LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL

HL Deb 28 October 1980 vol 414 cc313-92

Consideration on Report resumed, on Amendment No. 124: Page 76, line 31, at end insert ("and shall provide for the refund of 50 per cent. of the prescribed fee in cases where the application is refused and where the applicant not being a body corporate is the owner and occupier of the dwelling-house to which the application related.").

Lord MONSON

My Lords, I do not propose to repeat all the arguments that I advanced in favour of this amendment just before the Report stage of this Bill was adjourned an hour or so ago. I listened carefully, as always, to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on this amendment. I was very grateful that he expressed considerable sympathy for it, which made me all the more disappointed that he felt unable to accept it. I can understand the misgivings of those who felt that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, went a little too far in view of the general economic urgency of reducing public expenditure.

It was the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (and I regret that he is not in his place) who asked what was the point of imposing charges in the first place if owner-occupiers, who form a large proportion of all applicants, are to be excluded altogether from charges. That is a point of view with which one can sympathise. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has informed us that 92 per cent. of owner-occupiers who apply for planning permission have their applications granted. What is more, this amendment provides that only 50 per cent. of the fees be rebated to the remaining 8 per cent. of owner-occupier applicants whose applications are refused; and owner-occupiers themselves comprise only a proportion of the total.

Therefore, the total revenue which the Government anticipate to be raised by charges being made for planning applications will be reduced by no more than 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. if this amendment is carried—which makes a considerable contrast to the effect of Amendment No. 122 on which the House divided before the adjournment. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, also suggested that this amendment, if carried, might lead to repeated frivolous applications. If 100 per cent. of the fees were to be rebated that would be a valid argument and that would be a strong possibility; but I suggest that, with 50 per cent. of the fees to be retained, in practice this would not occur. I feel that this is a very much more modest and widely acceptable amendment than that on which we divided an hour ago. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept it.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I do not know that I can add anything to what I said when I spoke previously to this particular amendment. I fear that anything I say will be repetition. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will excuse me from dilating further. He knows the reasons why I said we could not accept the amendment, while I personally expressed some sympathy for what it tries to achieve.

Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON

My Lords, I understand the problems of the noble Lord the Minister. While I should have preferred my own amendment to have been carried, it seems to me that the Government would probably find that the average applicant would feel a little less incensed or outraged, or perhaps just a little less dissatisfied, if he felt that if his application was unsuccessful he would have the opportunity to get some of his money back. I concede that it would involve an increase in bureaucratic work. That is the problem, but it is a problem which goes to the root of charging for planning application. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has my support.

Lord MONSON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his support. I think that I answered adequately on two counts the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I think that this will affect public expenditure to a minimal extent and that it will produce a much fairer result as far as the owner-

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

occupier is concerned. Because of the discouraging effect of retaining 50 per cent. of the fee, I do not think that it will induce or in any way lead to repeated applications of a frivolous nature. I feel that this is a matter of considerable interest to owner-occupiers. I think it is fair, and therefore I am not proposing to withdraw the amendment.

8.6 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 124) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 71.

8.15 p.m.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 125: Page 76, line 32, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2A)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment on Amendment No. 121. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 126: Page 77, line 4, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2A)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 121. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 127WA: After Clause 83, insert the following new clause:

("Planning permission . The grant or refusal of planning permission shall be in writing signed on behalf of the appropriate local planning officer and any document purporting to grant or refuse planning permission which is so signed shall be conclusive evidence that such permission has been lawfully granted or referred as the case may be by the appropriate local planning authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, so that there is no misunderstanding in any part of the House, may I say that this amendment is moved with the encouragement of the Law Society, of which I am privileged to be a member. There is some doubt in our law (which is not removed so far by any part of this Bill) as to the validity of a planning permission. The situation can be rather complicated by this Bill, because if for any reason a borough or district council has failed to consult, as might be required by a development order, the legal position of the applicant is unclear if in due course he receives what purports to be a valid planning permission duly signed by an officer authorised by the district or borough council.

The Bill so far, and without this amendment, is silent as to whether the document purporting to grant permission in these circumstances is a valid permission. That is so in spite of the provisions of Schedule 16, paragraph 51, of the Local Government Act of 1972. This amendment will make it quite clear that if planning permission is received properly signed by or on behalf of an authority which is entitled to give planning permission, that is as far as the applicant or any third party who may be interested in it has to look. This provision therefore makes it quite clear that such a permission is a valid permission. I beg to move.

Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON

My Lords, as a fellow solicitor, I feel that this is a very useful amendment and I hope that the Government accept it. We can see that it comes from the Law Society from the archaic legal word in the third line of the amendment as printed in the Marshalled List. It is a word not often seen outside legal documents: "feruse"! That is probably Norman French for "refuse". Apart from that, I support the amendment.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, with this amendment may I also speak to Amendment No. 127XA? The Government appreciate the desirability of clarifying exactly what constitutes a decision on a planning application. The existing legislation and decisions of the courts leave the position unclear. Our own proposals for clarifying the position had to be excluded from the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill for lack of space. The noble Lord has put forward his own proposals, on lines different from the Government's, and I am grateful to him for his efforts in tackling this problem.

I appreciate that there are genuine differences of opinion about the best way of proceeding and that there were those who expressed disquiet about our own approach. Nevertheless, I do not consider that the noble Lord's approach is preferable; and, indeed, I see considerable drawbacks in what he is proposing. The wording of the two amendments leaves considerable room for doubt as to what their combined effect would be were these provisions to be inserted into the legislation; but the intention appears to be to separate the decision itself. There is no justification for doing this and it would serve merely to confuse everybody. The Government's proposal would have made it clear that the decision had not been given until the applicant had received written notice. It would have followed that the Council's resolution did not itself constitute the decision and could be reconsidered up to the time the written decision was sent. The noble Lord's amendments would appear to be trying to secure the same effect so far as the method of deciding the application is concerned, but would make the effective date of the decision relate back to the date of the council's resolution.

This provision serves no useful purpose. It is effectively "backdating" the local planning authority's decision and can only lead to confusion and uncertainty. In particular, it would be unfair to the applicant to make the earlier date the effective date for commencement of the period within which he must exercise his right of appeal, or the effective date in so far as the local authority's duty to determine applications within eight weeks is concerned. The only fair approach is for the effective date for these purposes to remain the date of the written notification.

Having said that, I accept that there are differences of opinion as to how the existing legislation should be clarified. I wonder whether, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments so that all concerned can give more thought to the matter and bring forward some considered proposals on another occasion. I must tell him that I am not certain what I mean by "on another occasion", in the sense whether or not we are referring to the last stage of the Bill or if it will be later. I suspect that it will be later. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that this is very much a technical matter, as we see it.

Lord MISHCON

My Lords, I really felt that I was putting a simple proposition before the House. I now find myself enmeshed, as most likely do other noble Lords, in some technical language which I should wish to spare the House at this hour. Once before I referred to a rather lovely speech that I heard the first Viscount Samuel make on a very happy occasion, which was the centenary of the modern Civil Service. After paying his tribute to those who had been responsible, as he said, for the advancement of his political career he smiled at his audience and said: They have one attribute I shall never forget. They have a problem for every solution". Listening to the noble Lord the Minister, who read so assiduously from his technical brief, I find that he has a problem for the solution that I tried to bring forward to the House and which obviously is needed.

There are two quick points I should like to make. One is the question of the validity of a permission. I do not think the Minister has any doubts about the necessity for that, and that it should be brought forward. There is also the question of the date from which it should operate, whether it is the date of the meeting or whether it is the date when it is sent out from the authority. It would be reassuring if one knew that this would not delay the sending out of a permission by the authority, but some of us who have had experience of these matters know that very often there is an unreasonable delay.

I should be the last person in the world to try to press these amendments on your Lordships if the Minister has said, as I understand he has said, that he realises the problem and that something has got to be done in the Bill itself to make these positions perfectly clear. In view of the elementary nature of the problem, if I may say so, I hope this can be done by Third Reading. It does not seem to me to present so many difficulties. I can merely ask the Minister to do his best to do it by Third Reading; in any event, I am sure he will do it before the Bill leaves this House. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw this amendment, and in due course, when the next amendment is called, I shall ask leave to withdraw it, too.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MISHCON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 127XA: After Clause 83, insert the following new clause:

("Date of planning permission. . The effective date upon which a planning permission is granted or referred by local planning authorities shall be deemed to be the date upon which either (a) the appropriate resolution was passed either by the local planning authority or by a Committee or Sub-Committee of the local planning authority in either case exercising powers delegated to them pursuant to section 101(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, or (b) a document rescinding a decision to grant or withdraw planning permission was agreed by an officer in exercise of powers delegated to him pursuant to section 101(1) of the Local Government Act 1972.").

The noble Lord said: In the circumstances that I have already mentioned, I ask leave not to move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 127XA not moved.]

Clause 84 [Local plans—expedited procedure]:

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 127YA: Page 77, leave out lines 8 to 29 and insert— 15A.—(1) Where—

1. (a) a local planning authority have prepared a local plan; and
2. (b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to its adoption as are mentioned in section 12(2) of this Act; and
3. (c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the local plan,

they may take those steps and adopt the local plan, whether or not the Secretary of State approved the structure plan first. (2) Where—

1. (a) a local planning authority have prepared proposals for the repeal of a local plan and its replacement with a new local plan; and
2. (b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps preliminary to its repeal and replacement as are mentioned in section 12(2) of this Act; and
3. (c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the new local plan,

they may take those steps and repeal the existing plan and adopt the new one, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first. (3) Where—

1. (a) a local planning authority have prepared proposals—
1. (i) for the alteration of a local plan; or
2. (ii) for the repeal of a local plan without its replacement with a new plan; and
2. (b) the Secretary of State gives them a direction authorising them to take such steps pre- 322 liminary to the alteration or, as the case may be, the repeal of the local plan as are mentioned in section 12(2) of this Act; and
3. (c) at the time when he gives them that direction he has not approved the structure plan so far as it relates to the area of the local plan,

they may take those steps and adopt the proposals, whether or not the Secretary of State approves the structure plan first. (4) The powers conferred by subsections (1) to (3) of this section may be exercised by a district planning authority notwithstanding that they have not obtained a certificate under section 14(5) or (7) of this Act, but subject to the other provisions of that section and to the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of this Act. (5) Before adopting—

1. (a) a local plan; or
2. (b) proposals for the repeal or alteration of a local plan,

in exercise of the powers conferred on them by this section, a local planning").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, despite the length of this amendment its sole purpose is to remove defects in the present drafting of the new Section 15A. I shall not go into detail unless your Lordships wish me to do so. I beg to move.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, if it removed all the defects from this Bill it would be a great deal longer.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.25 p.m.

Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 127ZA: Page 77, line 31, leave out ("may be") and insert ("the county planning authority consider").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think the amendment to Clause 84 which your Lordships have just approved makes any difference to the force of this amendment. It is a small amendment, but I should have thought that, in circumstances of this kind where we are looking for expedited procedure for adoption and alteration by local councils, a concept of which we all approve, if this procedure is going to be implemented then before adopting the plan or the alterations in the circumstances outlined in the amended clause it would be fairly obvious that the authority to decide whether modifications are necessary is the county planning authority, since the county planning authority is the authority which is responsible for the structure plan. This amendment has been suggested to me by some county authorities to make clear beyond peradventure what I think is intended in the legislation. It is on those grounds and not in any sense to create controversy that I move the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to make the county planning authority instead of the designated planning authority—which may be the district—responsible for deciding what modifications are necessary to keep an expedited local plan in general conformity with a county structure plan as it stands for the time being. Clearly, therefore, the noble Lord's amendment is in conflict with the existing provisions of the 1971 Act and in particular with Section 10C. I respectfully suggest that the proposal advanced by the noble Lord is unnecessary because Regulation 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1974 requires that when the authority which prepared a local plan proposes to modify it before adoption, it shall prepare a list of the proposed modifications, with reasons for proposing them, give notice by advertisement of the proposed modifications and give an opportunity for objections to be made to them. The authority has a duty to consider those objections and also a duty to ensure that on adoption the local plan is in general conformity with the structure plan.

There is a further safeguard. At the stage when the authority has decided to proceed to adopt the local plan it is required to give by advertisement public notice of its intention, and, if the county council or anyone else are not content, they can make representations to the Secretary of State. He has power to direct the local authority not to proceed with adopting the plan until he has decided whether or not he should call it in for his decision. Finally, I must point out this amendment seeks to do the very opposite of what we regard as being one of the most vital aspects of the planning part of this Bill—namely, the removal of the overlap of planning functions between county and district, which I should have thought would have appealed very strongly to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in particular. So far this has not been a problem in the preparation of plans where structure plans are a county responsibility and local plans are normally the responsibility of the districts. I wonder if the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON

My Lords, I stand with my head bloodied but unbowed. If I were to say to your Lordships that I shall read the Hansard report with interest and concern it would not be entirely true. What I shall do is make sure that those people who put me up to moving this amendment read the Hansard report with concern and care. I shall make sure that they come and give me a full explanation as to why they proposed this. I thank the noble Lord for his explanation and I shall look forward to conversations in the near future with certain people in the North-West. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Segal)

In calling Amendment No. 127ZAA, I have to point out a printers' error; this should be numbered as Amendment No. 127ZAAA. Amendment No. 127AA already appears as the penultimate amendment at the foot of page 15 of the Marshalled List. Therefore, I call Amendment No. 127ZAAA.

8.30 p.m.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 127ZAAA to 127ZAD: Page 77, line 37, after ("alteration,") insert ("repeal or replacement,"). Page 77,line 42, leave out from ("local") to end of line 44 and insert ("planning authority's exercise of their powers under this section as if the proposals for alteration, repeal or replacement of the structure plan had been approved by him."). Page 78, line 8, leave out from ("modifications") to ("for") in line 10 and insert ("which the local planning authority are to make to a local plan or to proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of such a plan before adopting the plan or the proposals,"). Page 78,line 13, at end add ("or, if the structure plan is to be repealed and replaced, for the purpose of bringing the local plan into general conformity with the new structure plan as it stands for the time being").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 127ZAAA, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 127ZAB, 127ZAC and 127ZAD. I would simply say that these amendments make a number of minor drafting corrections to the provisions in the new Section 15A, set out in Clause 84. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 13 [Amendments relating to surveys and plans]:

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 127ZB: Page 184, line 31, leave out from ("State") to end of line 37 and insert ("shall cease to have effect. (1A) In section 7 of that Act (preparation of structure plans)— (a) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) to (3):— 7.—(1) The local planning authority shall, within such period from the commencement of this section within their area as the Secretary of State may direct, prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval a structure plan for their area complying with the provisions of subsection (1A) of this section. (1A) The structure plan for any area shall be a written statement—

1. (a) formulating the local planning authority's policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land in that area (including measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic); and
2. (b) containing such other matters as may be prescribed or as the Secretary of State may in any particular case direct.";").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first part of this amendment stems from one which was moved by my noble friend Lord Ridley, which sought to remove the requirement for a planning authority to send to my right honourable friend a report of their view of matters under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, when submitting proposals under Section 10 for the alteration or repeal and replacement of an approved structure plan. My noble friend's amendment gave us food for thought, and we concluded that not only should the requirement to submit a report of the Section 6 survey be removed from Section 10 but, by the same argument, it was no longer necessary to require submission of a report of the Section 6 survey in Section 7, which relates to the initial preparation of the structure plan.

The second part of this amendment reenacts the procedures of Section 7(3) as amended by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which I mentioned before, at least in connection with the proposals to which he referred when we were discussing this matter in Committee. This is necessary only for technical drafting reasons, to fit the present amendment properly into the existing provisions of Schedule 13. I beg to move.

Lord UNDERHILL

I should like, my Lords, to ask for some information. I am certain that if I show my ignorance the noble Lord the Minister will put me right in his usual very charming way. Looking through the various sections of the Bill dealing with planning, I am always puzzled by the fact that on some occasions we refer to the district planning authority and to the county planning authority, and then suddenly we find a reference to the local planning authority. In this case, we refer to the local planning authority, which I presume, in view of the context, refers to the county planning authority—

Lord BELLWIN

No.

Lord UNDERHILL

Then it makes it all the more important to define it. I notice that in the amendment we have just carried on Clause 84 reference is made to the local planning authority, but in Section 4 it is said that these powers can be exercised only by the district planning authority. The fact that the phrase is used in some cases and not in others leads to some confusion.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I think that is a very fair comment. The local planning authority is always the district planning authority. The county planning authority deals with the structure plans and matters pertaining to them. Local plans are dealt with by the local authority. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I have never known it to mean anything other than the district planning authority.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

Or the London borough authority concerned.

Lord BELLWIN

Of course, my Lords, with many apologies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

I have to point out that if Amendment No. 127ZB is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 127A.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am in some difficulty over amendment No. 127A and I do not quite know how to get in order again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

I understood that if Amendment No. 127ZB was called and agreed to I was not able to call Amendment No. 127A.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 127ZAA: Page 185, line 20, leave out from ("matter") to ("and") in line 22.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 132ZB. Both amendments relate to the availability and publicity of the results of the survey which structure plan authorities do as a part of the structure plans process. These are detailed requirements which cover matters which are better left to the discretion of local authorities. I am led to believe that they are likely to be acceptable to the noble Lord and therefore I move them fairly formally.

Lord BELLWIN

Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be glad to know that we accept these two amendments. Just before I sit down, although I realise that my noble friend could not move his amendment, I hope it will not be out of order for me to say that we have some sympathy with all these purposes, as we have shown by what has been said to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. If we can look at Third Reading at the particular point that concerned my noble friend about this whole area, we shall endeavour to do so; if not, it could be done at some date in the near future.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.40 p.m.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 127AA: Page 186, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert— ("(4) Proposals under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum summarising—

1. (a) in the case of proposals under subsection (1) of this section, the reasons which in the opinion of the local planning authority justify the alterations which they are proposing; and
2. (b) in the case of proposals under subsection (2) of this section, the reasons which in their opinion justify the repeal and replacement of the structure plan.

(4A) The explanatory memorandum shall also state the relationship of the proposals to general proposals for the development and other use of land in neighbouring areas which may be expected to affect the area to which the proposals relate. (4B) The explanatory memorandum—

1. (a) shall also contain any information on which the proposals are based; and
2. (b) may contain such illustrative material as the local planning authority think appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment achieves two things. First, in debating Amendment No. 203A of my noble friend Lord Ridley in Committee, I undertook to come forward with an amendment at Report stage to remove the requirement for a local planning authority to submit to my right honourable friend a report of their review of matters under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, when submitting to him proposals for the alteration, or repeal and replacement of an approved structure plan. Secondly, in debating Amendment No. 203B of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in Committee, I undertook to come forward with an amendment at Report stage to extend to proposals for the alteration, or repeal and replacement of an approved structure plan the principle of separating the policies and general proposals from the explanatory material. The amendment meets these undertakings and I beg to move.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for meeting the requirements of my earlier amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 127B: Page 186, line 27, after ("accompanied") insert— ("( ) section 11(6); and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker has said, I should like, nevertheless, to speak to Amendments Nos. 127A, 127B, 128A and 185. I appreciate that I am not strictly in order in speaking to No. 127A—

Lord MISHCON

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, and I know that he will not think me discourteous, it is not a question of his being strictly out of order; it is a question of his being completely out of order. In those circumstances I am sure the noble Lord will realise where he stands.

Lord SANDFORD

Completely out of order. Yes, my Lords, I agree. But for reasons which will become clear I, nevertheless, am going to persevere. At the Committee stage on 15th October I moved Amendment No. 316A which sought to repeal Section 7(5) of the 1971 Act—it was reported in Hansard of 16th October because it occurred late at night. That was the section which required structure plans to indicate any parts of the county planning authorities' area which they, the counties, had selected as action areas. My noble friend Lord Bellwin agreed with that amendment, but he pointed out that there were other consequential amendments that were needed in addition to the one which I had tabled. Under that criticism, I withdrew that single amendment and have now tabled four further amendments.

If I may, as it were, depart from the conventions for just a moment, the four amendments which are in my name at this point of the Bill were carefully worked out with officials in the noble Lord's department, and are being moved by me with their help and support. These amendments do not extend to Greater London, which was one of the criticisms that my noble friend levelled against my earlier amendment, because in our attempt to make them apply to Greater London we found that the adjustments would be so complicated as to be almost impossible. Therefore we have to leave Greater London to the tender mercy of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to return to on another occasion in order to get this matter right so far as they are concerned.

Having got this all straight, I had a cryptic message from the department earlier this afternoon to the effect that even now these amendments are not quite perfect, but I have to say that the department have been able to find a form of words which will make them perfect. No doubt, the problem that we got into with No. 127A was due to one of these imperfections. I hope, nevertheless, that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendments that I am able to move and to put the matter into complete perfection at Third Reading. I despair of being able to achieve any more myself. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I accept entirely the purpose that my noble friend Lord Sandford is seeking to achieve by his group of Amendments Nos. 127A, 127B, 128A and 185, but I regret to have to confirm that the drafting of No. 128A, which is the main amendment of the group, is defective, in that the wording of the new subsection which he seeks to insert into Section 11 of the Act does not, at one point, make sense—I mean that with no disrespect. In view of all the complexities, I certainly should not attempt to criticise anyone, but it would appear that a rather more elaborate provision than that contained in the amendment is necessary for the proper achievement of my noble friend's purpose. But we will see whether anything can be done at Third Reading. My noble friend knows that we will try very hard to do that, although there is not much time. If not, he can rest assured that the point will be noted for legislation on the first suitable opportunity that may present itself. But let us not be pessimistic. We really will be trying to have this ready for Third Reading.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is asking me to withdraw this amendment or offering to improve it at Third Reading.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, with the leave or the House, if my noble friend feels able to withdraw the amendment we will try to work together to achieve something.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I much prefer a promise from the Government to move their own amendments. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw this one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 127C: Page 186, line 29, after ("plans)") insert ("as requires a local planning authority who propose to prepare a local plan to take such steps as will in their opinion secure that adequate publicity is given in their area to any relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area carried out by them under section 6 or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this amendment would be acceptable with some slight alteration of which I have advised the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker and the Table. Therefore, I seek to move this amendment with the alteration that, in the final line, it should read: out of a survey of the area carried out under sections 6 or 11 or as opposed to the printed wording.

This amended amendment relates to similar amendments which were tabled on the structure plan, and removes the requirement that local authorities must give adequate publicity to matters arising out of the survey of their area. Again, this is the kind of detail for which central Government control is inappropriate and, as I have already indicated, I understand that this amendment is acceptable in the revised terms. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, as I said earlier, I confirm that this is acceptable.

On Question, amendment, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 128 and 128A not moved.]

8.50 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 128B, which had been printed as follows: Page 186, line 36, at end insert— (" . The following subsection shall be added after section 13(2)(b) of that Act (inquiries, etc. with respect to local plans)— (3) The requirement in subsections (1) and (2) above 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: My Lords, I am sorry to say that, such is the pressure on my noble friend's department, to say nothing of that on myself and the House as well, this amendment needs a correction before we can deal with it. If members who are following this closely would care to keep their eyes on Amendment 128B, I will read the corrected version. It should be corrected to read as follows: The following subsection shall be added after section 13(2) of that Act (inquiries etc. with respect to local plans)— (3) The requirement for a local inquiry or other hearing"— and so on, according to the words already printed on the Marshalled List. That is to say, the small (b) after 13(2) is to be omitted and the words "in subsections (1) and (2) above" are also to be omitted.

This relates to an amendment successfully obtained by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, in Committee to enable authorities to dispense with hearings and inquiries into local plan alterations, providing that all objectors agree in writing. It is obviously logical to extend this to apply to local plans. My understanding is that, with the corrections to this amendment, it might be acceptable to my noble friend, and in that hope and expectation I beg to move it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, Amendment proposed: 128B, page 186, line 36, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List, subject to the correction already mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Sandford. I will read out the corrected amendment in full: The following subsection shall be added after section 13(2) of that Act (inquiries, etc. with respect to local plans)— (3) The requirement 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".

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I am glad to accept the amendment, as amended.

On Question, amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 129: Page 186, line 45, at end insert— ("( ) in subsection (3) after the word "State" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words", together with copies of any objection that may have been made by the Minister of Agriculture and which has not been withdrawn,".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak in general terms to Amendments Nos. 129, 130 and 130ZA and then speak in particular to each amendment in detail as it is moved. All three amendments would achieve the same objective: the protecting of agricultural land against needless development. I should like to remind the House that, as was so well stated in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, these amendments in no way prevent land from being taken for useful development. They only make sure that the concern of farmers over land taken is registered to both the Secretary of State and, even more important, the local authority.

I gave a detailed description of the problem in Committee and I will not bore your Lordships by repeating it. However, I feel that I must remind the House that all three amendments will come into force only when, for example, a local plan has been objected to by the Ministry of Agriculture before an inspector who, having upheld the agricultural objection finds his—that means the inspector's—ruling overruled by the local council: a strange and rare thing and, dare I say, a naughty thing for a local council to do but, sadly, already we have had two examples of it. So I cannot accept the argument that isolated cases make bad law. It is at this stage—and we hope that it will seldom be reached and we are confident that it may never be reached should our amendments be accepted—that these Amendments, Nos. 129, 130 and 130ZA, come into play.

So far as Amendment No. 129 is concerned, the position would be that at that stage of proceedings when the plan is sent to the Secretary of State for approval, attached to that plan would be the inspector's report. This amendment guarantees—that is an important word—that the Ministry of Agriculture's and the council's reasons for overruling those agricultural objections are attached to the Secretary of State's inspection.

Before I finish, I must tell my noble friend Lord Bellwin that in accordance with his wish in col. 102 of the Official Report of 13th October, I have read every single word that he said, at least four times, and I will answer every single point made during those times if he wants me to do so, but in order to avoid confusion may I suggest that the Government should tackle these three similar in action amendments as a schoolboy would tackle an examination paper. The Government are obliged to answer all three amendments. If they concede all three, they will of course score top marks. It may be that my noble friend will say that accepting all three would make a rather clumsy clause in the Bill, in which case I can promise him that I shall hand back to him one or maybe two amendments at Third Reading.

I hope that after that little explanation my noble friend will not play off one amendment against another. Finally, I must remind your Lordships once again that these amendments would, first, draw the attention of local authorities and the Secretary of State to needless—I emphasise the word "needless""—loss of agricultural land and, secondly, would speed up the planning process. I beg to move.

Lord COLLISON

My Lords, I rise to support all three amendments, but I understand that one can speak to them all at the same time. I was going to direct my remarks to Amendment No. 130. It also seems that nearly every time I get on my feet I drag in the Strutt Report. I am doing so again, because the Strutt Committee took a great deal of evidence both from individuals and organisations, and the view was repeatedly expressed to us that not enough was done to safeguard the agricultural interest. It was felt by many people that the urban interest was given priority in far too many cases.

The whole committee studied what was said and came to the conclusion that these criticisms had considerable substance. The committee felt, and I obviously feel, that the planning pattern for the future should pay a much greater regard to agricultural interest and to the needs and interests of that great industry. We were told at that time that the statutory requirement was that all planning proposals affecting agricultural land of over 10 acres should be submitted to the Ministry and we were also told that this regulation was not being diligently observed. We went on to say, supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has said, that the call-in procedure, when there is an unresolved agricultural objection to a planning structure, should not be a matter of discretion, and we strongly recommended that the call-in procedure should be strengthened to make it mandatory to call in such cases where the MAFF so requested. Speaking for all members of the committee, may I say that we believe that all structure plans should specify the priorities attached to agriculture and horticulture and that local plans should also specify these priorities.

I understand that the National Farmers' Union complained that, although a large number of local plans are currently in the course of preparation, there have already been two cases where the plan-making authority has virtually ignored the agricultural objections, despite the fact that in one case—I am speaking of the Staffordshire district council—the agricultural case was upheld by the inquiry inspector, and that in the case of the Humberside county council the Secretary of State ruled that the subject matter of the plan was inappropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said at the Committee stage of the Bill that the call-in procedure for local plans should be used only when the plan raised issues of national importance. Surely, since the Ministry of Agriculture are responsible for the protection of the national farming resources they should be taken notice of when they register an objection to a planning proposal.

Although I have spoken briefly, it must be clear that as one who has for a long time been concerned with the well-being of agriculture and the maintenance of farming as a considerable source of national wealth and income and of great importance to the people working in it, I believe it is essential that these amendments should be taken very seriously by the Government, and I am asking the Government so to treat them.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, let me say at once that we do take the amendments very seriously indeed. When we discussed the noble Lord's amendments in Committee I emphasised that the Government recognised the value of high quality agricultural land and I readily do so again today. What is not in question is the objective. Where we appear to differ is in the arrangements for achieving it. I, too, have carefully considered the points made in the discussion in Committee and I remain of the view that the existing provisions of the Act and the regulations are adequate to ensure that the views of the Minister of Agriculture are taken into account by the Secretary of State before the planning authority may adopt the local plan.

The Secretary of State has complete discretion whether he should call in a local plan or not. In the normal way he will consider the question of call-in after the public inquiry to consider objections has been held and at the stage when the planning authority's views on the inspector's recommendations are known. The regulations then require that the planning authority shall advertise their intention to adopt a local plan, and they may not adopt the plan until 28 days have passed. During that period the Secretary of State, if he requires further time, may direct that the planning authority shall not adopt the local plan until he has decided whether to call it in or not. Accordingly, if the Minister of Agriculture, or anyone else, follows up an objection which has not been met by the planning authority, the local authority can be directed not to adopt the plan until the Secretary of State has decided whether he should call it in.

I can give my noble friend the assurance that if, following the advertisement of the planning authority's intention to adopt a local plan, the Minister of Agriculture has maintained an objection, the necessary direction will be issued to stop the local authority from adopting the plan until ministerial consultations have taken place. In our earlier debate in Committee on this subject both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Sandford, indicated that they would expect me to be able to give this assurance and I am glad to have been able to meet their expectations.

Under the Act and Regulations the Secretary of State has power to call in a local plan for his own decision. In deciding whether or not to do so the Secretary of State has the opportunity to consider any matter relevant to the local plan proposals. Nonetheless, the development plan system is designed to leave the detailed decisions to local planning authorities. It would be entirely contrary to the general intention to introduce an obligation to call in a local plan. It is not necessary because there is provision for the Secretary of State to consider the way the planning authority propose to resolve the outstanding issues before he decides whether call-in is necessary. Moreover, "call in" would cause delay because it would be only in exceptional circumstances that a decision could be reached without a further local inquiry. Difficulties have arisen in the past when attempts have been made to deal with a called-in planning application on the basis of written representations and we must expect the local planning authority to be the first to ask for an inquiry if there was a formal review of one of their decisions.

I am giving the answer in some detail because I think it merits it and I believe the noble Lord and my noble friend would wish me to do so. In Committee I said that I did not think the amendment was 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. I am satisfied that the provisions of the Act and regulations are adequate to cover the points which so concern my noble friend and which he has raised.

It is not the case that district planning authorities can ignore the structure plan when preparing a local plan. They cannot begin the statutory process leading to adoption unless they have a certificate from the county council that their proposals are in general conformity with the structure plan or they have a direction from the Secretary of State under the expedited procedure proposed in Clause 84. This direction can only be issued after consultation with the county council when the question of general conformity with the structure plan would be raised.

I am sure that a district planning authority would regard an objection from any Government department or public authority as a serious problem which they would do their utmost to resolve. They know that the Secretary of State has power to call in a local plan for his own decision. Unresolved national policy issues are precisely the circumstances which are likely to call for ministerial consideration and where the exercise of call-in powers may be appropriate. Nothing in our experience so far suggests that any further provision is necessary to ensure that the fullest regard is given to the importance of the need to retain land for food production whenever possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Collison, referred to the Strutt Report. There have been assertions that that report recommended that if there was an objection by MAFF the local plan should be called in. I believe that is a misunderstanding. The advisory council certainly recommended the call-in of planning applications for the development of good agricultural land which departs significantly from development plans. In the case of development plans themselves, however, the council stresses the valuable contribution that MAFF advice can make when planning authorities are drawing up local plans. While preparing development plans local planning authorities have been accustomed to consulting Government departments whose interests appear likely to be affected and, as your Lordships would expect, this would normally include the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

To conclude, my Lords, I think there was clearly a misunderstanding when my noble friend said in Committee that he did not think that the present arrangements allowed for ministerial consultations. As I have already indicated, not only is there provision for them but I can give him an assurance that they will take place whenever an objection by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is maintained. I have also discussed this matter outside this House with my noble friend in an endeavour, apparently not successfully, to convince him of this point and to satisfy him, and in view of my further observations now I hope that he may feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, if I may intervene very briefly, I know that the noble Lord meant everything that he said and he meant the reality of it. But we have typical examples. Many local plans are now being prepared, and I can think of one in the county of Stafford where the inspector himself approved of the safeguarding of the agricultural land and it was ignored. I think there must be more power in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture. If anything is of national interest besides armaments it is certainly agriculture, and I believe that the party opposite has been dedicated to that for many years, although it was Tom Williams, the Minister of Agriculture in a Labour Government, who rescued the British farmers after years of Tory rule. I hope they will swing …

Several noble Lords

Oh!

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

Knowing the thoughts of noble Lords on capital punishment, I hesitated and put in that lacuna purposely; I did not mean "swing" in the way sonic of my noble friends were thinking. What I do say is that the Minister of Agriculture himself should have the final word, with a committee of his selection, in this matter. That is enough. I am not quite sure that, despite the honesty of the Minister, people afterwards will have the same love of agriculture that he implies in his speech.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, ask the Minister to clarify one point? We have heard of intentions and assurances. Can he tell me exactly where in the regulations he has mentioned there is a duty for the Secretary of State to consider the objections and a duty for the local authority to submit the objections to the Secretary of State?

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I really must smile. If I state, based upon considerable discussions and advice from officials, what the intentions are, I really am not going to say that unless I am satisfied that this is exactly what is proposed. It is not always possible for me at a moment's notice to trot out regulations, some of which are in any case not even completed in some cases, because it is quite normal for that to be so before a Bill is finalised. When I said what I did say about intentions and the position, based on advice given to me in some cases and upon my own experience in others. I would hope the noble Earl might be willing to accept that.

I am told now that in this case I am able to do this, but it does not detract from what I have just said as a general principle. I would refer my noble friend to the Town and Country Planning Act 1974, Section 35(2). I am sure when he has read that he will agree that this is in order.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have read that, and I remain unconvinced.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I also have read Section 35 and I am completely bemused by it, but no doubt somebody can understand it, and hence the reason for this amendment. If I may say one word, I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Collison, talk about the Strutt Report; he must know as much as anybody in this House about that report, having served on the committee. The point I would particularly make to my noble friend Lord Beilwin when he says that all is well is that the Strutt Report said it was not well, and that is what I am going on. I believe Lord Collison's remarks emphasise the importance of an amendment I shall move in a moment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]

9.12 p.m.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 130ZA: Page 186, line 45, at end insert— (" ( ) in subsection (3) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "and shall so direct where any objection that may have been made by the Minister of Agriculture has not been withdrawn before the expiration of 28 days from the date on which the local planning authority have given notice, as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Part of this Act, of their decision to adopt the plan.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the one we moved in Committee and the one that I and my noble friends promised we would re-present on Report. It is not quite the same but very similar. To return again to my noble friend Lord Bellwin's exam paper, this is the amendment that carries the greatest number of marks and the one that we beg him to accept. In this amendment the Secretary of State would be obliged to call a plan in if, after the inspector's report upholding the Ministry of Agriculture's objection and a 28-day period, the council continued against the ruling of that report. The Secretary of State would also be obliged to make a decision, though I emphasise not necessarily in favour of the agricultural objection.

I have to explain to the House that the reason for tabling this amendment so late was due to the courtesy and help I have received from my noble friend Lord Bellwin and his department, who pointed out that my original amendment might force the Secretary of State to intervene in the role of Big Brother. This was far from our intention, and the addition in this amendment of the 28-day "grace period" before the Secretary of State calls the plan in would have exactly the opposite effect to that. So there would be an additional opportunity for the interested parties—and they are the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, objectors and local councils—to discuss the problem during the 28-day period. I would point out that they have had plenty of time to discuss it before but this is yet another opportunity for them to discuss it. Secondly, it would speed up the process, because it would encourage those involved to reach an agreement between themselves, because it goes without saying that no one wants the Secretary of State to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary.

Should all the processes of negotiation fail—it is a very long process as I explained in Committee; and I emphasise that my amendment positively encourages all parties to come to an agreement—then I believe that it is correct for the Secretary of State to look at the plan, which is exactly what this amendment provides for. I beg to move.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and his department for the courtesy and help that they have given my noble friend and me in trying to resolve the matter. We are not far apart. Indeed, we are very close, but the fact is that we want it written into the Bill, rather than have an assurance and some regulation which we are not quite sure about, and which we are advised do not, cover the point to our satisfaction.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I am grateful particularly to my noble friend Lord Caithness for his last remarks. Yes, I suspect that he is quite right about that. However, the drafting of the amendment is somewhat ambiguous, as it is not clear whether the objection needs to be withdrawn before the 28 days or the Secretary of State shall direct before the 28 days. It seems likely that the former was intended. It seems also that if the former were the right interpretation, and the Minister of Agriculture took longer than 28 days to decide to withdraw the objection, the plan must be called in even if the Minister of Agriculture did not wish to maintain his objection. I am sure that my noble friends understand that.

I do not think that there is anything more that I can add to what I said previously. I think it is right that it is a question of how far one accepts that there is the protection that I have mentioned, and for the reasons I have said it, and how far it is felt that it ought to be on the face of the Bill in another way. I think that that is where we must leave it for my noble friends to decide whether or not they wish to press the amendment.I hope not.

Lord MORRIS

My Lords, I must support my noble friend on this point in the light of what my noble friend Lord Bellwin has just said. He has said nothing whatever against the principles of this amendment. He has mentioned only mere matters of drafting and of form. I am convinced that if my noble friend the Minister were to get together with my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Stanley of Alderley they could work out some scheme whereby the principle would not be gainsaid. But there is nothing that I have heard from my own Government's Front Bench that satisfies me that they have given this amendment its proper due.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, by leave of the House, and with great respect, thought that I went to considerable lengths when speaking earlier to the previous amendment to spell out slowly and in detail precisely why I believed that my noble friend's fears were, in fact, unnecessary I went to considerable trouble to do that. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Morris, was not in the House when I said it because, knowing him, I can only assume that that is the only explanation. Having said that, I assure him that, of course, we treat this very seriously indeed. I said so immediately and I have tried at least to show that that is so. I do not think that I can add much more except to say again that we feel that it is not necessary. Certainly, as regards the last point that my noble friend Lord Morris made, we have got together with my noble friends and would do so again at any time with officials and spend whatever time may be necessary to try to assure them that their fears are unfounded.

Lord COLLISON

My Lords, may I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the time and trouble he has spent explaining all this? However, a number of things have been said which cause me unease. In fact, it has been said that all was well under the old regulations. I can confirm that the Strutt Committee, having taken evidence, knew very well that all was not well. Now we have this new promise—if I may call it that—but already, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek said and as I said myself in my speech, there has been an agricultural objection supported by the inquiry inspector which has been completely ignored. So one can well understand that we still feel very uneasy about this. I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, will do, but in order to make our view clear, without any disrespect to the Minister—indeed, reiterating, as I will, our thanks for what he has done—I shall follow the noble Lord into the Lobby.

Lord WISE

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his explanations, but I still cannot understand, when all else has failed, why the Secretary of State for the Environment should not be obliged to call in the proposal in order to look at it with officials, with the Ministry of Agriculture. Surely then the two departments could get together and thrash out some solution to the problem which would be in everybody's interests.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, if there is some flaw in the drafting, of course I should be happy to put it right later. The crucial point of difference between my view and that of my noble friend Lord Bellwin is one of understanding how those of us who live in the country and farm regard the acquisition of our land. Although my noble friend may convince me and some of your Lordships that all of the problems which I and others have raised are taken care of by the Department of the Environment, or Government, and that, of course, there would be consultation between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, and for that matter, any other Government department, I am sorry to say that that is not how farmers and landowners whose land is being taken see it.

My noble friend may not like what I am about to say, but I have to say it. The Department of the Environment does everything that is unpleasant in my life. It takes my land; it makes me into a site of special scientific interest—it does all sorts of nasty things like that. Therefore, I have the gravest doubt about its honesty. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is how I feel, and I am extremely moderate compared with most people—I am sure I am. Therefore, in the interests of the Government and my party, I believe that it is vitally important for them to be seen to be right and to be seen to be understanding my problems and those of the farmers. Apart from speeding up the planning process, this amendment would do just that. I conclude by saying that the best test of my noble friend's sincerity and seriousness about this matter, which he has raised all the time, is please to accept my amendment.

9.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 130ZA) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Evans of Claughton, L.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Ardwick, L.	Fortescue, E.	Savile, L.
Avebury, L.	Gainsborough, E.	Segal, L.
Balogh, L.	Gisborough, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Greenway, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]
Birk, B.	Hooson, L.	Stedman, B.
Blease, L.	Jeger, B.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Kaldor, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Stone, L.
Brockway, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Underhill, L.
Caithness, E.	Mishcon, L.	Vickers, B.
Chelwood, L.	Morris, L.	Wade, L.
Collison, L.	Mountevans, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Northesk, E.	Westbury, L.
Crawshaw, L.	Oram, L.	Winstanley, L.
David, B.	Peart, L.	Wise, L.
Davies of Leek, L. [Teller.]	Pitt of Hampstead, L.	Wynford, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Avon, E.	Gainford, L.	Marley, L.
Bellwin, L.	Gibson-Watt, L.	Marshall of Leeds, L.
Belstead, L.	Gormanston, V.	Mottistone, L.
Cathcart, E.	Gowrie, E.	Northchurch, B.
Cockfield, L.	Haig, E.	Norwich, Bp.
Colville of Culross, V.	Hatherton, L.	Rochdale, V.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Holderness, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Croft, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Sandford, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Inglewood, L.	Sandys, L. [Teller.]
De Freyne, L.	Kemsley, V.	Soames, L. (L. President.)
De La Warr, E.	Killearn, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Kinnaird, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Digby, L.	Kinross, L.	Sudeley, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Long, V.	Torphichen, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L.	Lyell, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Ellenborough, L.	McFadzean, L.	Ullswater, V.
Elton, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Ferrers, E.	Mansfield, E.	Vivian, L.
Ferrier, L.	Margadale, L.	Young, B.
Freyberg, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

9.32 p.m.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 130A: Page 187, line 28, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("subsection (2)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. It became necessary because of amendments made to paragraph 9 of Schedule 14 in Committee in another place. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 130B: Page 188, line 50, at end insert ("shall cease to have effect").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this, I will, with permission,

speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 131, 131A and 132. Nos. 131 and 132 are the main part of this block of four amendments. They are a revision of a matter I brought up in Committee, at which stage the Minister said he agreed with the principle but not with the wording. I earnestly hope this revision of the wording is acceptable to him, and Amendments Nos. 130B and 131A are consequential. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, my noble friend brought forward a similar amendment in Committee, when I explained that while we supported it in principle we could not accept it because of its then minor technical defects. He obligingly withdrew that amendment for further consideration and will be glad to learn that the Government are happy to accept the present amendments—all four of them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 131: Page 188, line 50, at end insert— (" (aa) in paragraph 7 for the words "12 and 14(5) to (7)" there shall be substituted the words "and 12"; (ab) 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 they apply 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 where a London borough council has prepared a local plan as if for the words "county planning authority" wherever they occur there were substituted the words "Greater London Council" and for the words "district planning authority" wherever they occur there were substituted the words "London borough council". (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 section 14(5) of this Act as applied by sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph. (3) Where a joint local plan has been prepared by one or more London borough councils and one or more adjacent local planning authorities, each London borough council shall apply to the Greater London Council in pursuance of section 14(5) of this Act as applied by sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph and each of the other local planning authorities shall apply to the county planning authority for their respective area. (4) Where a joint local plan has been prepared by one or more London borough councils jointly with the Greater London Council sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not apply. 7B. Section 15B(3) of this Act shall apply to proposals for the alteration of the Greater London development plan and to local plans prepared by London borough councils with the substitution of a reference to "the Greater London Council" for the reference to "the county planning authority" and of a reference to "every London borough council" for the reference to "every district planning authority.".").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, my Lords, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 131A: Page 189, line 5, after ("accompanied") insert ("shall cease to have effect").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, my Lords. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 132: Page 189, leave out lines 6 to 14 and insert— (" (c) in paragraph 12(2) —

1. (i) for the words "After preparing a local plan" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to section 15A(3) of this Act, when a local plan has been prepared and, in a case where the council preparing it are required to obtain a certificate under section 14 of this Act they have obtained that certificate,";
2. (ii) the words "and at such other places as may be prescribed" shall cease to have effect; and

(d) so much of paragraph 12(3) as authorises the Secretary of State to prescribe the particulars contained in a statement accompanying a copy of a local plan sent to him under paragraph 12(2), shall cease to have effect. (2) The provisions of sub-paragraph (1)(aa), (ab) and (c)(i) of this paragraph shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 132ZA: Page 190, line 9, at end insert— (" ( ) In paragraph 9(2) of that Schedule, for the words "section 10(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 10(5)".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to correct a drafting mistake. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I am glad to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 132ZB: Page 190, line 14, leave out from ("areas") to ("to") in line 16.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving an earlier amendment. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I said at the time that we would accept this amendment, too.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 14 [Further planning amendments]:

9.36 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 132A: Page 191, line 31, 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

1. (i) shall prepare the first part of his report comprising a summary of the evidence led at the inquiry together with his findings of fact;
2. (ii) shall provide a copy of the first part of his report to every party to the inquiry, if so required by any of the parties;
3. (iii) shall consider any comments received by him from any such party within seven days from the furnishing of the first part of his report;
4. (iv) may, after consulting all the other parties to the inquiry, amend the first part of his report, so however that he shall not, except with the consent of all parties, introduce into his report any matter that had not been raised at the inquiry.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin will continue in his accepting mood and so help retain this happy atmosphere. An earlier amendment of this type was advanced in Committee when my noble friend Lord Bellwin said that it went wider than the recommendation of the Franks Committee on which a similar provision was based in Scotland. He also said that more detailed procedure would have to be provided. In tabling this amendment I have endeavoured to cover both those points. The provisions are taken from Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Inquiries Procedure) (Scotland) Rules (Statutory Instrument 1964 No. 181) which, it is understood, will shortly be confirmed after a recent review.

As explained in Committee, the provisions are designed to prevent the Secretary of State from being misled by factual errors in inspectors' reports. The White Paper on the Report on the Review of Highway Inquiries Procedures suggested use of the Scottish procedure south of the Border. It is undoubtedly needed, as some recent examples show. In an appeal in Staffordshire the inspector left out of his report an undertaking by the appellant not to leave open and unrestored at any time more than 10 acres of the site—an undertaking fundamental to the applicant's case. The second example relates to an inquiry concerning a number of different minerals extraction sites in which the appellant sought to transfer part of one site so that it formed part of another. The inspector's report failed to make it clear what areas of land are consented, and this is still open to dispute between the applicant and the county council.

In answer to another point made by my noble friend in Committee, I should say that the amendment would not generate a further right of appeal and would not permit further subjective comments by the parties involved; rather it would prevent protracted and unnecessary argument later. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, this altered form of the amendment originally proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone in Committee goes beyond the recommendation of the Franks Committee, which was that the principal parties should, if they wished, have an opportunity of proposing corrections to the factual part of the inspector's report. It tends to bear out what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said in Committee by extending that opportunity to all the parties appearing at the inquiry, which of course is the Scottish practice.

To my mind the amendment in its new form clearly indicates the scope for delay which the proposed procedure would introduce. I understand that in Scotland six weeks' delay usually occurs in observing similar procedures in highway inquiry cases and that no instance of a material error of fact has been revealed by it. The citing of two examples in England, which I believe date from the late 'sixties, where omission or imprecision in an inspector's report may have significantly affected the Secretary of State's decision, or the parties understanding of that decision, does not I suggest override the strong objections to introducing an additional hurdle in all those planning appeals falling to the Secretary of State to decide. As my noble friend Lord Colville pointed out in Committee, the provisions for an appeal to the High Court offer the means for correcting those rare lapses which may occur. I wonder whether, in view of that, my noble friend may feel able not to press this amendment.

Lord MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I am indeed sorry that my noble friend the Minister is not still in a happy, accepting mood; but I understand his argument and I think it is not easy to answer. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.41 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 133: Page 193, line 17, after ("for") insert ("the carrying out of works of").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I raised the meaning of the phrase "a contract for redevelopment" at Committee stage, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, promised to have a look at the precise meaning of it. He has been extremely helpful about this, and in order to assist in clarifying the meaning I have put down an amendment which indicates that the contract referred to is the contract for actually carrying out the works of redevelopment; that is to say, the building contract. I am sure that this is a real advance in getting as precise a meaning as possible into the Bill. As amended, this condition should now ensure that listed buildings are not demolished under listed buildings consent until the last possible moment before redevelopment in the manner for which their demolition has been agreed. I hope the Minister will find my amendment acceptable. I bea to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Mottistone will not feel that there is any particular significance in it, but, yes, I do accept this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Evans of Claughton)

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 134ZA I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 134A.

The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 134ZA: Page 194, line 17, leave out paragraphs 13 and 14.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I strike as the Minister is in a very receptive mood, and I hope that he will be able to accept this amendment of mine, which relates to tree preservation orders. The Government are committed to reducing ministerial interference in local government affairs. One way in which this can be accomplished is to remove the requirement for the Minister's confirmation of tree preservation orders. At present, under Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 the procedure is that a local authority makes a draft tree preservation order and the owner then has an opportunity to make representations, but if he does not object to the TPO the local authority may confirm it themselves. When he does object he may appeal to the Minister, whose consent will be necessary before the TPO can be confirmed.

Schedule 14, paragraph 13, removes the requirement for the Minister's confirmation, and by implication the right of appeal disappears. On a matter of principle I object to the loss of the right of appeal. The consequences of the imposition of a TPO can be very grave when it is imposed on an area of woodland. The owner's financial interest in the value of these lands can suffer greatly, and it is unjust that he should suffer any loss without the right of appeal. In these circumstances, I think it is only right that an owner should have the right to challenge it.

In another place, when this point was raised in Standing Committee D, the Government's answer was that an owner will still have the right of appeal at a later stage if and when he makes an application to the local authority to fell the trees and he is refused permission. In my opinion, a right of appeal against refusal of felling consent is not a sufficient safeguard from the owner's point of view. By the time he reaches that stage a presumption will have developed that the TPO really is in the interests of amenity, and I think he would have more difficulty in rebutting that presumption at a later stage than he would have had when the TPO was first mooted. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, the House will recall that we discussed this at some length in the context of Clause 1 and its dependent schedules, and I do not want now to repeat the excellent arguments made then by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Schedule 2 to the Bill, however, with its provisions relaxing the Secretary of State's involvement in smoke control orders and noise abatement orders, was then approved, and I believe that it would be inconsistent to abandon this principle by the deletion of paragraph 13 of Schedule 12.

Tree Preservation Orders, my Lords, are local matters par excellence. It is hardly unreasonable that local authorities should be empowered to confirm them themselves. This paragraph will, moreover, permit local planning authorities to confirm orders with modifications, so that they will be able to implement compromise solutions such as are often reached under the current system of confirmation by the Secretary of State. Nor will the rights of the individual be endangered by this move. The practical effect of a tree preservation order is only really felt when the owner of the trees wishes to carry out work on them and is refused permission to do so by the local authority. In these circumstances he has a right to appeal to the Secertary of State under Section 103 of the Planning Act 1975 against the local authority's decision. I should emphasise that the Government have no intention of removing this right of appeal. In these circumstances, therefore, the Secretary of State's jurisdiction at the order-making stage can be transferred to local authorities without any significant detriment to the interests of the tree owner but with perceptible advantages in the reduction of bureaucracy.

I turn now to the effect of the amendment on paragraph 13(b), which deals with the distribution of order-making functions between county and district planning authorities. We have been over this ground already also on Clause 75 and I shall not speak again at length on it now. But, by virtue of section 182(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, the power to make tree preservation orders is exercisable by both county and district authorities and there is at present no allocation of the function between the two.

Paragraph 13(b) of Schedule 12 is intended to clarify this position and, with certain refinements, reflects the recommendations of the ACC/ADC joint working party on overlapping functions. This simplification of responsibilities has been widely welcomed, and I would urge the House not to abandon it now. Finally, my noble friend's amendment would also remove the repeal of the Secretary of State's power to make regulations about provisional tree preservation orders contained in paragraph 14 to Schedule 12. I have said enough, I hope, my Lords, to explain the reasoning behind the changes in respect of tree preservation orders which the Government are proposing.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

My Lords, I shall read with interest what my noble friend has said, and I hope that f shall be able to agree with him. The matter of appeal is one of principle and f feel that I cannot withdraw this amendment.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 134A: Page 194, line 47, at end insert— (" (2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall affect any order submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation before the passing of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that it approved amendments to Schedule 2 which provided for transitional arrangements to obtain where smoke control and noise abatement orders had been made but not confirmed upon the Bill's passage. Amendment No. 134A applies the same principle to tree preservation orders. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.50 p.m.

Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS moved Amendment No. 135: Page 195, line 12, at end insert— (". In section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following sub-section:— (4A) A district council may by resolution determine that a conservation area or any part thereof, within its area shall be deemed to have been approved as an area of special control, as provided for in subsection (4) of this section. Before adopting such a resolution, the district council shall notify the press of the proposed resolution and consider any objections it may receive.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I explained in considerable detail the purpose of this amendment during the debates on Second Reading and at the Committee stage, and I therefore do not propose to repeat it again today. I sincerely believe that local authorities should be given more direct powers to control outdoor advertising in conservation areas. The Government, I know, do not share this opinion. They maintain that local authorities already possess all the powers that they need. Be that as it may, I think that we can all agree that such powers as exist are not being sufficiently used. If therefore the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, I ask them to take steps to draw the attention of local authorities to the powers which they possess for this purpose and encourage them to make fuller use of them. In that case, I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, as I have emphasised all along, my noble friend and I fully appreciate and understand the importance of respecting and preserving the character of areas of architectural and historic interest, particularly conservation areas. In order to meet the-concern expressed today and during the Committee stage, we propose to send a letter to local authorities urging them to make fuller use of the powers already available to them for controlling advertising. This is something that we shall certainly be watching. In Regulation 16 of the control of advertisement regulations there is a power to issue a discontinuance notice in any circumstances where the local planning authority thinks it is required. to remedy a substantial injury to the amenity of the locality". There are two particular advantages to that procedure as an alternative to the procedure which my noble friend favours. First, it is a more discriminating approach in that it need not necessarily be applied to all advertisements in a defined area. It is not therefore a question of all or nothing. Secondly, it does not involve the planning authority in payment of financial compensation even if there is a successful appeal to the Secretary of State. The information that I have is that local planning authorities make relatively little use of this power and I should therefore like to commend it to them through noble Lords who are spokesmen for the local authority associations and invite them to make more use of it where it is appropriate in conservation areas. Of course they will have to be prepared to show there is substantial injury to amenity from the advertisements in question. That will probably be less difficult for them to prove in a conservation area than it would be elsewhere.

We shall also remind local authorities that existing legislation provides that an area of special amenity interest may with the approval of the Secretary of State be declared to be an area of special control for outdoor advertising. The Government recognise that in appropriate cases a conservation area or some part of it may well be of sufficient amenity interest to justify its designation as an area of special control. We can assure local authorities that any request that they may make to the Secretary of State for the designation of such areas will receive most sympathetic consideration. Having given these assurances, I welcome my noble friend saying that he will be willing to withdraw his amendment on the understanding that the local planning authorities are being encouraged to make the fullest appropriate use of this alternative means of improving the quality of outdoor advertising in all our conservation areas.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, from this side of the House, for all of us who have known the work of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, over the years in the other place for the arts, conservation and other attitudes towards this part of one's life—which is something more than material—this is a welcome signal to the noble Lord that attention has been paid to this important amendment. So I would ask whether on top of what the noble Lord said—and I know he is busy and overworked—could he get his department to send a circular emphasising the points which have been raised? With that, I shall sit down and not delay the House. I am grateful that this has been accepted.

Lord MOTTISTONE

My Lords, without wishing to delay the House, I confess that although it is satisfactory that my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys should be invited to withdraw his amendment, this attack on advertising is ill-advised and greatly exaggerated. I disagree very strongly that the Government should do anything more than is reasonable in the way they say they will. I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek.

Following the Committee stage, I flew to Strasbourg and back the week before last. It was very significant going from the airport in Strasbourg to the centre of the town and back again to see that there were an enormous number of advertisements, some of them very practical and some of them very pleasing to the eye. When I returned here and travelled from Heathrow to central London, there was not a single advertisement and it really looked very dull. I hope that this great campaign has gone far enough and that this is the end of it.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, t will not pursue the routeing from airports referred to by the noble Lord. As far as I can see, there always seem to be an enormous number of very ugly-looking advertisements on the way from Heathrow. Perhaps the noble Lord was having a snooze from Heathrow and did not have one when he went to Strasbourg. My noble friends and I are very disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to accept the original amendment or the amendment as it has been reworded, which I think is even better than the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, at Committee stage and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and myself. It seems to me that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, and of the rest of us who supported his amendment at Committee stage and supported what he said today, are really unanswerable and ought to have been completely acceptable to the Government and to the House. But since I suppose a quarter of a loaf or a couple of slices of bread are better than nothing at all it looks as though we shall have to be content with what the Minister has offered.

I think I heard him say that a circular would be sent to local authorities, which was the point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to confirm that or, if I misheard him, to say it was wrong. It would also he very useful if at the end of a period of time, perhaps at the end of a year, the department made some sort of report as to what local authorities were doing, particularly on the point which the Minister mentioned. Where local authorities went to the Secretary of State and asked that certain types of advertisement, perhaps certain types of hoardings, should be forbidden in a particular area, then this House and another place and the country generally would know what was happening and how these areas were being dealt with. If one is going to do this sort of thing it is important that there should be some report back. I should be grateful if the Minister could give an undertaking on this.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I did say that we would send out a letter. I chose my words very carefully to indicate the line that that letter would take. I was also careful to say—

Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS

My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Is a letter different from a circular? I do not quite know the difference.

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, it is indeed different from a circular. We set about reducing the number of circulars that we would send out. Subject to confirmation, currently 75 per cent. fewer have been sent out than were sent out by the previous Administration.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, does that mean that the noble Lord has sent out 75 per cent. more letters?

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I was about to say, had I been allowed to finish, that it does not mean that at all. It is all really part of this whole question about how far one wants to govern by circular, as was done so often in the past. Sometimes the local authority associations themselves like to send their own communications to their members, but in this matter we are not seeking in any way to get away from the point we have promised; namely, that each authority will individually receive a letter from us.

I also went on to say that we would want to watch the position very carefully; that is the point the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was anxious to know about. It has been a matter of balance. While we have heard from those who feel as deeply as they do—my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and others who spoke before—I know the House will accept from me that there are deeply held feelings against this on another side. As is often the case, we have to draw a balance and make a compromise. As the noble Baroness was gracious enough to say, and as my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys said, this is probably a fair one. As long as we undertake to watch it, as we do, I would hope that we would let it go at that.

Lord MISHCON

My Lords, so that the House may at least he clear in regard to its language, about which it is always so particular, is not a document which is sent in precisely the same form to a number of recipients a circular? And, if not, why is it not?

Lord BELLWIN

My Lords, I have not the slightest intention, at 10 p.m. and after several successive hours of consideration of this Bill, of debating semantics or definitions, least of all with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.

Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for the assurance he has given. Naturally I should have preferred him to have accepted our amendment, but I regard the assurance he has given as one of very considerable importance. I understand that he is going to send a communication—I will not say whether it is a letter or a circular—to each individual local authority on the lines which he has explained. I think and hope that may well result in their using their existing powers more fully and more effectively. In that hope I would beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 135A not moved.]

Clause 93 [Potter of Secretary of State to require information]:

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 136: Page 85, line 33, after ("held") insert ("including information on whether the land is for the time being used (or was last used) for agricultural purposes.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to oblige the Secretary of State to find out whether land is in agricultural use. I realise that my noble friend may say that Clause 93 gives him just this power, but the question I am asking is this. Will the Secretary of State do so in practice? I am afraid that I see little incentive for his doing so. I fear that once again all the uses of land other than agricultural use will be uppermost in the Secretary of State's mind. In any case, if the Secretary of State does not ask specifically whether the land is in agricultural use, how will he know whether or not it is? I beg to move.

The Earl of AVON

My Lords, the provisions in Clause 93 already provide for the Secretary of State, where it appears to him that the body may hold land which might be registrable, to call for such information as he specifies about that interest. This would include information on whether the land is for the time being used (or was last used) for agricultural purposes. It is not therefore necessary to particularise this in the legislation. The Secretary of State really will call for such information.

We believe there will be positive gains to agricultural land from the operation of registers. My noble friend Lord Bellwin has today written to the National Farmers' Union in these terms. It is not necessary, we feel, to particularise this in this legislation, and for very much the same words as my noble friend Lord Stanley mentioned: if you once particularise one, why not the lot? It clutters the legislation and would cloud the widely-drawn powers which the Secretary of State would have in calling for information. For these reasons, I cannot recommend this amendment to the House and I hope that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw it.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks. If I may say so, they are a great comfort to us, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 94 [Disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State]:

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 137: Page 86, line 2, at end insert— ("( ) Before making a direction under this section in relation to any land for the time being used (or was last used) for agricultural purposes, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining that use.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State, when exercising his power, to direct that the disposer of land on the register should first have regard to maintaining its existing agricultural use. It may he, again, that my noble friend will say that my amendment is unnecessary or clumsy. If so, can he tell me what method the Secretary of State will use to ensure that land is returned to agriculture which is of prior importance?

I wonder whether I may, with your Lordships' permission—and I am sure that I am out of order—say that I gather that when I was summing up on my Amendment No. 130ZA I used the word "dishonest". If I did that, I apologise for it unreservedly. I am particularly sad that I used such a word as I have had such a great deal of help and sympathy on this amendment, not only from my noble friend Lord Bellwin but also from his department. I can only say that it must be that I was not speaking to my brief. I think that your Lordships got me all upset. I did not even have my noble friend the Chief Whip to blame for scowling at me, which always puts me off. I hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin and his department will accept the apology, which is unreserved. Meanwhile, I beg, first, to move my apology and, secondly, my amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of AVON

My Lords, first, on behalf of my noble friend who is sitting next to me, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stanley for that unreserved apology. So far as this; amendment is concerned, once again I must stress that the register proposals are, in fact, one of a number of measures, the cumulative effect of which we think will reduce the pressure on agricultural land and not take more. We share my noble friend's concern to prevent the unnecessary loss of agricultural land to development, and we believe that these registers will provide the information for the Secretary of State to ensure that no land is lost to agriculture.

The provisions already enable the Secretary of State to have regard to all relevant considerations in giving a direction. This includes considerations as to whether the land is being put to some use for the time being, and any representations by the owning body which bear on the use to which the land will be put if a direction is not made.

There will, nevertheless, be positive gains from the operation of the registers for agricultural land. First, as I explained in Committee, they will ensure that we make full and proper use of under-used and derelict land—particularly that in and around the main urban centres—and we shall ease the pressures on agricultural land and restrict the loss to development. Secondly, in deciding whether or not he should proceed with a direction to dispose the Secretary of State will be able to consider any representations from the owning body which bear on the use to which land will be put if a direction is not made. I hope that with that in mind my noble friend will once again feel able to withdraw his amendment, because we really believe that we are on the right track.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what my noble friend says on this amendment. Although I have made some fairly abrasive remarks about how the Government do or do not take agricultural land, I fully accept that they are trying exceptionally hard, and I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 95 [Directions to dispose of land—supplementary]:

10.8 p.m.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 137A: Page 86, line 20, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State shall have regard to such representations")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak in general terms to Amendments Nos. 137A to 137G inclusive, but move them separately. We have reached a very important part of the Bill, not that I am in any way endeavouring to say that the other matters which we have dealt with today have not had their importance. This is the part of the Bill to which we gave great attention at Committee stage and, indeed, the matter was raised on Second Reading in all parts of the House.

It is concerned with the power that is to be given to the Minister to direct local authorities and other bodies which are named in the Bill to compile a register of land which they are not using. Obviously, I am paraphrasing. They can object to their being included in the register, but if those objections are overruled, on the register they are. Then the Minister has the right to consider giving a direction that that land is to be disposed of.

The Bill as at present drawn gives to the Minister the power, if he makes a direction that the land is to be disposed of, to decide the terms and conditions upon which the disposal shall take place. A right is given to the local authority or to the other body concerned to make representations as to why such a direction should not be given. But as the Bill stands, having made the representations, the Minister has the right to direct the local authority or body to dispose of that land on the terms and conditions which the Minister lays down.

There is no point, as I see it, our having had both the debate on Second Reading and the Committee stage when various amendments were put down which went to the principle of the power of the Minister, in going over all that ground again at Report stage. We on this side were firm in our objective to try to minimise these powers if we could not in fact remove them. However, we failed on a vote. In those circumstances, what we have to do, as I see it, is to accept the principle—and a very extraordinary principle it is—of giving this Minister the right to say to a local authority, "You have land that you have not used. I order you to dispose of it", and to say exactly the same to the other bodies that are set out in the Bill.

The object of my amendments is this. Taking it for granted that the power has to be given, surely there must be sensible modifications of that power. There must be sensible brakes upon that power which the House itself, regardless of where we sit, would want to impose, whatever colour the Minister's politics might happen to be. We are creating precedents for other years, for other Governments and for other provisions in other Bills if we do this or if we do not do it. I am saving we should want to set the precedent that, given the fact that it is desirable that the power should be vested in the Minister, it should be vested with proper safeguards. It is against that background that I invite your Lordships to look at the provisions of the relevant clause, Clause 95, which your Lordships will find at page 86 of the Bill.

Subsection (1) of Clause 95 says that the Secretary of State is to give to the body concerned notice of his proposal to give the direction and of its proposed contents". There can be no quarrel with that, once the principle is granted. But when one comes to subsection (2) one sees that a body which receives that notice may make representations to the Secretary of State as to why the proposed direction should not be given or as to its proposed contents". Nowhere does it say that the Minister is obliged to give proper weight to the submissions which are made to him. Nowhere is a duty imposed upon him to consider the representations.

Noble Lords or anybody else may take the view that this is a minor and possibly foolish point. Your Lordships may say that if you put into a Bill a provision that representations can be made to the Minister it follows, by implication, that he must consider them. That is not the legal position. It would not, I submit, necessarily be taken by a court to be a duty if in fact one is endeavouring to upset a decision of the Minister on the basis that he has not properly considered the representations. I invoke the aid, not of a minor body but of the committee of my own Law Society that has sat on this Bill and dealt with these planning provisions, and it is their recommendation that this insertion should be put in the clause, namely, that the Minister shall consider the representations. Even if it were to be argued to the contrary, does it do any harm to see that it is clearly spelled out that the Minister should consider the representations?

I move on and ask your Lordships to turn over the page to page 87. Subsection (4) says that if the body concerned has made representations: the Secretary of State may not give a direction unless he is satisfied"— and I ask your Lordships to look at these words closely because they are very important— 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".

I pause for a moment to tell your Lordships that nowhere will you find any right of appeal in regard to this matter; nowhere will you find that a third party or authority can be brought in to question this discretion of the Minister. I have to be satisfied with that, for the same reason that I gave to your Lordships before. I appealed at the Committee stage and I was supported by others in your Lordships' House, for a third party to have some sort of right, for a local authority or body to have some sort of right to interfere in this matter which would be so serious in certain circumstances to the local authority or body concerned. That did not end satisfactorily, from my point of view, at the Committee stage. I must not go back to it and weary your Lordships with another submission on the same ground. I am not on that point. But if there is no right of appeal; no right for a third party to intervene to adjudicate upon this matter, will your Lordships, with your usual care, even at this late hour, look at those words: 'serious detrijent' to the local authority or body"?

Again, if it appears that I am making an individual point which seems somewhat eccentric, may I point out once more that the Committee of the Law Society has considered this clause very carefully and has made the comment which I make to your Lordships on this occasion: is it right that a Minister should have the power to direct, without any appeal or third party intervening, the disposal of land, even if it be a detriment to the authority or body concerned? Has it to go to the extent of being a "serious detriment"? Surely it is enough if they show a detriment. And, my Lords, what is a serious detriment? I remember that on another occasion on another amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill there was a discussion—and I could quote the actual column number if the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, would like me to, but he has such a good memory that I am sure he will remember it—when somebody spoke about a serious detriment to the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, rose with his usual courtesy but, looking sternly at the noble Lord who had used those words in his amendment, said, "What a vague phrase! What does it mean?"

My Lords, he was right. What does "serious detriment" mean? Is it not a subjective judgment? What I may call serious somebody else may not call serious. But what I call a detriment, if I manage to prove it, is surely something that everybody can realise is a detriment. So, my Lords, the second amendment, which, I repeat again, concedes the principal but is only there to put a proper brake upon ministerial power, is to plead for the omission of the word "serious".

Continuing, if I may, your Lordships will see that the words are at the moment serious detriment to the performance of their functions or the carrying on of their undertaking. The words as at present used are ambiguous and I ask your Lordships this question: Does it mean to their undertaking in the past, does it mean to their undertaking at present? Your Lordships will, I think, at once say the answer must be, yes, of course it does, and it is most relevant that it could be detrimental to their undertaking at present. But what if a body or local authority were to say, "It is not to our detriment now or in the past, but it will be to our detriment in the future, because we have got certain plans in regard to that land. By virtue of the capital allowance that has been given to use we cannot at this moment go on with those plans, but if you take this land away from us and make us sell it, that will be detrimental (and indeed may be seriously detrimental if that word remains in) to our undertaking in the future".

Is that covered or not covered? On the present wording of the Bill, the Minister could well argue that it is only at the present moment that it has to be detrimental. So I turn to the third of the amendments, No. 137C, with which I am dealing in this one speech, and, to make everything abundantly clear, the amendment asks for the additional words "either currently or in the future", so that it is transparently clear that the detriment relates to the present time when the Minister is considering it, the concurrent time, as it were, and the future time.

Perhaps your Lordships will now be good enough to consider whether the Minister is in fact not only making a direction, if he makes it at all, that the land shall be disposed of, but he is making a direction within the wording of this clause as to the terms and conditions on which the disposal is to be made. Leave it at that, and your Lordships will consider—certainly those of you who are members of public bodies and local authorities—the effects of a direction issued by central Government without any necessity to have an intimate knowledge of local conditions. Your Lordships will also realise the implications of a direction by central Government which may well be publicised and what a deleterious effect that would have on any sale taking place in proper economic terms—proper financially advantageous terms—if the terms and conditions are merely left to the discretion of the Minister.

Surely in this Bill—and that is the reason for the next amendment—there must be a safeguard that he must take into consideration when he sets out the terms and conditions, that when he proposes them they are in the best interest of the authority concerned; it is not a question of the sale being in the best interest of the authority concerned, but that when he lays down the terms and conditions as to when the sale shall take place, the price at which it shall take place, the mode of putting up the property for sale, it shall be in the best interest of the body concerned, be it a local authority or any other body as mentioned in this Bill.

The next amendments are a repetition of those amendments which relate to local authorities and are merely, in the same terms, to apply to this clause of the Bill—in so far as this clause of the Bill relates to other bodies mentioned in the Bill—other bodies than local authorities. Therefore, I shall not repeat myself, because quite obviously the same arguments that I have tried to apply to the local authorities apply to the other bodies.

I should like to repeat before I sit down that there is not one scrap of political intent in any one of these amendments, three of which, as I say, are supported by the Law Society which has looked at this from the point of view of proper administration; tidiness and clarity of language; and trying to remove any ambiguity there might be from a legal point of view. If this House were against the principle of saying that there should be an appeal on this arbitrary use of a Minister's power, I should hope that there would be very few people in this House—except those who have to obey some dictate from on high and therefore must of necessity be inflexible when it comes to a Bill being presented—who would not say, "Bearing in mind that the principle has been granted and that the Minister has these powers, let us at least see that the powers are included in the Bill, in clear language, without ambiguity, and let us see to it that local authorities and bodies are not unnecessarily harmed".

As I have said, I am making general observations, but obviously I shall have to move the amendments individually. However, I promise not to inflict more speeches on your Lordships when I do so. I beg to move.

The Earl of AVON

My Lords, to come back to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, we remain firm on this side, too. I feel that I must run through some of the processes of registration as I think that it is fundamental to the argument from our point of view.

The safeguards which surround a public body in relation to a direction to dispose form a fairly fine filter. I will explain how this works. First, to be registrable the land of the public body has to be unused or under-used. If it is unused or under-used and not already for sale, a case for retention of the land can be made out. There may be perfectly good reasons why the land should be retained. Only if the case is not sufficient to justify retention need the question of a direction arise, and then only where, in spite of all those circumstances, the owning body continues to decline to release it.

I explained in Committee that we hope the processes leading to registration, followed up by inquiries about possible uses, will activate land. And we would hope, too, that registration will encourage owning bodies to look to their proper management role of deciding in what ways their under-used land assets can be put to more positive uses. That really is a fundamental point and so far I do not think that there is anything to which anyone would object.

We do not believe, however, that the process can be left there. If the owning body has been unable or unwilling to justify their retention of the land, yet refuses to release it, the Secretary of State must, we believe, have power to step in. Even then Clause 95 provides procedures for ensuring that land, which cannot be released without serious harm to the ability of public bodies to carry out their functions or their undertaking, is not disposed of under the power of direction, and that the direction is adapted to the particular circumstances. I have explained this in some detail as the safeguards are so easily dismissed in this context.

The Secretary of State is to have power to direct a disposal so that broader policy considerations are brought to bear on questions of land retention. I hardly need repeat that the problem of unused land is visible for anyone to see; indeed, it has been commented on in this House. At the same time, the "appropriate Minister" (that is the one most directly involved with, or directly responsible for the body concerned) applies those considerations which relate to the continuing operational and functional effectiveness of the body.

Thus, Clause 95 provides for an owning body to be given notice of a proposed direction and for them to have not less than 42 days within which to make any representations as to why the direction should not be made or as to the terms and conditions proposed to be attached to a direction. The representations will be sent to the Secretary of State: they may also be copied to the appropriate Minister, The Secretary of State will, of course, consider them.

Now we come to the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Mischon. Here he raised a legal point, that the Law Society had looked at this. All I can say at the moment is that, of course, the legal advisers of the department have also looked at it, and this is what they have found.

There seems no good reason why anyone should doubt that this will happen, given that the provision for representations has been specifically written into the legislation. Moreover, since the direction cannot be given, where representations are made, unless the appropriate Minister positively satisfies himself that the disposal can take place as proposed without serious detriment, the Secretary of State will, in one way or another, have to have regard to those representations. Either he can act on them in his own right to put aside the proposed direction, or he will need to approach the appropriate Minister in relation to those considerations which the legislation requires the appropriate Minister to apply. As I have explained, the role of the appropriate Minister is specific and positive: it is intended to ensure that land which cannot he released without serious harm to the present or future functional or operational performance of the body is not sold under a direction. We think that this first amendment is, in effect, unnecessary and that it does not actually improve the Bill.

Then there was a comment on a right of appeal. We regard it as much more likely that the Minister himself will be the person who will be appealed to by all the other bodies. We see him as a pinnacle, not being used very often. For that reason, I do not think that we would accept that a right of appeal is necessary in this case.

Lord MISHCON

My Lords, with his usual courtesy the noble Minister is allowing me to intervene and I am doing it for the sake of brevity. I cannot say that the noble Minister is preaching to the converted, but he is at the moment preaching to someone who has conceded every one of his points in regard to the powers being given to the Minister. Could he please just answer a simple question on the basis of the legal advice that he has been given? Even if that advice be correct, what is the harm of inserting the words "that the Minister shall consider the representations"? If he is going to do it anyway, what is the harm? If he is not going to do it and he does not happen to be a lawyer, on looking at the Bill he will know that that is his duty.

The Earl of AVON

My Lords, I am advised that it is an unnecessary provision; the noble Lord is advised that it is a worthwhile provision. At the moment that is the gap between us on that particular point.

The noble Lord then came to the subject of "serious" and "serious detriment". The noble Lord and I had some correspondence on this and I think I mentioned then that there is a well precedented procedure as regards the words "serious detriment" and they come in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, which applies to a proposal to acquire the land of statutory undertakers. Here the appropriate Minister is required to satisfy himself that the land can be taken and not replaced "without serious detriment" to the undertaking, or, if replacement land is available, that the taking of the land and its replacement by other land can be effected "without serious detriment".

The provisions in Clause 95(4) and (5) for the appropriate Minister to certify that land can be released without serious detriment are a simplified version of the procedure in the 1946 Act. Interpretation of the term has not given rise to difficulty in the past and I see no reason why it should do so in the context of the present Bill. In my research on "seriousness" I was amused to find in the dictionary the term "a serious politician". The definition of that was "A politician who gives his best energy to politics." I do not know whether we can remain on serious terms.

The next amendments use the words, "either currently or in the future". These amendments are intended to make clear that the appropriate Minister must satisfy himself that land can be released without serious detriment to the carrying on of functions or the undertaking either currently or in the future, The Government believe that the provisions as drafted already achieve this.

Public bodies are empowered to hold land for the purpose of their functions or their undertaking. These functions or the undertaking may involve the acquisition and retention of land which is needed in the future—needed as part of a continuing process to perform the functions or of carrying on the undertaking. It follows that the appropriate Minister would have regard to both the current and foreseeable future operational needs of the public body concerned in satisfying himself that land could be released without serious detriment.

The final point of the noble Lord concerned Amendments Nos. 137D and 137G. Once again this seeks to limit the power of the Secretary of State. The amendments are not readily reconcilable with the provisions that I mentioned before in Clause 95(4) and (5). Under these subsections, the appropriate Minister has to satisfy himself that land can be released without serious detriment, or, where terms and conditions are included in a proposed direction, released under those terms and conditions without serious detriment. The amendments would change this, in that where terms and conditions are attached, the appropriate Minister would not only have to certify that the land could be released, as proposed, without serious detriment but, also, that the terms and conditions were in the best interest of the authority concerned. The effect would be that terms and conditions could only be applied to a direction where the appropriate Minister was satisfied that they were in the best interest of the public body.

It is important that the Secretary of State should be able to impose terms and conditions on the disposal, because, if he did not, a body reluctant to dispose of its land could make the land an unattractive bargain by setting a high price, or by some other means. If the Secretary of State found that the disposal was not taking place, he must be able to direct that the land he disposed of at a realistic price and free of onerous conditions. Once again, one hopes that this would not happen very often.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, is the Minister saying, in dealing with the terms and conditions, that the Minister has power to direct that the land be disposed of within a given time?

The Earl of AVON

Yes, my Lords. I should like notice of that, but I think yes. It is accepted that such terms and conditions will not always be in the best interests of the body concerned. It is because of that that a power of direction is required. However, it is the Government's intention that disposals should normally take place at a price determined in the market. This clause protects public bodies against being required to dispose of land on terms and conditions such as to cause serious detriment to the public body concerned.

I am sorry to have spoken at some length, but the noble Lord did cover all the points at once, and I have tried to do the same. I hope that, bearing some of my comments in mind, the noble Lord will not feel that he has to press these amendments.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I simply say that I listened with the greatest of attention and my usual enjoyment to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had to say, and what he said seemed to me very persuasive, although I did not agree with his point in regard to "serious", because there are precedents there. Having listened to my noble friend, I think that he has answered all the points that the noble Lord raised, certainly to my satisfaction. In those circumstances I shall certainly support him if there is a Division.

Lord MISHCON

I am disconcerted, my Lords, by those very courteous remarks, which nevertheless do not appear to support me with great strength. I shall not weary the House with further speeches; I said I would not. Let me make my position abundantly clear. The Minister replied to the question of the Secretary of State regarding representations, whether or not the matter was in the Bill. I cannot see the point of not putting it in and there is legal doubt about it, but he gave an answer and I must finish there.

The Minister replied to my point about "serious", and without answering the question, "Is it not enough if it is detriment alone?" he said that in other measures the words "serious detriment" have been used. I can think of other Acts which have said even worse things than "serious detriment", so I do not see how that is a reason for putting it in the Bill. However, the Minister answered that and I do not think I should divide the House on that. It is a question of the balance of opinion. As for "either currently or in the future", the Minister said, "There it is. In my view the words mean, 'The Minister shall look into the future from the point of view of the interests of the local authority and the question of serious detriment, and that is what the words mean'." My amendment would have made it abundantly clear. However, the Minister says it is unnecessary and I must bow to what he says and not divide the House on that.

But then I get to the point where the Minister did not answer at all, and that was the fourth point about the terms and conditions, where the Minister has to have regard to the best interests of the authority in regard to the terms and conditions, not in regard to whether or not there will be a sale; that is already conceded. They must sell, but he has to be careful that the local authority are not made to push their property on to the market in circumstances which are not in their best interests. It is he, not the local authority, who must have that in mind. The local authority can only make representations as to the terms and conditions. It is the Minister who has to decide it, and in order not to let this loose on local authorities and bodies, I must divide the House on that if the noble Lord cannot give me a more satisfactory reply or concede. I have explained my position to your Lordships. I hope the House will be tolerant with me therefore if I merely call out something with my noble friend in regard to Amendments Nos. 137A, 137B and 137C, but in regard to No. 137D, as a precedent for what ought to happen, similarly with No. 137G, I shall have to test the opinion of the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Aberdare)

Is the noble Lord withdrawing Amendment No. 137A?

Lord MISHCON

I said I would be calling out a certain word, my Lords. That word will be, "Content".

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 137B:

CONTENTS
Avebury, L.	Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Rochester, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Kaldor, L.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Birk, B.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Stedman, B.
Blease, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Mishcon, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Peart, L.	Stone, L.
David, B. [Teller.]	Pitt of Hampstead, L.	Underhill, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.		Winstanley, L.
Evans of Claughton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Avon, E.	Freyberg, L.	Mottistone, L.
Bellwin, L.	Gainford, L.	Newall, L.
Belstead, L.	Gibson-Watt, L.	Northchurch, B.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Gisborough, L.	Northesk, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Gormanston, V.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Caithness, E.	Gowrie, E.	Renton, L.
Cathcart, E.	Greenway, L.	Rochdale, V.
Chelwood, L.	Haig, E.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Cockfield, L.	Harvey of Tasburgh, L.	Sandford, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Harvington, L.	Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Cork and Orrery, E.	Hathorton, L.	Savile, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Holderness, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Crawshaw, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Soames, L. (L. President.)
Croft, L.	Kemsley, V.	Spens, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Kinross, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
De Freyne, L.	Long, V.	Strathclyde, L.
De La Warr, E.	Lyell, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	McFadzean, L.	Sudeley, L.
Digby, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Torphichen, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.	Trefgarne, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L.	Mansfield, E.	Ullswater, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Margadale, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Elton, L.	Marley, L.	Vickers, B.
Ferrers, E.	Marshall of Leeds, L.	Westbury, L.
Ferrier, L.	Monk Bretton, L.	Wise, L.
Fortescue, E.	Morris, L.	Wynford, L.
		Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly. Page 87, line 1, leave out ("serious").

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No 137C: Page 87, line 2, at end insert ("either currently or in the future").

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 137D: Page 87, line 2, at end insert ("and that the terms and conditions of disposal proposed by him are in the best interest of the authority concerned.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

10.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 137D) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 79.

10.52 p.m.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 137E: Page 87, line 8, leave out ("serious").

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 137F: Page 87, line 10, at end insert ("either currently or in the future").

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 137G: Page 87, line 10, at end insert ("and that the terms and conditions of disposal proposed by him are in the best interest of the body concerned.").

On Question, amendment negatived.

Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 138: Page 87, line 10, at end insert— (" ( ) In consequence of any representations which may have been made, the Secretary of State may amend the proposed terms and conditions for reasons other than those referred to in subsections (4) and (5) above").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the same matter as the last series of amendments, but I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will think that we are being helpful to the Secretary of State in moving it. My noble friend and the Minister have explained that representations may be made against a directive by either the local authority or the body concerned, as the case may be; and, as has been explained, the Secretary of State, when he has received such representations, shall not give a direction unless he is satisfied that on the terms and conditions he proposes it can be carried out without serious detriment to the performance of their functions or the carrying on of their undertakings. They are the conditions laid down for the Secretary of State.

The amendment suggests that this is far too restrictive on the Secretary of State; that there is not much point in permitting the local authority or the other public body to make representations, and maybe convince the Secretary of State in certain directions, if he is not permitted to follow what he may consider is the right course to adopt. Because after considering the representations the Secretary of State may take the view that there are good reasons, other than the ones laid down in sub-sections (4) and (5), why he should not proceed on the terms and conditions he originally proposed.

If I may be allowed to give two examples, the Secretary of State may take the view, after considering the representations, that the terms he has proposed are too low and that therefore he must alter that particular term; or he may decide, after considering the representations, that he ought to defer the sale for a certain period—in other words, to vary the terms and conditions. That is giving more flexibility to the Secretary of State instead of tying him down to the actual points in sub-sections (4) and (5). I hope that the Minister will think that we are being helpful to the Secretary of State in giving him this freedom of action and will accept the amendment.

The Earl of AVON

My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for being so helpful about it, but I think the points raised by him and by the amendment are more than adequately covered. Under Clause 95(2), an owning body is entitled to make any representations to the Secretary of State (which can be copied to the appropriate Minister) as to why the direction should not be given or as to the terms or conditions which it is proposed to attach to a direction. The Secretary of State will consider these representations in relation to his proposals. He may seek the advice of the appropriate Minister since the direction cannot be given except where the appropriate Minister certifies, against the test in Clause 95(4) and (5), that the land can be released, as proposed, without serious detriment.

In the light of these representations, the Secretary of State can amend his proposals or decide not to proceed further with them at that stage. He will obviously advise the body concerned. Additionally, by Clause 94(3) the Secretary of State is empowered to vary or revoke a direction which he has given by issuing another direction. If circumstances change, and whether that change is in relation to the known facts about interests in the land or as regards the considerations under which the appropriate Minister acted in satisfying himself under the provisions in Clause 95(4) and (5) or in consequence of any other representations, the Secretary of State is enabled to adjust or revoke the direction, including, where appropriate, amending the proposed terms and conditions, by issuing a further direction. While being sympathetic to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I do not think the amendment will help the legislation and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord UNDERHILL

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply and for the assurance he has given, but I am certain that he will understand that I should like to read carefully what he has said in the Official Report. I want to be satisfied that the change of direction can arise from the representations from the body or the local authority concerned and not only from discussions with the other Ministers concerned. On the understanding that we may come back to this on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 97 [Repeal]:

10.59 p.m.

Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 138A: Leave out Clause 97.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment to leave out Clause 97 of the Bill as I believe that this straightforward repeal of the Community Land Act with no attempt to put anything in its place means that once again the opportunity is being lost for dealing with a long-standing problem of great importance to society as a whole. The nature of the problem is this. In the kind of society in which we live, the value of land is always liable to increase because of the increasing demand on it made by the growing wealth and needs of society. This growth in value will be concentrated on those pieces of land for which planning permission has been granted. Consequently we have witnessed, and shall go on witnessing all the time, the most startling examples of great leaps in value of a piece of land. I shall not weary the House with many examples. A little while ago near Enfield a piece of land bought for £7,500 became worth £300,000 after the grant of planning permission. Another example in Scotland where the land was sold: the vendor having been led to suppose it was very unlikely that planning permission would be granted, it was sold for £400,000. Planning permission was subsequently granted and the present owners have so far netted about £3 million and expect that its final value will be about £20 million. In both cases, there is a multiplier of about 40 or 50.

What is significant is that this gain is totally unearned. I am not talking about any increase in the value of land that arises from reclaiming, improving or from good management of it. Those are valuable services which should be rewarded properly. But this increase in values springs solely from the increasing wealth and needs of society. It is this that ought to go into the public purse. I am aware that, with development land tax, part of it does. I shall refer to that again in a moment.

The real nature of the problem is to know how can we get this increased value where it ought to be—into the public purse—without discouraging the bringing forward of land for development. Over the years several attempts have been made to deal with this problem. The difficulty has been that if you simply impose a tax, even if it is 50 per cent., which is the present rate of development land tax, this may well discourage the owner from bringing it forward for development. He may decide that he is not getting sufficient return for doing so.

It is of course a characteristic of the society in which we live that if a workman says he will not work because he does not consider the reward offered him is sufficiently great, he is said to be on strike. This is considered a most reprehensible action. If a landlord decides that he will not allow land that he owns to be developed because he does not think the reward will be sufficient, he is doing what he likes with his land and responding to the play of market forces. That is the nature of the society in which we live, and one of the causes of its troubles.

In another place it was said that the Government were firmly resolved that development land tax should not be lowered below 60 per cent. It was pointed out that no Government could really possibly give a pledge of that kind or say that they would never vary the rate of a particular tax. We have already been told in a kind of aside from the Front Bench that the rate of development land tax is under consideration. This means, particularly with the Conservative Government in power, that the holders of land will be always hoping that the rate of the tax is going to be brought down. That will be a factor causing them to withhold land from the market until it is.

What is needed then is a public authority with the power actually to acquire land at or near its use value. Since it has the power to acquire the land, you remove the danger of land not being brought forward when it is needed and you ensure that the gain in its value goes into the public purse. This, or something very like it, was recommended as far back as 1929 by the minority report of the Balfour Commission on Industry and Trade, but I am afraid that nobody paid it very much attention.

This is the principle on which the new towns acted most successfully; and, nearer home, this is the principle on which the Land Authority for Wales has acted so successfully. Even the present Government are leaving the Land Authority for Wales in existence. Its operations have been on a small and extremely promising scale. Its current liabilities are about £4 million. The land it has acquired is worth at least twice that. That has brought in that amount of gain immediately into the public purse.

In the operation of the Land Act in England where the agent was the local authority, they faced the difficulty that unlike the Land Authority for Wales, they very often had not the resources. Also, they were plagued at the time by the appalling reorganisation of local government, which made it extremely difficult for them to take on the fresh responsibilities of the Act.

It was also a period when there was nothing approaching a boom in the price of land. There was a dead state of demand. If the Community Land Act, or something like it, had been in operation during the land boom of the early 1970s, the country would have done very well indeed. There would have been a sub- stantial stream of money flowing into the public purse. The Government could have built on the experience of the new towns of the Land Authority for Wales. They could have provided us with an authority which could achieve the dual tasks of seeing that land is brought forward for development when it is wanted, and securing this very considerable gain into the public purse. The failure to do something like that is particularly serious at the present time.

The Prime Minister said recently that she hopes we shall have a winter of common sense. By common sense she means that people who actually work for their living by hand or by brain should be very moderate in the rewards they ask for their labour. Fair enough, but if that is what the Government want they ought to be making every effort to see that people do not get very large rewards for which they have done nothing at all. The contrast is going to be increasingly apparent as the months go by. The Government have lost an opportunity to solve a serious, long-standing problem that could have been handled with great advantage to the nation. They ought to think again, and instead of repealing the Act they should see that there is applied in England the same degree of success—and more—that has attended the work of the local authority in Wales.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, I do not propose to go over all the arguments that may be raised against the Community Land Act. Suffice it to say that, apart altogether from doing anything, it has created a great deal of bureaucracy. A great deal of work is done where no acquisition at all takes place. The Government have not approached this matter in any doctrinaire way. As the noble Lord has pointed out to us so clearly, the Government have retained the land authority for Wales because it was seen that the situation there was such that this particular authority functioned well, but no such considerations appeared to apply so far as England was concerned. As I understood it, the main argument the noble Lord was putting forward was that unless the Community Land Act stayed, with all its bureaucracy, the resulting increase in development value from the grant of planning per- mission would not be available for the public purse.

We believe that the best way to deal with that is by taxation. We agree that gains resulting from the grant of planning permission are special and merit special tax treatment. But in the form originally cast, development land tax had become a serious check to development and therefore my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took immediate steps in his first Budget to reduce the rates of the tax. If the rates are fixed at a reasonable level the land will come forward. Development land tax was also one of the taxes included in the review of capital taxation of my noble friend Lord Cockfield, and arising from this a number of important changes have been made this year with the aim of removing the disincentive effects of the tax on development. But I should like to make it clear that the Government are anxious that the tax should now enjoy a measure of stability, rather for the reasons that the noble Lord suggested. People are not to be encouraged to hold back land in the expectation that the tax is going to come down. We regard it as important that the tax should enjoy a measure of stability, and no further major changes are planned although, as with all taxes, we shall be keeping the details of the tax under review. I ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stewart put the case against the Government's attempted repeal of the Community Land Act so well and so succinctly that really there is not very much for me to say about it. But as I was the Minister in a Labour Government who introduced the Bill into your Lordships' House, I should like to take up one point made by the Lord Advocate. He said the Government had not approached the matter in any doctrinaire way. When I introduced the Bill in August 1975 his distinguished colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was the Opposition spokesman on the environment. She said right at the beginning of her speech, after I had sat down: and I quote from col. 1328 of the Official Report for 4th August 1975: We on this side are entirely opposed to it, and though we shall give it a Second Reading today we have undertaken to repeal it when we are returned to power". That meant that from the very first moment the whole scheme was being dragged backwards and was walking along with a limp the whole time, and had really very little chance of getting off the ground, as my noble friend has pointed out. The Minister did nothing to answer any of those points. The taxation side of it has nothing to do with the main concept and philosophy of the whole scheme, which is the development use of land and whether in fact people should make tremendous profits by sheer change of use, where no effort and nothing else has taken place.

The fact that everything did not happen, sailing along, as my noble friend rightly said, was due to the whole situation of property at that time. Added to that was the attitude taken by the Opposition, which was really a signal to those local authorities who were against it anyway not to bother to do anything about it, and a signal to those local authorities who might have found it rather difficult at the beginning to undertake an entirely new area of work not to bother to do so.

What is in this Bill before us and also in the Housing Act has a certain irony, when we consider what the noble Baroness said in criticising the Bill. She said, again in col. 1328: Not unexpectedly, the Association of District Councils is concerned at the extensive powers of the Secretary of State over local authorities; for the Bill, in my view, takes a step backwards from the freedom and responsibility granted by the Local Government Act 1972". If one has ever seen the powers of local authorities eroded, it has been by the legislation which has been going through this House, one Bill after another, under the present Government. To talk about the freedom and power of local authorities in referring to the Community Land Act, when everything has been done to erode their power, and again on the repeal of this Act, really does not make sense. At some time I hope that in this country we shall be able to come to grips with this problem of land. We have seen what has happened in the past with the idea of a central commission, and there is the precedent of the Uthwatt Committee, which made the recommendations on which the Community Land Act was based. I would reiterate what my noble friend said: to repeal it without putting any viable alternative in its place is really a complete disgrace, and something which really even this Government should not have considered doing.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Schedule 19 [Land Authority for Wales: Acquisition of Land]:

11.14 p.m.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 139: Page 217, line 34, at end insert ("or, after the commencement of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, within the meaning of section 32 of that Act").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which is simply an updating measure, has been occasioned by the recent passing of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The penalties laid down for the offence described in paragraph 16(3) of Schedule 19 include a possible fine on summary conviction. As the Bill is drafted, the amount of that fine would derive from provisions in Section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. But the new Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, when operative, will repeal the relevant part of Section 28. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

11.15 p.m.

Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 140: After Clause 110, insert the following new clause—

("Compensation in respect of certaint orders

.—(1) When by virtue of a scheme or order made under the Highways Act 1959 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 who had acquired his interest therein before the date of the original authorisation and whose interest

1. (a) has not been acquired by the authority authorised to acquire the land required in respect of the original authorisation; and
2. (b) has depreciated in value by reason of the original authorisation;

shall be paid compensation for that depreciation by the authority mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(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: My Lords, it is a great pity that every time we come to this subject it is late at night with a thin House, and I must say quite frankly that the subject is of such outstanding importance and the injustice which has been done over a long period of time to so many thousands of people is of such magnitude that the House really ought to find time at a more civilised hour to debate it and to see what can be done for the benefit of people who are so affected.

We are talking about people who live in the vicinity of motorways or trunk road schemes, whose property is depressed in value over a period of a great many years and who have been deprived of any form of compensation whatsoever. It was in order to try to rectify this wrong that I put down an amendment at Committee stage, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was good enough to reply very late at night, and to criticise in a most constructive way. So, since then, having taken further advice, I have brought forward a modified version of the amendment which I tabled on that occasion, and I hope that this will meet with his approval.

The Minister, quite properly, observed on that occasion that, as I had drafted the first of these clauses which deals with compensation, a person would be entitled to benefit if he had only recently acquired an interest in property near the line of a proposed motorway or trunk road, which was later abandoned. I agree with the noble and learned Lord— and I am grateful to him for drawing the attention of the Committee, as it was then, to this point—that it would have been rather odd if such an effect had been created when, in fact, the object of the exercise, as I had explained, was to compensate the property owners who had been unable to sell their property right from the beginning, from the date of the original authorisation of the scheme, until after the revocation.

That could be a matter of some considerable number of years—over a decade, perhaps, or more. One could take the particular example, of which I know the noble and learned Lord is well aware, of the M.23 extension at Hooley, going back to a period when this line was designated even 30 or more years ago, before the present authorisation was given. But during the whole of that period, the people whose property was in the neighbourhood of the line proposed for this motorway could sell only at a value which was depressed by the general blight on the area, which was caused by the knowledge that people had of this scheme. If one compared the property values in that neighbourhood with those of very similar houses only a few miles away, you could very easily see that many thousands of pounds were knocked off the value of the houses, compared with what it would have been if the scheme had not existed.

I have, therefore, as I say, redrafted the clause so as to exclude people who came in at some intermediate date, and to confine the benefit only to those who owned the property prior to the date of the original authorisation, and who still have it in their possession after the revocation. There are also some minor drafting amendments with which I shall not weary the House at this hour of the night.

But there was another point of some substance which the Minister made, and that was that it was illogical to create a new right of compensation for property owners in the vicinity of a motorway, but then to confine it to those cases where the order that had caused the depreciation in the value of their property was cancelled. I should be very glad, indeed, if the Government were prepared to extend compensation to all the owners of property which is injuriously affected by a motorway or a trunk road scheme, but I cannot imagine that happening in the near future. Here we are asking the Government to consider only the particular case of the person who has suffered loss over a great many years. He is surely entitled to some preferential treatment—if we have to be selective at all, and to do what can be managed within the resources available in our straightened circumstances—as compared with someone who may have been affected only quite recently. That is why I think there is logic and common sense from a financial point of view in restricting the benefit to the people who have been owners of the property all the way through, right from before the original authorisation.

As regards the disposal clause, Amendment No. 148, which, as on the previous occasion, I hope your Lordships will agree we can take with this amendment, the Minister said on the previous occasion that the Minister of Transport had no power to retain land any longer than was needed for a road scheme and that, once any such land was known to be surplus, steps were then taken to dispose of it. That may well be so, but what we need to be assured of is that no undue delay occurs. This is why the clause which I am now presenting to your Lordships contains a time limit of six months on the disposals. It says that the highway authority have to use their best endeavours to carry out the disposal within that period.

A few minutes ago, when the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was dealing with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to Clause 95, I asked him whether the directions which the Minister was empowered to give under that clause might include directions as to the time within which one of the bodies mentioned in Schedule 15 had to dispose of land, and the noble Earl answered—without taking advice, I think, but he was fairly sure of himself—that the powers in Clause 95 did indeed cover the question of the time within which these disposals had to be effected. Some of the bodies which are listed in Schedule 15 are identical to the highway authorities which are referred to in subsection (3) of my new clause—the county councils, for instance, and the London boroughs. Therefore, I am very hopeful, considering the way that this new clause as redrafted fits in with the thinking of the Government in Clause 95, that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting it.

I hope that I have gone a considerable way towards meeting the arguments which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, presented in Committee and that now he will be able to accept these amendments and will go a little way towards remedying what has been a serious and harshly felt injustice for a few thousand people over a period of a great many years. If he can do that he will, I know, give enormous satisfaction to those who have campaigned for so long, and in particular to that doughty fighter, Mrs. Iris Lorraine, and the M.23 Motorway Action Group.

11.23 p.m.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN

My Lords, I am glad to say that the clause as the noble Lord has proposed it—I am speaking now of the first amendment—is some improvement on his previous clause. I instanced the difficulty about people who had bought a property just before the claim date as an illustration of the difficulty in principle of meeting the kind of claim that the noble Lord has in mind. Although I acknowledge that the noble Lord has improved the clause considerably in the respect which he has pointed out, think that it remains illogical that people whose property was adversely affected by a scheme while in being and who could not claim compensation in that period should be awarded compensation when the scheme has been abandoned.

There was a remedy so far as actual depreciation was concerned while a scheme was in being if the people wanted to sell. Provided the property was affected, the blight provisions applied. But the owners the noble Lord is concerned with are owners who did not want to move during the period that the order was in place. In my submission, it would be illogical to compensate them for a notional drop in value in the period when the route was authorised now that the cause of the depreciation has been removed and the values may therefore be expected gradually to be restored, the cause of the difficulty having been removed.

I could say a good deal more about this matter but I think that in a way the real difficulty is focused by the amendment itself in dealing with the point that the real trouble appears to be deferring expenditure on necessary maintenance and repair. That is the real cause of the depreciation. The extent to which one does that is a matter for the owner and it does not seem right that the public purse should be called upon to compensate for that. Of course, the noble Lord recognised that to some degree by saying that the extent of the deferment of maintenance has to be taken into account.

There are also difficulties in the standard or method of assessment of the depreciated value which the noble Lord has used. He talks of "injurious affection": as I understand that concept in compensation law it means injurious affection caused by the construction and operation of the road, and therefore when the road order has been cancelled there is really no possibility of that and that method of compensation is not appropriate.

I can see the problem but I fear that it is not a problem which can reasonably be dealt with under the compensation code, at least so far as our thinking has at present gone, and while I appreciate the work that the noble Lord has put into this, and also the very doughty fight which has been put up for the M.23 people over quite a long period, I regret to say that I do not think this particular clause is an answer to it.

The noble Lord was kind enough, for the convenience of the House, to take his Amendment No. 148 with this, and I really have nothing to add in respect of that to what I said at the Committee stage. The Minister of Transport will dispose of surplus property as soon as he can, in the interests of everybody, subject of course to circumstances. If a lot of properties are involved, particularly if maintenance is in question, it may take a little time, but without any statutory exhortation or anything of that kind he will dispose of the property as rapidly as he can. I hope that in the light of these assurances so far as Amendment No. 148 is concerned the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw, and so far as the earlier amendment is concerned I regret that I cannot be more helpful but I hope that in the light of the difficulties which I have outlined he will feel able to withdraw.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, it might be for the benefit of the House if I were to speak to my Amendment No. 148ZA, in view of what has been said, and will my noble and learned friend please confirm that the appropriate authority will give consideration to disposing of the land in the first instance to the previous owner from whom they acquired it?

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the noble Earl's amendment is to some extent in conflict with the amended clause as proposed, and statutory sell-back provisions are very complicated indeed. All I can say is that in making arrangements for getting rid of the property the Minister of Transport would certainly take account of all the interests involved.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, I am afraid what the Minister has said this evening comes as an extreme disappointment to me, not because I had imagined that the alterations in the new clauses that I was putting before the House made them perfect, but I thought that having done my best to try to demonstrate the principles of the matter, the Minister would have been seized of those principles and would have agreed at least to take the matter away and come up with some kind of formula which would have paid the people concerned some amount which would remain to be determined but which would satisfy them for the very many years of discomfort, injustice and financial hardship that they have suffered.

It is no good the Minister saying that once the revocation order has been made the property will be restored to its original value because what he has failed to appreciate, it seems to me—and I am sure the M.23 action group would be delighted to show him round the area—is that it is not simply a question of a few licks of paint and some Snowcem here and there. It is the deterioration of a whole area in consequence of blight which has been visited on it over a period of many years by the existence of this route. That is a matter which is not capable of being remedied within several years: it will probably take a matter of decades before the property in this region is restored to the value of the equivalent houses in areas only a few miles away. It is for that reason that I believe these people are entitled to look to Her Majesty's Government and to your Lordships for some redress, some remedy. I am sorry that the noble Lord, in rejecting, these amendments, has not been able to offer one solitary crumb of comfort to the people who are in this position, and for that reason I am afraid I cannot withdraw the amendment this evening.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendments Nos. 141 to 148 not moved.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I cannot, therefore, call Amendment No. 148ZA.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, at this juncture your Lordships might appreciate our suspending consideration of the Bill on Report. I beg to move, therefore, that the House do now adjourn consideration on Report.

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