any listed building enforcement notice which are not in accordance with the terms of a consent subsequently granted under paragraph 6, shall cease to have effect. New Section 99A(3) is designed to ensure that a person failing to comply with a listed building enforcement notice before the relevant provisions of the notice cease to have effect shall still be liable to prosecution. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 212A:
Page 160, line 33, at end insert—
("In section 250 of that Act (grants for development) the following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (1)(b):—
"(1A) For the purpose of the previous subsection "redevelopment" shall include the renewal or refurbishment of any building on land which is situated within a designated conservation area where such works form a part of an overall redevelopment scheme consisting also of the erection of a new building or buildings."").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 212A. I apologise to the Committee for needing to make a rather longer speech than my last one. Section 250 of the 1971 Act relates to redevelopment grants and it makes land acquired by a local authority for redevelopment ineligible for a grant to the extent that it contains buildings which are to be preserved and refurbished rather than redeveloped as part of an overall redevelopment scheme. This applies particularly within the conservation area.
The situation has occurred in Chesterfield recently where, with the active support of the Department of the Environment, a large site owned by the council in a conservation area has been redeveloped so as to incorporate an external frontage to the market place, consisting of a number of buildings, some of which were listed. The acquisition value of the land on which the buildings were being retained was considerably more than that of the back land on which new buildings were being erected. Likewise, the cost of the refurbishments of the retained buildings would, pro rata, not differ greatly from the cost of the new building work.
The department accepted that part of the site on which new building was taking place qualified for grant under Section 250, but they were precluded from giving a grant in respect of the land covered by the retained buildings, because the buildings would not technically be redeveloped, notwithstanding the fact that the refurbishment was so extensive that it involved the replacement of roofs, floors and internal walls. Such a preclusion runs entirely contrary to the spirit of Circular 2377, which was quoted earlier,

1065
which stresses the need to preserve our architectural heritage in various ways by taking steps to preserve buildings of value either in their own right or because of the contribution they make to the entire scene.
This amendment, therefore, is advocated to remedy the situation, to provide additional resources which will positively encourage local authorities to rehabilitate buildings within conservation areas, whenever feasible or appropriate to do so, and particularly when existing structures can be used and monies saved.
Lord BELLWIN: This amendment would allow redevelopment grant to be paid towards the cost of acquiring buildingsin conservation areas for refurbishment or renewal, provided they were part of a redevelopment scheme. I must point out, as the noble Lord has said, however, that grant would not be payable towards the costs of refurbishment or renewal as such. The Secretary of State already has adequate and more appropriate powers to assist the preservation or enhancement of outstanding conservation areas in Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972, and these powers are being extended to all conservation areas by the amendment in paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of this Bill.
As was pointed out in another place, the present amendment would have the effect of providing funds for conservation purposes additional to those already available under Section 10 arrangements by extending redevelopment grant to something for which it was not designed. At a time when we are having to restrain public expenditure, the Government cannot accept such a course, and I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: Certainly, under the assurance that it can be done in some other way, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.38 a.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 162, line 25, at end insert—
(" . The following section shall be inserted after section 277B of that Act—
"Conservation Areas
277C.—(1) Where a local planning
1066
authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State propose to designate any areas as a conservation area under the provisions of Section 277 of this Act, there shall first be published a notice of any such proposed designation in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area of the local planning authority.
(2) The notice to be published under this section shall identify the area which is proposed to be designated and shall state—

(i) The grounds for making the proposed designations; and

(ii) That objections and representations to the proposed designation may be made in writing to the local planning authority or, as the case may be, to the Secretary of State, within 28 days from the date of the publication of the notice.

(3) Before designating any area as a conservation area the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State, shall have regard to any objections or representations to the proposed designation which are duly made by persons appearing to them to have a material interest in any such designation.".")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is simply to give the owners of land and buildings in a conservation area a chance to be informed before the area is scheduled. I hope that this amendment will not present the kinds of difficulties to the Government that arose from my amendment on listed buildings. The amendment does not provide, because of the difficulties involved, for the giving of notice to every owner in a proposed conservation area. Notice of the proposal to designate should, however, be published.
There is also provision for objections and representations to be made, and all that is required is that the Secretary of State should have regard to any such representations, provided that they are made by persons having a material interest in any such designation. This seems to me to provide the very minimum of consultation that is surely the right of affected areas to expect—a right which they do not now possess.
A right of appeal against a designation is not included in this amendment because the conservation area restrictions are not so onerous and, because there could be such a large number of areas involved, it would be impractical. It is not right that persons with a material interest in this kind of designation should not be informed and should not be able to be heard, even to the minimum extent

1067
provided here. It is, I should have thought, an improvement to the existing system which could be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: Local planning authorities have been able to designate conservation areas since 1967. Over 4,500 such areas have been designated, and I am sure that most people would agree that they have made a useful contribution towards the preservation of our architectural heritage. There are, however, few obligations placed on owners in conservation areas. The only significant ones are that consent is required for the demolition of any buildings in the area whilst under Section 61A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 the local authority must be notified of any intended felling of, or major alteration to, trees. Normal planning control is unaltered, but local planning authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area when exercising all their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
We have stressed the need for public interest and participation if conservation is to be successful. However, I do not think it is necessary to implement a statutory requirement to undertake publicity and consultation before conservation areas are designated. This would be particularly inappropriate in a Bill which aims at reducing controls over local authorities and cutting back on unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. In view of what I have said, I wonder whether my noble friend may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord MIDDLETON: I really do not see why they should not be informed simply by publication. I am a little disappointed but I will look at what has been said and will withdraw the amendment now, with a view possibly to coming back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 163, line 17, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Baroness said: I think the Minister may be going to accept this
1068
amendment, so I will say very briefly that all it does is to change "shall" to "may", which will relieve the burden which otherwise would be put on the Historic Buildings Council and frustrate the intention of delegating to local authorities the supervision of town schemes. If the Minister is prepared to accept that I think it would improve the clause enormously. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: Yes, we do accept that.
On Question, Whether Schedule 12, as amended, shall be the twelfth schedule to the Bill?
Baroness BIRK: There is one point I should like to raise on the schedule, and in doing so I wish to congratulate the Government on the grants made and on outstanding conservation areas, which is helpful to villages, and in fact the whole conservation impact which goes through this Bill. On page 157, at line 42, the words used are "contract for redevelopment", and, although it is extremely good that demolition will not now take place until, as I understand it, the contract is signed for new building, I should like to get a clear statement from the Minister that the contract for redevelopment means the last contract that was made, and means the building contract. If this is watertight in legal terms that is all I need to know.
I understand that other people who are concerned about it would like to see the word "building" before "contract", but I am told that there are some legal difficulties about that, which I do not understand. I should like to be sure that the contract is the last one to be made and that it does not mean that a contract may be made some years before and then a case would be made out for the demolition of the building.
Lord BELLWIN: I cannot give the noble Baroness the assurance she wants. I will certainly look at what she has said to find out exactly what the precise interpretation is. As is often the case, one can give an "off the cuff" interpretation, but I prefer not to do that, and in those circumstances I wonder whether she will let it go.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Town and Country Planning—Scotland]:
12.45 a.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 73, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) In section 113(6) of that Act after the words "section 102(1)(a)", the words "to (c)" shall be omitted").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment in consequence of Clause 81(4) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Schedule 13—[Bodies to whom Part X applies]:
12.45 a.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 164, line 28, at end insert ("other than bodies corporate having capital which is divided into shares or stock owned, or capable of being owned, by members of the public.")
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to exclude from the schedule and so from Part X of the Bill such statutory undertakers as are bodies corporate having capital divided into shares or stock owned or capable of being owned by members of the public. That is rather a mouthful and a rather inelegant way of expressing it, and I hope we might find a better way before we finish with the Bill. It means those statutory undertakings which are public companies. That does not mean, of course, publicly owned companies.
I believe an amendment of this kind is necessary if the intention of the Government expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum, and indeed throughout, is to be achieved and if Part X of the Bill is to be brought within the Long Title. The Explanatory Memorandum says that Part X deals with land owned by public authorities. The heading to Part X in the arrangement of clauses is "Land held by public bodies". That is repeated in the rubric to Clause 82. In the Long
1070
Title we read that the Bill is "to make provision for a register of public land" and so on.
It may come as a surprise to some that not all statutory undertakers are public bodies but this is the fact, and it seems to me that that fact was overlooked by the Government and perhaps by the draftsmen in preparing this Bill. I do not feel I can ask your Lordships to accept my word for this, but I obtained the information from an extract from Halsbury's Laws of England. He says of statutory undertakers:
"They are usually but not invariably public authorities. In some instances they may be private commercial undertakings".
I can give an example which many of your Lordships will recognise, because we discussed it in this House about four years ago in the debate on the future of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. This House voted to have that undertaking—a statutory undertaking—conveyed to European Ferries rather than into the clutches of the British Transport Docks Board. Noble Lords sitting opposite, who were then on this side of the House, argued fiercely for that. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was in the van; he was one of the tellers. There were actually 12 members of the present Government who voted for that. I think they would have been extremely surprised to be told that a Conservative Government later on was going to say that this private enterprise was to be thrown into the pot with public authorities. It is not a public authority at all, and therefore its land, I submit, is not public land.
On those grounds it seems to me the Government ought to accept this amendment, or, if not willing to do so, at least think out the best way of expressing what I am sure is right. If there is any doubt about the Government's intentions, these were made perfectly clear by the Minister of State in another place during the 26th sitting of the Standing Committee on 22nd April (col. 340). When he was questioned as to what he would do if his attention was called to vacant land in the hands of a private company, he replied:
"The honourable gentleman knows that this part of the Bill applies to publicly-owned bodies."
It seems to be perfectly clear that—to take the same example again—the Felixstowe

1071
Dock and Railway Company is not a publicly-owned body and should not be included in Part X of the Bill. There is one last point that I should like to make before I hope to hear that the Government are prepared to accept at least the spirit of this amendment. If your Lordships look at Schedule 13 you will see a long list of public bodies. Your Lordships will not immediately, I suspect, spot—as I did not spot—the public bodies that were left out of that list. But, with the aid of the Notes on Clauses, I was told that bodies that are excluded from the list are British Aerospace and British Airways. What is the reason for that? Are these bodies to be reconstituted as Companies Act companies? If it is right to exclude those bodies because they are going to become Companies Act companies, surely it is right to exclude bodies that are already companies. I do not think that I need say any more. I beg to move.
The Earl of AVON: The provisions of Part X are not intended to apply to the private sector, only to public sector bodies. There are, however, bodies which straddle the two sectors in a variety of ways. There are certain bodies which would be regarded as essentially within the private sector yet which carry on statutory undertakings.
Having said that, we do indeed accept the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. This amendment is a helpful attempt to clarify the position between certain bodies which straddle the public and private sectors. The definition of statutory undertaker in Schedule 13 is taken from Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. It is virtually a common form definition. The effect is that certain Companies Act companies operating only minor undertakings under statute nevertheless come within the provisions of Part X. Though we are sympathetic to the general objective of clarifying this point in the Bill, the amendment goes too far in that it would exclude some bodies whose main functions are to operate statutory docks and ports. I cannot, therefore, recommend your Lordships to accept the amendment.
However, I undertake to look more sympathetically at the next amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord
1072
Cledwyn, and bearing that in mind I very much hope that the noble Viscount will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount SIMON: I am really astonished at what the noble Earl has said. I agree, of course, that there are some statutory undertakers which are public bodies. There are also some statutory undertakers which—as was said in Halsbury's Laws that I quoted—are private commercial undertakings. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is one of those. It is not a public body. The noble Earl referred to bodies whose main functions included the work of statutory undertakers. The Felixstowe company is wholly a statutory undertaker, but it is in the private sector.
I am really astonished that the Conservative Government have thought it right to include a private undertaking in what they call a list of public bodies. The noble Earl might argue that it is quite reasonable for any body, even for private undertakings, to have their vacant land put on to these registers. I do not know whether, if that were proposed, I would object to it. But it is when we come to Clause 87 that we are in real trouble because there the Secretary of State has power to direct one of these bodies to dispose of land on terms which he lays down. I cannot believe that a Conservative Government want to put on the statute book that the Secretary of State—not necessarily this one, but some future Secretary of State—can require a private company to sell its land on terms and conditions which the Secretary of State lays down. I wonder whether the noble Earl would be willing to look at this again and perhaps have a little discussion about it between now and the next stage of the Bill, because I really think that this has been put in by mistake.
The Earl of AVON: I am not absolutely certain whether the noble Viscount has looked at the next amendment which we believe rather more covers his point. I shall certainly look at this again, but we believe that the next amendment is the one that we would rather more like to accept.
Viscount SIMON: I do not think that the next amendment meets the point that I am trying to make. In the circum-

1073
stances I will withdraw this amendment and possibly bring it back at a later stage if I am not satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.57 a.m.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 164, line 28, at end insert—
("Provided that where any persons carry on a business to the main purpose of which any such undertaking is merely ancillary those persons shall not be treated as statutory undertakers for the purposes of paragraph 18 above").
The noble Lord said: I rise with a sense of pleasurable anticipation to move Amendment No. 216. The Committee will have observed that this part of the Bill contains provisions giving powers enabling the Secretary of State to direct local authorities and other public bodies to dispose of land held by them which he considers is not being used or sufficiently used for the purposes of their undertaking.
The provisions operate by means of the compilation of registers for selected areas by the Secretary of State, affording him a power of direction and disposal of specified areas of land, including both the manner of disposal and the terms and conditions of the disposal. The Committee will also note that the local authorities and other public bodies affected are set out in Schedule 13 to the Bill at page 164. A number of bodies will probably be caught by these provisions because of the use of the concept of the statutory undertaker as an element in the definition. For example, in Pembroke in South Wales the Gulf Oil refinery is a statutory undertaker under the Gulf Oil Refining Act 1965 in relation to the railway at its Pembroke refinery, even though this is a very small part indeed of its overall undertaking. That is the kind of case which would be caught, and I do not think that it was ever the intention when the Bill was drafted that that sort of land should be included in the definition. I should have thought it strange if the Secretary of State took additional powers in relation to that sort of land merely because the company is a statutory undertaker in relation to other land some miles away.
Without taking any more of the time of the Committee at this stage, I think that the case is well made. It is common sense
1074
and I am glad to understand that the Government may be good enough to concede the point. I beg to move.
Lord MOTTISTONE: The CBI, upon whose advice I rely, certainly advises support for this amendment and did not particularly advise support for the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I suspect that that is because it feels that this amendment satisfactorily covers what is needed by industry. I hope that the noble Viscount may take some reassurance from that.
Viscount SIMON: I have withdrawn my amendment, as the Committee knows, but I do not think that this amendment covers the point I was trying to make, although I am perfectly happy to support it. I go back to my standard example that I know was of such great interest to noble Lords opposite, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. It is not ancillary; it is wholly a statutory undertaker. It is not a question of the statutory undertaking being an ancillary business; it is the whole business of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which is a private company. I am really surprised that the noble Earl has said that the Government cannot take this out of the schedule. I must discuss that later on and see what we can do at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord AVEBURY: I wonder whether there is a slight confusion in the minds of noble Lords opposite, in that they think that because the Felixstowe Docks is now a subsidiary of European Ferries it must be ancillary to the business of European Ferries, and that therefore the main purpose of the undertaking is that of European Ferries, and Felixstowe Docks is covered by this amendment. If the noble Earl can stand up and give us an assurance that the meaning of this amendment is such that it covers the Felixstowe Docks—and I very much doubt whether he can give any such undertaking—then of course my noble friend would perhaps be more satisfied that he is at the moment. But on any reasonable construction of these words I do not see how it can be pretended that it covers the case he has put forward.
The Earl of AVON: We seem to be in danger of going backwards. We have already dealt with Amendment No. 215, inasmuch as the noble Viscount has withdrawn

1075
it and we both agreed to have a look at it again. May I now go on to the Amendment No. 216? I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said. Though I consider that the provisions of Part X are sufficiently flexible to avoid awkwardness, I am persuaded that we should do something to clarify the point in Schedule 13 in so far as it relates to businesses to which an undertaking is merely ancillary. The Government are therefore willing to accept this amendment.
Lord AVEBURY: Surely the noble Earl can answer the question? Does this amendment or does it not cover the case of the Felixstowe Docks? Yes, or no?
The Earl of AVON: Speaking off the cuff, which I do not like doing, we think not.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Register of land]:
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 74, line 33, after ("State") insert ("having due regard to the date of acquisition of the freehold or leasehold interest").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see from paragraph (c) that one of the reasons for which a Secretary of State may register premises is if the land concerned is insufficiently used. Clearly there will be a stigma attached to land so registered, and this will be unjust when the land has been acquired fairly recently. I believe some assurance, or better a time limit, for the registration of land by the Secretary of State would help to encourage its early use. The object of this amendment is to make sure that the Secretary of State pays due regard to the fact that the land may have recently been acquired. I beg to move.
The Earl of AVON: I take the point behind the amendment in that if a public body has only just acquired underused land they do not want to be directed to dispose of it. I doubt, however, whether the amendment is necessary. It would require the Secretary of State in deciding
1076
which land is unused or insufficiently used for the purpose of the register to have regard to the period of ownership of the land. But as the provisions are drafted, the Secretary of State will have regard to all relevant considerations in reaching his decision, not just this particular one.
The proposals as drafted give the Secretary of State widely drawn powers to obtain information about public bodies land. This will enable him to identify and draw his own conclusions about the land in which he is particularly interested for the purposes of registration. If he considers that initially only land held for a certain period should be regarded as unused, the provisions will enable him to call for information about such land, just as they enable him to exclude other classes or categories of land, for example, sites below one acre. It is not necessary to specify this in the legislation: it is better that the legislative framework is kept light and flexible.
Since the registers are not intended to be "black books", there is no good reason why public bodies should be reluctant to have their land listed in a register. On the one hand, if the body have recently acquired land against specific development proposals or for their more general planning functions so that it is to be retained, it should be straightforward to enter a brief note to that effect oil the register, perhaps indicating any intended short-term or temporary use.
On the other hand, even if they have owned a piece of land for only a short time, in new circumstances the case for its release may be overwhelming. In that event there may be distinct advantage for the owning bodies in having their surplus land on a register since this will provide additional publicity and thereby help with the disposal. There is merit in proceeding pragmatically on this, within the lightweight and flexible provisions to which I have referred. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I was not entirely happy with that reply, which seemed to skate around the point I was making. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, and on the basis that I will have a good look at what my noble friend said,

1077
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, on the understanding that I may wish to table a further amendment on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 74, line 37, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").
The noble Lord said: I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 219, 232 and 240, which are similar, except that Nos. 232 and 240 apply to new towns. The purpose of this is similar to the previous amendments I have moved, with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to prevent the needless, careless and, in this case, inadvertent take of agricultural land for development. As I understand it, under this part of the Bill the Secretary of State will be empowered to have all land owned by public bodies or new towns put on a register and, having done that, the Secretary of State can, under Clause 87, direct the public body in question to dispose of it if it is not being used sufficiently.
For once I can welcome wholeheartedly the Bill's intention, for nothing is more infuriating to a farmer than to observe so much waste land which, according to an article by John Young in The Times last week, is increasing faster than it is being reclaimed. This register will, I hope, help to rectify this position. But the point which concerns me, and which I hope my amendment will solve, is the position of many acres of good agricultural land that have been acquired by public bodies in the past and which are apparently still being farmed, probably on licence, as the public body in question has not used it for the original purpose for which it was required. This land would probably be put on the register and, once on the register, it mould, in our opinion, be difficult to get it back into agriculture.
Accordingly, the amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State, before entering this land on the register, to have regard to the keeping or returning of that land to agriculture. I would point out again that it would not force the Secretary of State to return all land to agriculture, though personally I wish that
1078
were possible; it simply places a duty on him to have regard to agriculture. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the Government as a reminder to future Secretaries of State, should we be unfortunate enough ever to have one who prefers, as they all seem to, to develop agricultural land before derelict acres.
The Earl of AVON: I share my noble friend's concern to prevent the unnecessary loss of agricultural land to development. This is very much in the mind of the Secretary of State and the register proposals are in fact one of a number of measures the cumulative effect of which will, we hope, be to reduce the pressure to take more agricultural land away. I am afraid, however, that in practical terms the amendment confuses what is a process of registration with the use to which land is put. Clause 84(1) empowers the Secretary of State to keep a register of land which satisfies the conditions in Clause 84(2). Briefly, those conditions relate to the ownership and location of the land and to its being unused or insufficiently used for the purposes of the owning body's functions or their undertaking. Clause 84(3) empowers the Secretary of State to register so much of that land as he sees fit.
As the provisions are drafted, the Secretary of State may, in deciding which land to register, have regard to any relevant conditions. It is unnecessary specifically to refer to
"the desirability of maintaining land in agricultural use".
However, not only is it unnecessary, but I believe that it would be confusing to do so. With certain exceptions, notably the local authorities, the public bodies in Schedule 13 have limited functions in relation to agriculture and will not generally hold land unused or insufficiently used for such purposes.
Little agricultural land as such is likely to be registrable. In the main, public bodies will have acquired, or be holding, land for a specific scheme or purpose, or against some future eventuality. The land may be in temporary use for a variety of purposes. I am sure that we would all want it to be so. But, usually, there will have been a planning permission or an indication for some ultimate use which is acceptable within the planning policies for the area. The register provisions

1079
are not intended to override appropriate planning control. Whether or not the Secretary of State registers land in temporary agricultural use, the owning body will not be prevented from seeking to put the land to use for those purposes permitted under planning law.
In effect, the question of whether or not the land has continued in the former agricultural use during an interim period, or the former agricultural use has ceased, is not fundamental to the decision as to whether land is underused for purposes of the owning body's functions or undertaking, and to whether the land should be entered on the register—a step which has the effect only of making the status of the land publicly known.
As I mentioned earlier, the amendment seems to imply that beyond the process of registration the Secretary of State will specify the "use" of land in a direction. That is not so. The provisions are not framed in that way; "use" is a factor of planning. Nevertheless, there are two ways in which the register provisions will work towards the noble Lord's objective. By making sure that unused land is used fully, particularly that already in the urban areas, we should ease the pressure of demand on agricultural land for development. Secondly, and more directly to the point of the amendment, in deciding whether or not to proceed with a proposed direction, the Secretary of State will consider any representations from the owning body which bear on the use to which the land will be put if a direction is not made, and these representations might relate to an intention to keep land in agricultural use, or revert to such a use, for the immediate future.
The noble Lord also referred to the case of disposals by the new towns. The type of disposals which they will be likely to make in practice will be developed land and the industrial and commercial assets thereon. At the very least, it is likely to be land which, while undeveloped, already carries planning approval for development in accordance with the master plan of the town concerned. We certainly do not envisage corporations selling off areas of agricultural land under the provisions of Clause 115. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I thank my noble friend for that reply, though, needless to say, I do not quite go along with it. I would remind him that there is much land, particularly in the new towns, that has not been returned to agriculture, but which could be. However, be that as it may, it seems to me that my noble friend is saying to me that I have the amendment in the wrong place. I rather tend to accept that. I shall come back on Report and try it in Clause 87, which is after the register, or maybe in the clause that refers to the new towns. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 84 shall stand part of the Bill?
1.15 a.m.
Lord MISHCON: It is my sad duty at a quarter past one in the morning, to a patient, persevering, but debilitated and possibly fast-disappearing Committee, to draw attention to one of the most vital parts of the Bill. I do so protesting on behalf of the Opposition that there should be such mismanagement of Government business that a part of the Bill such as this, which gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers over land belonging to local authorities and public bodies throughout the Kingdom, should be taken at this hour, before a Committee of this size.
Let me tell your Lordships right away that I do not propose to test the opinion of a Committee which is in this state. I think it would be absolutely wrong for me to do so, because at this moment the Committee does not reflect the proper opinion of your Lordships' House. Therefore, as I said, on a matter as vital as this I think it would be quite wrong for me to take any vote at all, and I shall have to reserve the rights of the Opposition—I do not know how noble Lords on the Liberal Benches feel about this—that the Report stage. Having said that, I propose very briefly, in regard both to Clause 84 and to subsequent clauses, to make one speech in order to draw the attention of what is left of the Committee at this hour to some of the provisions which the Opposition finds very distasteful and as having no proper part in a local government

1081
Bill which is supposed, indeed, to give greater powers to local authorities and not to diminish them.
As your Lordships have heard, there is a schedule, Schedule 13, which sets out various bodies. Under Clause 82 the Secretary of State takes unto himself the power to add to those bodies or to vary the list in Schedule 13. In Clause 83 he has the power to say to what areas within local authorities this Part of the Bill shall apply. Then, in Clause 84 he sets up a register. At this stage I direct your Lordships' attention only to Clause 84(2)(c), where he has the power to set up a register of land which,
"in the opinion of the Secretary of State … is not being used or not being sufficiently used for the purposes of the performance of the body's functions or of carrying on their undertaking."
There is not a word as to any criteria to be used; not a word as to whether or not there is any question of an appeal by a local authority or a public body as to whether the Secretary of State is taking unto himself these arbitrary powers fairly and justly; no mention of the fact that local authorities are supposed to know best what to do with their land; no mention of the fact that this gives the Secretary of State the power to interfere with future capital projects which the local authority may have in mind, and rid them of every opportunity to carry them out.
Once it is on the register, one might think that it is not so had that it is on the register and that there should be no right of appeal to be on the register. But what then does the Secretary of State take unto himself within these dictatorial powers given by this part of the Bill? In Clause 85, after dealing with public access to the information in the register, subsection (3) reads:
"A copy of a register sent to a council … shall be available at the council's principal office for inspection by any member of the public at all reasonable hours".
That, one would have thought, was a perfectly harmless subsection to put in. It is in fact an open invitation to all the property speculators there may be to come and have advance notice of the land that the Secretary of State has arbitrarily decided shall be land which he feels the local authority has not properly used, or is not about properly to use. So at once advance information is given about this. It would be a little naïve to pretend that
1082
some of the arrangements that people at auctions and at other places are known to make would not be made in this instance, and that people would not get together and say, "There is no point in our bidding one against the other; we had better watch for this land. If you get Parcel 1 we will get Parcel 2, and we ought to be able to get them pretty reasonably".
Now we come to the whole sting of this section; and that is reached in Clause 87 where the Secretary of State can direct a body "to take steps"—and he can specify the steps—for the clause says
"the disposal of the interest … in any land"
and he can lay down the terms and conditions on which an offer to dispose of it is to be made. Again, there is no question of appeal, no respect for the local authority, even to allowing them to decide upon their own terms and conditions upon which they will dispose of the land. It is asking a little much of security—which does not always obtain even in Cabinet circles and even, I may say frankly, in Shadow Cabinet circles. But it is a little odd and a little naïve to think that when the Secretary of State, within the building of his department, is going to lay down the terms—and I assume that means the price or the auction sale reserve, or whatever, and the date when it is all to be disposed of and the time within which it must be disposed of—all this is not going to creep out. And how dreadful to put upon a local authority which owns this land and has acquired it, presumably for some good purpose, that the Secretary of State, in his own wisdom (for, as I have said, there is no right of appeal) can decide it is not a good purpose and the authority will have to dispose of it, as have other bodies, on the terms and conditions which the Secretary of State lays down.
Then, if one looks at Clause 88, there is a right to make representations to the Secretary of State as to the proposed directions and its contents. One would have thought that at long last one would have had some sort of direction to the Secretary of State within this Bill as to the matters that he must take into account—the reasonableness of the time within which the disposal is to be made and all the rest. But nothing like that is laid down. The only thing he has to deal with is set out, as your Lordships will see, within Clause 88. There, one reads:

1083
"the Secretary of State may not give a direction unless he is satisfied that the interest to which the direction would relate can be disposed of in the manner in which and on the terms and conditions on which he proposes that it shall be disposed of without serious detriment to the performance of their functions or the carrying on of their undertaking".
It is not even "to the detriment"; it has to be "to the serious detriment". If this is passed, we are giving to the Secretary of State the power to decide whether something is to the "serious detriment" of a local authority or other public body. What an insult to the members of the local authority that it is the Secretary of State who shall be the only person to decide what is to their "serious detriment"—they who are the elected representatives within that area!
I said at the beginning that I entered a protest on behalf of my noble friends at the fact that this very important, innovative clause of the Bill is being taken at this hour. I have said that I have no intention of trying to seek the opinion of such a diminished Committee. Having made the observations that I have made, I will listen with great respect to what is said from the Front Bench opposite; but I will reserve all the rights of the Opposition to deal with this matter at a proper hour and in a proper way hereafter.
1.25 a.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: The noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, expresses my own views about discussing clauses of this importance at this time of night. The fault lies with the managers of the Government's programme in setting aside what is a comparatively short time for an enormously compendious bill which some people say is 10, 12 or 5 Bills. It is certainly a large number of Bills all rolled into one. The Committee is being asked to make very important decisions which will have lasting significance at an hour in the night when, even with the greatest goodwill, we must be finding our judgment possibly a little warped.
As someone engaged in local government, I personally find Clause 87 particularly reprehensible. It takes an enormous amount of freedom out of local government. I should have thought that local authorities are, on the whole, the best people to know to what uses the land they own is to be put. I was made aware of
1084
the dangers we were facing when the Secretary of State visited Merseyside just after the general election and said: "The first thing I want to see from you on Merseyside is a register of the land that is in the possession of the local authority or other statutory undertakers. I feel that the great number of acres of land which remain undeveloped are a matter about which something should be done".
It is perfectly true that in Merseyside, and in other areas, there are large parts of the central area of the city which appear an eyesore and are undeveloped. They appear an eyesore for reasons which very often are to do with the failure to act by central Government. Large areas have been set aside for an inner ring road, which is highly controversial. Large areas have been set aside for the continuation of a motorway, which very few people seem to want. Often the reason that areas appear to be neglected or unused by the local authority is because of the failure to make decisions by departments of the Government, such as the Ministry of Transport.
I am sure that there are faults at local government level. I am sure that local government retains land that it does not need because it has not made up its mind what to do with it. A large part of the blame rests with central Government. At the end of the day, decisions about the use of land in a local authority area are best made by the local authority in consultation with and knowledge of the views of local citizens rather than by a remote central Government department legislating for them.
I find it difficult to discuss the important fundamental changes in the status of local government and its ownership of land at nearly half past one in the morning. I intend for my part to do the best I can by shutting up at this point.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: At half past one in the morning I have only a few sentences to add. I feel very sad. Some of us here have tried diligently from all sides of the Committee to make something of this matter in defence of the heart of democracy. Here, sadly at this time of night, we are pushed into making decisions. We are all getting a little irritable and we are not as keen and bright as we usually are. It is tragic. This is not a smiling matter. The destiny of local government

1085
and the destiny of local people, local systems of government (which are older than central Government) are in danger as they have not been since probably before the time of Oliver Cromwell. It is not a laughing matter.
Looking at Clause 88, there is a statutory instrument that can be brought into use. I know an area in Stoke-on-Trent where hundreds of thousands of houses have been knocked down but the land has been left derelict because there are no funds and no complete plan available. We are now opening up for "cowboys" and all types of speculators to jump in and we will have the shoddy kind of buildings that have ruined parts of Britain before.
It is no good running into the lobbies; we can be overwhelmed in the vote. Many noble Lords opposite are loyally supporting the Government while in their hearts they know there are lots of problems arising from this Bill. It should not have only a week of discussion but a couple of months of discussion in depth.
The Earl of AVON: In spite of the late hour, I presume that your Lordships would like me to reply in some way to your comments. I should like not to take up too much time in talking about dictatorial powers, because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has spoken of them in regard to quite a number of other parts and has been answered by my noble friend. But I would take issue a little on the register itself. I was under the impression that land registers featured in the Labour Party's manifesto. I am therefore rather surprised that there is not more wide-ranging support for land registers.
Your Lordships may take issue on the fact that we have given a little too many teeth to these land registers, in which case I shall take the point. But I do believe, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, that we need something to stimulate people into using their unused land which is lying idle. This, I believe, is why land registers were thought about in the first place. I am sorry that noble Lords are seeking to delete the register provisions from this Bill, as I believe it should be the view of the House that something positive needs to be done about the problems of unused and under-used land, particularly in urban areas—
Lord MISHCON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, who in the short time he has been addressing this Committee has shown so much courtesy. But I hope I made it perfectly clear in my remarks that I was not objecting to a register as such. I drew special attention to the one sub-paragraph which, in my view, gives powers far beyond what should be given to central Government. That is Clause 84(2)(c), which reads:
"that in the opinion of the Secretary of State the land is not being used or not being sufficiently used for the purposes of the performance of the body's functions or of carrying on their undertaking".
It was not the register that I objected to.
The Earl of AVON: I come back again to the dictatorial point. But, equally, noble Lords spoke of innovative proposals, which I took to mean the register of land. However, it may be that when I read the report tomorrow I shall see that noble Lords did not mean that. Anyway, something has to be done to solve the problem and in making known the existence of such land through registers we feel that we are taking a positive step forward. The processes leading to registration should create a situation in which the holding bodies become more aware of the potential of their land. There is nothing dictatorial—just awareness.
At first sight, the register provisions may appear to rely unduly on subjective tests. I acknowledge that there is no hard definition of "unused" land. There is no watertight way of doing this. It is something which has to be left to the judgment of the Secretary of State, in the light of all the relevant facts. It also has the advantage of allowing us to proceed somewhat experimentally and to learn as we go. I am sure that this is the best way.
It is important to make clear that registers are not "black books". There may well be very good reasons why land is held unused or in token use only. This can simply be noted in a register. Since we shall be starting the registers by calling for information from owning bodies, there is ready-made opportunity for them to comment or explain why they feel that a particular site should not be registered. But even if the Secretary of State does register, there is still no harm

1087
done. The power of direction has safeguards attached to it.
It is hoped that the process of registration will activate unused land. It is to everyone's advantage that it does. There is no need to clog the process with elaborate procedures. It is far better that they are kept lightweight and flexible. It has been suggested that the power of direction is an interference with the affairs of local authorities and other public bodies. This argument needs to be seen in the context of the Government's overriding policy objective of activating this unused public land. The point here is whether or not Part X of the Bill should contain a power to enable the Secretary of State to make it work by directing land release, if the information-collecting processes of registration are not a sufficient stimulus in themselves; that is, if registers have not stimulated an authority, there is now a power with the Secretary of State. It is not so frightening. As I have said, the policy objective of activating land is overriding. The problem of unused public land is a visible one, as Lord Davies has said, and must be solved. I could speak for much longer, but in the spirit of this at the moment I think I will end there.
Lord UNDERHILL: The noble Earl referred to the Labour Party and registers of land. But that is a different register of land from that referred to in this Bill. This is not all land. This is only land held by local authorities and public bodies, and it would be wrong to assume that all unused and under-used land is in the hands of public bodies and local authorities. One has only to travel around the country to see derelict sites attached to commercial undertakings, many with "For Sale" notices up due to the present circumstances. If we are going to have a register of land available for developers, which is what Clause 85 says, then it ought to be a register of all land and not only part of the land.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon emphasised the point that there is no appeal. Noble Lords who are well versed in local government know the very detailed machinery which a local authority must go through at present if it wishes compulsorily to purchase land. It may be the same sort of land that now is going to be subjected
1088
to a direction by the Secretary of State without any procedure, without any appeal of any kind whatsoever. I hope that point will be considered by the Government.
I want to make two other very brief points. There is a possibility, because of the register being compiled in this way, of land being sold at a deflated price, which means that instead of accruing the proper value to the community the local authorities and public bodies will lose the value which they might have had if the matter was handled in a different way. What safeguard is there that a developer who purchases land in this way will use it immediately? He may decide to sit on it and wait, because he can get it at a cheap price now, or he may decide to sit on it and sell it at a later time. There is not a single safeguard of that description in this Bill.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: There is another vital point. Clause 85(4) says:
"If any member of the public requires a council to supply him with a copy of any information contained in such a copy of a register, the council shall supply him with a copy of that information on payment of such reasonable charge for making it as the council may determine".
This is an opening for groups of people just to deal with public land, not derelict land that businesses have given up. We are in the Community of Europe. If a company is formed in Brussels to invest in public land in Britain we have no possibility of stopping a group of Frenchmen, Germans or others under this clause, because we are part of the European Community. In the same way, they can make contracts to supply goods to the local authorities today. All of this should have been thought about in depth, but we cannot do it now.
Lord MISHCON: As I said, I have no intention at this hour—I know the Committee will not think me discourteous in saying this; I have already made my protest—of answering the Government's case or dealing with it. I have tried to analyse the sections of this part which the Opposition finds offensive. As I said, I have no intention of taking from a Committee which is not capable of expressing it the opinion of this House at this hour, because of its numbers and because of the lateness, on a matter of such vital importance.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State]:
1.39 a.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 76, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Where a direction given under this section specifies such terms and conditions as are referred to in subsection (2) above, the body to whom the direction is given may appeal to the Lands Tribunal and the Tribunal may, in determining the appeal, revoke or vary any of those conditions.")
The noble Viscount said: I will be very brief. I agree entirely with all that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the iniquity of Clause 87, and I would hope that at a later stage we may be able to get rid of it. But, in case we are unable to do that, we should try to meet the point that has been made both by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is no provision for appeal of any kind against the decision of the Secretary of State as to the terms on which land is to be disposed of. The only provision—I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to it—is in Clause 88(2), where a body which receives a notice under subsection (1) may make representations to the Secretary of State, the very person who has laid down the direction. It seems to me a most extraordinary arrangement.
I am sorry that neither of the two noble Lords who throughout the proceedings until now have been so eloquently expressing the views of the local authority associations is here. I should have thought that this was a matter upon which the local authority associations would have the very strongest views. I have suggested in this amendment, although I am not at all competent, really, to make a suggestion, that perhaps they should have an appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
The noble Lord on the Front Bench said some while ago that the Lands Tribunal has nothing to do with planning but has to do with valuation. It might be that if an appeal were developed to the Lands Tribunal a local authority which had been required to sell land on certain
1090
terms and conditions could at least have it checked by the Lands Tribunal as to whether a reasonable price and reasonable conditions were attached to the disposal of the land. I beg to move.
1.42 a.m.
The Earl of AVON: I am afraid there are three reasons why I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. First, as a matter of Government policy, the intention is that the territorial Secretary of State should consider, against the wider policy objective of activating unused public land, the case for and against directing a disposal. It would be unacceptable to have appeals on a measure of policy beyond the Secretary of State.
Secondly, safeguards are provided for owning bodies, as the noble Viscount mentioned, within the framework of Government, in that the power of direction can only be exercised where the "appropriate Minister" with day to day responsibility for the body concerned is satisfied that the land can be disposed of, in the manner and on the terms and conditions specified, without serious detriment to the performance of functions or the undertaking. A further formal appeal beyond that in Clause 88, involving appeals against the terms and conditions of a direction, would have little relevance. The relevant considerations are those referred to in Clause 88—whether the land can be disposed of on the terms specified without serious detriment. This is something that the appropriate Minister is best placed to consider. Leaving aside the question of principle, to introduce other considerations and other areas of responsibility would make the whole procedure cumbersome and bureaucratic; there would be duplication and delay.
Thirdly, in this context the role proposed would be inappropriate to the tribunal as I think the noble Viscount himself mentioned. The application of policy to certain circumstances is an area better reserved to Ministers answerable in Parliament.
I have two further comments which may in some way answer some of the remarks made after I sat down on the previous clause. I would add that Ministers already have wide-ranging powers and duties in respect of those

1091
public bodies for which they are responsible and that the exercise of these powers may include the issuing of directions with consequences for the present and future operational performance of those bodies.
I would also make clear that it is the intention that market value considerations should normally apply to disposals involving registered land. To this end the manner and terms of a directed disposal will usually be a matter for sound professional advice. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to accept this explanation and withdraw his amendment.
Viscount SIMON: I accept that the Government's policy is to give the Secretary of State the right and, indeed, the responsibility to decide that this or that piece of land ought to be disposed of and that it would be inappropriate to ask the Lands Tribunal to be a court of appeal, so to speak, on that; but surely, on the terms and conditions, it would be reasonable to have some court of appeal. Right at the end of his remarks the noble Earl said that market values would usually rate. One difficulty about that is that it is extremely difficult to establish a market value for large pieces of land where, in all probability, there is only one probable purchaser.
I should have thought that there should be an appeal or a reference, if the noble Earl prefers that, to some independent body—I am rather ignorant about these things, it might be the district valuer—rather than just to have the Secretary of State saying, "these are the terms on which you are to dispose of this land". The noble Earl said that he understood that it would normally be the intention to dispose at market price, but I think that it is very difficult to establish objectively the market price for a large piece of vacant land. I hope that that matter might be considered further by the noble Earl. In the meantime, I shall withdraw the amendment if the Committee will allow me.
Lord MISHCON: I do not want to be at all unfair to the noble Earl. If he tells me that he would prefer to answer me hereafter on this matter, either in writing or when we reach another stage, I shall understand it completely. I do
1092
want, however, to give the Committee some understanding of the precise nature of the power given to the Secretary of State, without any tribunal of appeal, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The question that I ask is this: could he possibly differentiate before the Committee between the following—"detriment", "substantial detriment" and "serious detriment"? "Serious detriment" are the words used in the Bill. Can he tell the Committee how the Secretary of State would distinguish between detriment, substantial detriment and serious detriment?
The Earl of AVON: I thank the noble Lord for giving me a little time on this. As we are dashing about, as it were, on Part X, I should prefer to answer it when we take it more specifically.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord RENTON Lord RENTON moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 76, line 16, leave out ("It is hereby declared that").
The noble Lord said: These words are quite unnecessary. An Act of Parliament is for making laws, not for making declarations. These words are otiose. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I support that. I thought that I was reading Torquemada, because that is the kind of mediaeval language that used to be used. It is a revelation of the subconscious power that the Government are taking into their hands. We make laws; we do not declare them. I do not know whether the noble Lord is experienced in law. I am a layman in law, but I do understand something of semantics. That is why I support the amendment.
The Earl of AVON: Perhaps I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, on this. The Government have listened carefully to the noble Lord and are willing to accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Repeal]:
1.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, it is yet another deplorable example of the Government's mismanagement, not only of this monster of a Bill but of their whole programme, that we have to consider at this hour of the night one of the major problems that has faced this country for a good many years and which will face it for some years to come. Consequently, like my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I shall not attempt to test the opinion of the Committee at this hour, nor indeed to deploy in full the argument about it. I hope we may be able to return to that at a later stage. For the present, I shall say only that the repeal of the Community Land Act would mean losing an opportunity for solving a long-standing problem that may be briefly described as follows: how to prevent gross profiteering in land values without at the same time drying up the supply of land coming forward for development.
The country has shown that it was beginning to find the right answers to that problem in the procedures for the new towns, in the work of the local authority in Wales. If the Government had come forward and said: "There are defects in the working of the community land scheme in England and we propose this, that and the other improvement," we should have been glad to co-operate with them to that end, but to destroy the Act altogether is to throw away any opportunity of completing the task that the nation had already promisingly begun; and it is particularly evil to do that at the present time, when the air is full of exhortations to people who work for their living not to be unreasonable in the requests that they make for salaries and wages. At such a time it is particularly important that there should not be flagrant examples of people getting large sums of money for doing nothing at all. That is in effect what the Government are doing by repealing the Community Land Act at this stage. It is allowing the process of getting something for nothing to go on unchecked. This is not the time or place to test the opinion of the Committee, but I hope we shall be able to consider this matter as fully as it deserves at a later stage.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The Government view on this matter is that to repeal the Community Land Act is, so far as we are concerned, to get rid of a good deal of unnecessary bureaucracy. With regard to getting for the nation the development value of land, the structure of the Community Land Act is quite unnecessary for that purpose. The development land tax obtains that for the nation.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: But we have already been told in a sort of aside by one member of the Government Front Bench this evening that the development land tax is being reconsidered.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I am sure noble Lords would think it right that every tax should often be reconsidered, but the point I am making is that obtaining the development value for the nation is done by the development land tax and, provided it is set at a realistic level, then the initiative of those who hold the land will ensure that a reasonable supply of land comes forward. There are ancillary provisions in the Community Land Act which are of some utility in helping local authorities to buy land where circumstances so require and these we are retaining, but the major structure of the Act, its bureaucratic need for intimation of every planning application to the local authority and saying what they are going to do about these, as well as the requirement which may exist upon owners to notify the council whenever they are thinking of selling their property, does not seem to be of any utility whatsoever. It is also of some interest that a very considerable amount of the money which has been spent in relation to this Act has been spent in administration. I hope that your Lordships will see your way to agreeing that Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Community Land Act]:
1.54 a.m.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 221A:
Page 165, line 31, leave out ("re-enacts or supersedes") and insert ("includes provisions re-enacting or superseding").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady White, and by leave of the Committee I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B at the same time. One small correction is needed in Amendment No. 223B, namely in paragraph (bb) (ii) the second "authority" should not have a capital "A", because with a capital "A" it would mean the Land Authority for Wales.
Section 16 of the Water Act 1973 gives persons who propose to erect buildings on the land and local authorities power to requisition from the water authority public sewers for domestic purposes for land which they are developing. The Land Authority for Wales is not able to exercise these powers because it is not permitted to develop land to the extent of erecting buildings; nor is it within the definition of "local authority" in the Act. The Land Authority for Wales is placed in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis private developers and local authority developers. Considerable difficulties can arise in various ways. For example, a site served by a sewer is always a more attractive proposition to a developer, but to a small builder it can often be an essential prerequisite because of the costs involved having regard to the size of the development and the timescale.
A further example is where the Land Authority for Wales acquires a site and seeks to dispose of it in parcels suitable for the requirements of small builders; the requisitioning power is essential because it is highly unlikely that an individual builder would be financially able or prepared to requisition a sewer for the whole site, and there are often considerable legal and financial difficulties in attempting to requisition a sewer for the site on a joint basis.
Another difficulty is that the Land Authority for Wales on occasion will seek to provide serviced sites—that is, sites provided with roads and sewers—with a view to then offering such serviced sites to developers, often in small parcels but not always so. Where it is the intention so to do, then unless such sites adjoin a public sewer the lack of requisitioning powers precludes such form of development.
This amendment places the Land Authority for Wales in the same position as local authorities. It is a reasonable
1096
proposition and I would hope that the Government would be prepared to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that it is only reasonable that in the matter of making land available for development the Land Authority should have powers similar to those of local authorities, and it is acknowledged that local authorities have the necessary power to requisition sewers, which is the general effect of this group of amendments. Indeed, from what the noble Lord has explained to the Committee, if it were not for this group of amendments there is no question but that the Land Authority would be bringing land forward which would be of interest almost solely to the large developers, and the danger would be that the Land Authority would find themselves concentrating their efforts on the provision of land for the larger builders who can make their own arrangements for servicing sites. This is something we would not wish to be writing into legislation. The Land Authority will of course be serving both large and small developers. For those reasons, very clearly explained by the noble Lord, the Government are very ready to accept this group of amendments.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: This will be much appreciated in Wales and I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 168, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Any notice served under paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 7 before the passing of this Act shall cease to be a local land charge on the passing of this Act; and where any such notice has been registered as a local land charge the registration shall, without prejudice to any rules made under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, be cancelled accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is simply a tidying up provision designed to ensure that notices served by local authorities under the Community Land Act saying whether they intend, or do not intend, to acquire land shall no longer be a local land charge and that all references

1097
to them shall be deleted from the local land charge registers.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 92 [The Authority's functions]:
2 a.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 79, line 9, after ("forestry") insert ("of business and industry").
The noble Lord said: In subsection (2) (d) of Clause 92, the Land Authority for Wales is asked to consider before it acquires land the needs of those engaged in building, agriculture and forestry and of the community in general. I do not think that it is reasonable in the ordinary usage of phraseology in this country to assume that trade and industry is covered by the phrase, "community in general". As trade and industry is directly and specifically affected by development of land, whether in the provision of the raw materials or in the use of the development when complete, I suggest that it should be specifically mentioned in order to make the point clear. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: There is no intention on the part of the Government that the Land Authority should neglect the needs of business and industry and so as regards that matter I agree with my noble friend. Where I must confess that I have to disagree with my noble friend is in that we believe that subsection (2)(d) of the clause covers this consideration when it requires the authority to take account of the needs of the community in general.
I shall explain a little further why I place my faith in those words. We would not want to appear to be instructing the Land Authority to place the same emphasis on the provision of land for industry and commerce as it will be expected to do where land for house building is concerned. There is a considerable shortage of housing in various parts of Wales and we intend that the authority should continue to concentrate the main weight of its activity on the residential front. Do not let us forget that we are continuing in essence, but
1098
with different powers, the work of the Land Authority which has been done for the last four years or so under the chairmanship of Lady White.
What I have said does not imply the exclusion of the work of the Land Authority from the provision of land for commerce and industry; it has already provided very useful sites for those purposes and will continue to do so. But my noble friend will recall that, in Wales, there is another Government Agency with land provision powers—the Welsh Development Agency—whose main duty is the encouragement of industrial development and which has the powers and the money to set up advance factories for incoming industrialists. It does not seem that it would be desirable for the Land Authority to be expected to compete in the WDA's own particular field, especially if the result were a lessening of the Land Authority's activities in the residential sphere.
It is against that background that specific reference has been made in subsection (2)(d) to the needs of those engaged in building. Perhaps I should add before I finish that it is true that we mention specifically agriculture and forestry in this subsection. But in doing that the Bill is drawing attention to the importance of protecting these activities wherever reasonably possible. In Wales, a high proportion of land is devoted to agriculture and forestry and many people, both inside and outside the Principality, depend upon the well-being of these activities in a variety of ways. We are, therefore, impressing upon the authority the need to avoid encroachment upon this type of land use wherever possible, and that is why forestry and agriculture are specifically mentioned.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that to make this amendment would be to place an undue emphasis on one element in the Land Authority's activities, apart from the promotion of housing. The authority has not overlooked in the past the area of activity to which my noble friend is drawing attention and, in the extremely unlikely event of its doing so in the future, the Secretary of State for Wales will have the power under Clause 91(4) to direct it on the matter. With that explanation, I hope that perhaps my noble friend will feel that it is possible to reconsider the amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: With the greatest possible respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I think that there were certain parts of what he had to say which were contradictory. But I shall have to take great care to read what he said and consider whether any further amendment is necessary at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 79, line 21, after ("drains") insert ("sewers").
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 223B:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Requisitioning of sewers.
. In section 16 of the Water Act 1973 (water authority's duty to provide sewer)—

(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) there shall be added" or (bb) if—

(i) the Land Authority for Wales are the owners of the premises at the relevant time; and

(ii) the Land Authority require the Authority to provide a public sewer for the drainage of new buildings proposed to be erected on the premises by any person; and

(iii) the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below (as modified by subsection (3A) below) are satisfied; or";

(b) in subsection (3), after the words "paragraph (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or, subject to subsection (3A) below, paragraph (bb)":

(c) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection:—

"(3A) Where the Land Authority for Wales are the owners of the premises at the relevant time, subsection (3)(a) above shall have effect as if the words "or by any other person" were inserted after the word "owners", in the second place where it occurs."; and

(d) at the end of subsection (11) there shall be added "and "relevant time" in relation to land owned by the Land Authority for Wales, means the time when the Land Authority require the
1100
water authority to provide a public sewer as mentioned in subsection (1)(bb) above.".")

Schedule 17 agreed to.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 98 agreed to.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 102 agreed to.
2.10 a.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 224:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation in respect of certain orders
.—(1) When by virtue of any scheme or order made under the Highways Act 1980 any section of a route authorised by a previous order or scheme ("the original authorisation") is deleted therefrom any person interested in any land liable to be acquired for that section of that route or in close proximity thereto whose interest has not been acquired but the value of whose interest has depreciated by reason of the original authorisation shall be paid compensation for that depreciation by the authority authorised to acquire the land under the original authorisation.
(2) Compensation payable under this section shall be determined, in the case of dispute, under and in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961, if the land to which it relates is in England or Wales, and under and in accordance with the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, if the land to which it relates is in Scotland as if other land of the person referred to in subsection (1) above had been taken by the authority referred to in that subsection and compensation was payable for injurious affection to the land in respect of which the claim relates.
(3) No claims under this section shall be made otherwise than in the claim period, that is to say, the period of two years beginning on the day on which the order or scheme deleting from the original authorisation the section of the route to which the claim relates is made.
(4) The compensations payable on any claim shall be assessed by reference to prices current on the first day of the claim period.
(5) In assessing the extent of depreciation account shall be taken of the cost of maintenance and improvements which may reasonably have been deferred because of the original authorisation and any other additional expenditure reasonably attributable to the original authorisation").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the

1101
Committee if we were to take Amendment No. 226 with Amendment No. 224, as these are both concerned with the consequences of the deletion from a scheme of any section of the route that was authorised by a previous order or scheme, the first of the amendments being concerned with compensation to persons with property that has been affected by the scheme, and the second with the disposal of land held by the highway authorities for the purposes of that scheme.
The amendments are primarily concerned with the problem of blight which affects the owners of properties which are in the neighbourhood of a proposed motorway or trunk road scheme. Some noble Lords may recall that on a previous occasion I suggested in the Construction of Roads (Time Limit) Bill that if a scheme was not proceeded with before a certain time had elapsed after the Secretary of State had made an order, then it would automatically fall. That was not acceptable to your Lordships. The House was convinced by the arguments pronounced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on that occasion on behalf of the Government, that if the power to construct a motorway or a trunk road were to be withdrawn after five years because the works had not yet been started, the need for the project as shown by the growth of traffic might nevertheless still be there, and so the threat to the property owners concerned would not have been lifted. That was the argument that she put forward and which the House accepted.
Therefore, what I am now doing is to approach the problem from another angle. I am suggesting that if in the end a scheme is abandoned, then the persons whose property has been injuriously affected, perhaps over a period of a great many years, should be entitled to reasonable compensation. If I may, I shall—as I did on the occasion of the Construction of Roads (Time Limit) Bill—use the example of the M.23 extension to illustrate the point. The line of the M.23 between Hooley and Mitcham is, if I may say so, a glaring example of the injustice which may result from motorway schemes, and of course there is no way of making restitution for the grave disadvantage suffered by residents in the immediate neighbourhood of the line of this motorway and of others similar to
1102
it over a very long period of time, by reason of the fact that they could not either sell their homes at all or, if they did, it was at a viciously depressed price compared with similar properties which were not affected by the scheme. In all likelihood there will have been thrown up as a result of the cuts in the trunk road programme—which of course in other respect I very much welcome—similar cases elsewhere. They may also have highlighted the absence of any satisfactory arrangements for the disposal of land and dwellings which are no longer required as a result of the schemes being abandoned.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke, one of the Junior Ministers in the Department of the Environment, said in a Written Parliamentary Answer on 26th June:
"There is no legal basis for payment of compensation in retrospect for any adverse effects during the past period of uncertainty."
That relates to persons whose homes are in the vicinity of a trunk road or motorway and who have been in the position I have described of not being able to sell the property, or having to sell it at a very depressed price.
Do not ordinary considerations of fairness indicate that a person who has been locked into a property because its value has been gravely reduced by ministerial action should be able to look to that Minister for some form of redress, or to some sort of public authority for compensation for the financial loss he has suffered over a great many years? In the case of the M.23 the line was designated a long time before the order was made on, I think, 1956. The people who were living along this route had their houses injuriously affected going back to a period before the war. It is rather like the South Orbital Road in my former constituency. That was a line marked on the map by the authorities in pre-war days and sterilised from building throughout the period up until the middle 1960s, so that people whose houses were on either side of this open space were never sure that at some time in the future a dual carriage road might not suddenly appear on their doorsteps. That was the position of the people living in the neighbourhood of the M.23.
When the representatives of the M.23 action group—and particularly Mrs. Lorraine, to whom I must pay tribute as I

1103
did on the previous occasion for the remarkable struggle she has kept up over the years on behalf of the residents in the area—saw Mr. Clarke, the Minister, in December last, he turned down the idea of including a power in this Bill on the grounds that it was already large enough. That sounds funny now when we see the number of enormous amendments that have already been accepted to this Bill, and surely it is an unacceptable argument when there is a question of principle at stake. If the Minister had only this objection to the proposal put forward by the M.23 action group, then I do not think that he ought to have accepted the very substantial amendments we have made, and it showed that he at that time at any rate was unable to think of any other objections of substance to the very reasonable proposal that Mrs. Lorraine put forward.
I am not going to pretend that the formula which has been devised in this particular amendment is perfect. The question of compensation is a fearsomely complex subject and the tribunals might not be the ideal authority to determine contested cases even if the wording had been perfect in the first place. All I would hope to achieve at this stage is some kind of recognition by the Government that payment is due to those people who have had to suffer a great many years of economic and psychological hardship for the supposed benefit of the vanishing motorists of the future.
Amendment No. 226 makes provision for the disposal of land which is no longer required for the trunk road or motorway scheme such as the one about which we are talking, and I might add that the revocation order for this stretch of the M.23 makes no reference at all to this matter. What is proposed here is that the highway authority shall be obliged to dispose of the land which has been acquired for the scheme and that it shall revert to the previous use without the need for any further planning permission to be obtained. Where the highway authority has built houses on the land and has leased or let them, as has happened in the case of the M.23—I am sure it would be the same with other examples—the second new clause obliges the authority to offer the dwelling to the tenant or lessee or, if he does not want to buy it, to the person willing to
1104
continue letting the property. The object is to see that residential property continues to remain as such and is not redeveloped, if that can be avoided. Ordinarily, and bearing in mind the discussion we had on the previous clause, I would not have sought to oblige the highway authority to dispose of land in their ownership, but if that authority were to retain the land, there would be a continuing threat hanging over the heads of the residents in the neighbourhood that at any time in the future the scheme could be resuscitated if any Government so wished. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I have listened closely to the noble Lord's explanation of the two amendments and we are well aware of his keen interest in the subject. I regret that, although I understand the point of view he has put forward, I am not able to support his new clause, not for the reason he referred to but for other reasons. The concept underlying the first new clause is that property which was under threat of acquisition for, or stood near to, the designated route of a proposed road will have depreciated in value for that reason, and that although a firm decision has been taken not to build the road, owners should still be compensated for "historic" depreciation. I find that a somewhat difficult concept to reconcile with the reasonably rigorous logic on which the compensation code is based. The new clause would give the owner whose property is adversely affected by an order for a highway scheme a statutory entitlement to compensation, but only if the order which has caused the depreciation is cancelled. That does not seem to me a sound basis on which to found a new entitlement to compensation, especially one which included rather special heads of compensation under which those eligible could well be more favourably treated than other owners who may at some stage actually be touched by a road scheme and have suffered actual loss.
One could test the new clause by applying it to somebody, to take an extreme case, who had bought their house immediately before the claim day. It would be very odd indeed if people who had come in immediately before the claim day should be entitled to claim, yet if one looks at the clause, it relies entirely on

1105
property values at the date on which the order deleting the road is made, so I find it hard to see how this could work as a possible claim at all in principle. There are also matters of detail, but perhaps I need not trouble the Committee with those at this stage. That is the point of principle which I find very difficult about the noble Lord's proposal.
Regarding the second new clause, once the scheme has been departed from and an order has been made to cancel the scheme, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport as highway authority for trunk roads has no power to retain land which is no longer needed, and once the land is known to be surplus, steps are taken by the department to dispose of it. In the case of local highway schemes—I appreciate that the example is a trunk road scheme and that that is the principal matter referred to by the noble Lord, but perhaps I can say this to complete the position—it is for the local authority to decide whether to dispose of property which is surplus to highway requirements or to appropriate it for some other use. If it does not have some other use for the property, it would be obliged to dispose of it.
So we do not see any special need for a compulsitor, as it were, being put on the road authority to dispose of the houses which have been bought in contemplation of doing the road. We think that the forces that will tend towards that situation are in any case sufficient to achieve that purpose.
So far as the planning proposals of the second clause are concerned, our attitude is that generally speaking there will not have been a planning permission for a change of use during the time that the noble Lord has referred to; but if the planning position was such that a change of use was justified, it is not easy to see why the mere cancellation of the road necessarily would reverse that and make the former use appropriate.
I should perhaps also mention that procedures for the sale of surplus land held by Government departments is under review, and a consultation document on this issue was put out on 3rd October. It is also suggested that other public authorities with land to dispose of might well follow these proposals. I am sorry
1106
that I cannot feel able to recommend either of these two new clauses to your Lordships.
Lord AVEBURY: I am not sure whether the Minister was suggesting that simply because the order had been revoked, the owners, who might have suffered interim loss during the period when the scheme was in force, had now had their property restored to its original value. If that is what he was seeking to imply, then it certainly is not correct, because if one looks at properties that are in the immediate neighbourhood of the M.23, one sees that there is no doubt at all that they are valued at considerably lower prices than are equivalent houses some distance away. The reason for this is that there has been neglect by property owners of premises which they thought were under the threat of being demolished, or which came very near to the line of the motorway. They did not see any purpose in spending money on properties which in any case had depreciated in value. So the character of the neighbourhood has declined very sharply over the very many years that this scheme has been hanging over the head of the locality.
It is that reduction in the value that I hoped the Minister would have agreed in principle justified some compensation, although I entirely take his point that if someone moved in the day before the revocation order came into effect, it would be wrong that he should suddenly be able to claim compensation by virtue of the new clause that has been tabled. I am perfectly happy to take back the new clause and have another look at it, with a view to seeing whether this particular defect can be rectified.
On the second new clause, the matter is immensely complicated, as I said, and I should like to see what exactly is the import of the Minister's reply before I decide whether to reintroduce this proposal at the next stage of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 224A, 224B and 224C not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Assessment of development land]:
2.24 a.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 87, line 38, at end insert ("and which is in conformity with the structure plan of the county planning authority and the local plan of the district planning authority").
The noble Lord said: This clause provides that the Secretary of State may direct a local authority to make an assessment of land which is available and suitable for development for residential purposes. I cannot fully comprehend the purpose of this assessment, but I should have thought that local authorities would already have had this information. However, if it helps in any way, naturally I shall not resist the clause. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the Secretary of State will discriminate as to which local authorities will have this direction, and that a local authority must comply with any directions that the Secretary of State may give in connection with this assessment. Therefore, I consider it necessary to have safeguards against any possibility of arbitrary action.
During the Second Reading debate I expressed concern on this matter, and other noble Lords did likewise, and said that it must be ensured that this clause would not lead to any encroachment on Green Belt land. Following the Second Reading debate the Minister kindly wrote to me on various matters, including the comments I had made on this particular question, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his usual courtesy in sending that letter. Lord Bellwin stated that the provisions in this clause were reserve powers. I am always a little concerned about reserve powers unless there are qualifications attached to them.
The noble Lord also kindly sent me a copy of the DOE circular of the 15th April 1980 on this matter, entitled Land for Private Housebuilding. I must ask noble Lords if I may read a section of this circular, because I think it is rather important. Paragraph 9 reads:
"If an assessment reveals that a five-year supply of land in line with structure and local plan policies is not available, the authorities concerned should take immediate steps consistent with those policies to make up the deficiency. These might include inviting and expediting
1108
planning applications, seeking to overcome infrastructure problems quickly"—
I do not quite know what that means—
"or being prepared to acquire compulsorily land needed for development which an owner is unwilling to sell".
Then it goes on:
"In determining planning appeals for residential development the Secretary of State will take into account whether in the context of the advice in this circular sufficient housebuilding land has been identified as available for development in the area of the district".
This may seem all right on the surface, but I am a little concerned about the provisions in that paragraph and in the Bill because of statements which have been made that there could be some relaxation on the part of the Secretary of State regarding Green Belt land; and this amendment seeks to provide that the land to be included in this assessment must be in conformity with the county structure plan and the local plan. As the noble Lord the Minister assured me in his letter that this clause will not lead to the erosion of the Green Belt, I am sure he will welcome this amendment, which strengthens that position and makes it absolutely clear. I beg to move.
The Earl of AVON: As I think the noble Lord is aware, it is no part of the Government's policy to undermine the structure and local plan system through which a local community determines where development shall take place in its own area. The purpose of Clause 104 is simply to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to direct a local authority to carry out a site-by-site assessment of land for residential development in its area in collaboration with local builders. Local authorities were requested to carry out such assessments in the department's circular Land for Private Housebuilding, issued last April, and I am very pleased to tell your Lordships that assessments are already under way in 40 out of the 45 counties in England. It is unlikely, therefore, that my right honourable friend will ever need to use this power, and he certainly hopes not.
Land assessments are essentially fact-finding. A major objective is to ascertain whether land is actually available for housing in physical, ownership and commercial, as well as planning, terms to meet the scale of housing provision

1109
envisaged in structure and local plans. If it is not, then some action will be needed. But the assessment process itself is purely neutral in policy terms. Of course, the local authorities will have full regard to their development plans in making these assessments. The clause specifically refers to land which is in their opinion suitable for residential development. But it would be unwise to limit statutorily the local authority and the builders to examining only those sites actually identified in structure or local plans. To begin with, structure plans do not normally identify specific sites. Although local plans are much more specific, they may at any time be overdue for review.
Planning is necessarily a continuing process. There is also the point that some land is brought forward from time to time through the appeals system as departures from existing plans. It would be unrealistic, therefore, to omit from the scope of an assessment suitable sites which, for one reason or another, have not been identified in a development plan. The assessment would produce a distorted picture of the land supply situation in the area and defeat the purpose of the exercise.
I fully appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to preserve the integrity of the planning system. But I can assure them that their amendment is unnecessary. It does not, as drafted, have quite the effect they intended and it could, as I have explained, prove unnecessarily restrictive in certain circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord UNDERHILL: In view of the statement by the noble Earl, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment; but, having said that, we shall watch the position carefully. There have been published statements by the Secretary of State which seem to suggest that he might be prepared to see encroachment on certain parts of the Green Belt. That will have to be watched with care.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Extension of powers to make grants for reclamation of land]:
2.32 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 225ZA:
Page 88, line 29, after ("derelict") insert ("contaminated").
The noble Lord said: At 2.30 in the morning, it is a lovely amendment that I have and it would be a wonderful thing if we could wake up enough for the Minister to accept it. Clause 105 extends the power to make grants for the reclamation of land. This is important. In that clause we say that land which is derelict, neglected and unsightly or which requires reclamation or improvement shall have a grant. I want to insert after "derelict" the word "contaminated". The Prime Minister in 1974 eulogised the Control of Pollution Act 1974. She considered this and couched her speech and phraseology as follows—and I am paraphrasing. She said that although it might be dull, this was one of the most important Acts we had to improve the quality of life in many parts of Britain. We shall do all we can to assist the passage of this Bill because it is of importance to the quality of life.
A great deal of land in our inner cities is unusable for many purposes because it is contaminated with chemicals. In our modern, sophisticated life—and I have an interest in the chemistry of pharmaceuticals—there is waste from all kinds of factories. Some of it is dangerous and highly contaminated. It is not mentioned in this Bill. Since it is contaminated with chemicals, there is a particular case for attention. This is particularly true in London. In the case of London's dockland, the reclamation of contaminated land is important; but let us remember that reclamation of land with chemical contamination may be more expensive and more necessary for the health and the life of the people who live contiguous to that land. Expensive reclamation is bound to be necessary for that kind of contamination. The Bill should make it clear that contaminated land will be included in the provisions for a grant. I could expand on this but this is not the time of day or night to do so. The nub of my amendment is clear. I hope that I shall get a positive answer. I beg to move.
The Earl of AVON: At 2.34 in the morning I am only sorry that I cannot be very helpful in response to the noble Lord's impassioned appeal. There is no statutory definition of derelict land. Now, however, to be rather Irish, I will give one. Contaminated land is included within the definition of derelict land for administrative purposes:
"land so damaged by industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment".
So contaminated land is included.
It is not necessary therefore to refer to such land specifically in this clause. Indeed, it would be illogical to do so without also referring to the other categories of land which come within the wide-ranging administrative definition including, for example, pit heaps, mineral excavations and disused industrial and railway land. It would be impracticable and make the application of grant more restrictive to spell out in the clause all the types of land attracting, derelict land grant under the present administrative definition; but contamination is included. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am grateful. That is a very pleasing reply. I am too tired now to expand my speech. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord GAINFORD Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 91, line 3, after ("section") insert (""county" includes Greater London and "district" includes a London borough, and accordingly—

(a) any reference to the council of a county includes a reference to the Greater London Council; and

(b) any reference to the council of a district includes a reference to the Council of a London borough;").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 319B. A problem has arisen concerning the eligibility of the council and the London boroughs to receive derelict land grants under Section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972, as proposed to be amended by Clause 105(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. As it stands, Section 8
1112
of the 1972 Act empowers the Secretary of State to make derelict land grants to
"the council of the county or county district in which the land in question is situated".
Section 14 of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, by an amendment to Section 8(4) of the 1972 Act, provides that
"'county' includes Greater London and 'district' includes a London borough…".
Clause 105(2) of the Bill would substitute three new subsections for subsections (1) to (5) of Section 8 of the 1972 Act. The proposed new subsection (1) empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to
"the council of the county or district"
in which the land in question is situated. There will no longer be a subsection (4) of Section 8, so the amendment to the present subsection (4) made by Section 14 of the 1978 Act will no longer operate. Accordingly, the Council and the London boroughs would be excluded from any eligibility to receive grant under Section 8 of the 1972 Act as it would be amended by the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of AVON: Let us end on a happy note. I accept the point made by the noble Lord that one effect of Clause 105(2) as presently drafted will be to deprive the London authorities of grant under Section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972 to which they might otherwise have been entitled. This was certainly not our intention, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing the point to my attention. I gladly agree the amendments which he has proposed.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
Lord DENHAM: This is probably the time of the day when we might reasonably resume the House. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
House resumed.