Housing and Planning Bill

HL Deb 13 October 1986 vol 480 cc530-669

3.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Lord Diamondmoved Amendment No. 128A: Before Clause 13 insert the following new clause:

("Planning Permission

PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED BY LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES

( ). The Secretary of State shall by order amend the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976 and 1981 to allow a local planning authority to seek and obtain planning permission for development on land which is not vested in the Local Authority and which the Local Authority does not intend to carry out itself.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 128A in the name of my noble friend Baroness Stedman. I should like to apologise for her absence, which is due to the fact that she has not yet discovered a method whereby she can be in two places at once in carrying out her parliamentary responsibilities.

We now move on to a new part of the Bill, which deals with simplifying planning procedure in order to encourage development in various local authorities. The reason for the amendment is that the changes in the law proposed by the Government, though superficially attractive, are not likely to achieve this purpose and that the much simpler provision which is offered by this amendment (which I shall deal with a little later) will be rather better. Perhaps I may explain why. The clauses which this amendment precedes deal with a proposal to set up simplified planning zones. Simplified planning zones are, as the name describes, zones in which one will have simplified planning, and these in turn derive from something with which we are all familiar; namely, enterprise zones. This is an attempt by the Government to obtain the benefit of enterprise zones in encouraging development in those areas which need development without providing the finance that enterprise zones made available.

I gather that the research which has been undertaken at the request of the Department of the Environment has shown that where development has taken place under these enterprise zones it is the financial carrot or the financial benefits which have occasioned the development and not—I repeat not—the simplification of the planning procedure. It has not been found that there has been any significant benefit to the developers in enterprise zones in having a simplified procedure for applying for planning control. That has not been a stumbling block. The simplified planning zones which this Bill is about to recommend omit the one element which has encouraged development—namely, the financial advantages to the developer—and insert another element which has been found not to have been a significant barrier; that is, simplification of planning procedure.

Although the idea of simplified planning procedure is superficially attractive, the simplified planning zones will not achieve their purpose, which is to have both planning and simplification. One can have either one or the other. If one wants simplification, the local planning authority has to give up its detailed planning control over particular sites and areas. A planning zone would be a much more grey affair and very difficult to achieve. A variety of possible permitted uses would have to be contemplated and it would be a variety in all sorts of odd combinations. It would not be easy to achieve at all. A simplified planning zone as is contemplated in the Bill would either be a planning zone under which the local authority would still keep detailed control, and therefore the desired simplication would not take place, or else it would be a simplified zone, in which case one would not have the local authority exercising the necessary detailed planning control.

Why do I say "necessary"? I do so because without that there would undoubtedly be a fall in standards which would be most unwelcome to existing landowners in the area. The Government propose—I acknowledge that they propose it after considerable consultation with those affected—a simplified planning zone which would not serve their purpose.

I do not set out to put my opinion alone as authoritative on that matter. I wish to tell the Committee the local authorities' view of the Government's proposals. The Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have joined to take the view: The associations are concerned that simplified planning zones will be complex and ineffective and will duplicate existing local planning procedures". That is a clear expression of view from a combination of all the local planning authorities concerned.

As the Committee is aware, there is an organisation charged with the responsibility for town planning, known as the Royal Town Planning Institute. It has been involved as a professional body in consultation with the Government on these proposals. The institute has told Ministers of its view that SPZs are an irrelevance to the central issues facing the planning system. We have the clearest possible view of the local authorities and the professional body involved that the proposal for SPZs is to be criticised as irrelevant, ineffective and so on.

That is the view I put to the Committee with regard to Clauses 13 and 14, under which proposals are made for the superficially attractive but unworkable SPZs. We do not wish to leave the matter there. That is why we have tabled an amendment preceding the two clauses. We have every sympathy with the policy which no doubt lies behind the Government's thinking with regard to SPZs; namely, a policy of encouraging development in areas where it is needed and enabling local authorities therefore to take a more positive stance than they can at the moment. That is a most desirable objective which can be met simply, not by altering basic law but by enabling the Secretary of State to take the necessary powers.

That is why our amendment says: The Secretary of State shall by order amend the Town and Country Planning General Regulations … to allow a local planning authority to seek and obtain planning permission for development on land which is not vested in the Local Authority".

That is the heart of the matter. It would clearly be of benefit to would-be developers if off-the-shelf planning permissions, as it were, could be made available to them. There would lie certainty and encouragement to development.

Local authorities cannot adopt that positive stance at the moment because, as the Committee is aware, they cannot seek planning permission for proposals on land which is not their own unless they propose to develop it themselves. Where they are not proposing to develop themselves, planning permission must refer to land within the local authority's ownership. The would-be developer would be welcomed by local authorities that have land which should be developed. The would-be developer wants to know for certain that there is land within the area—although not owned by the local authority—on which it can for certain carry out development.

If the local authority were given powers, which it could simply be given by the Secretary of State, it could apply for planning permission for a development and make that known. Every would-be developer would then know immediately that if it wanted to develop in such a way all it would have to do would be to go to the local authority and obtain that permission off the shelf, as it were.

That has a further real advantage. One of the great barriers to development is that the land to be developed is often in multiple ownership. A would-be developer is disinclined to start long negotiations with a variety of owners unless it knows that at the end of the day the development that it has in mind can take place. If this simple amendment were accepted, that would be the case. A local authority would seek planning permission for land in multiple ownership which it thought could usefully be combined—"assembled" is the technical term—so as to enable a worthwhile and desirable piece of development to take place if a developer could be found.

Under the amendment, our proposal is to allow the Secretary of State by order to amend the regulations, to allow a local planning authority to seek and obtain planning permission for development on land which is not vested in the Local Authority and which the Local Authority does not intend to carry out itself.

That proposal, as compared with the proposal that the Government have inserted in the following two clauses, has considerable support. It has the support of the district councils and of the Royal Town Planning Institute. They have said that the critical advantages of that proposal over SPZs is that it is less bureaucratic, quicker and more responsive to site specific issues.

What we are putting forward therefore are proposals that seek to meet the thinking behind the Government's alternative proposals in their clauses. The amendment suggests the much simpler method of regulation without the need for alteration of the basic law. It achieves the very purpose which, I am sure, the Government wish to achieve through Clauses 13 and 14. Those clauses are considered both by the local authorites and by the professional body to be irrelevant and ineffective. I hope that I have made the position clear. I trust that the Government will consider the proposals carefully and sympathetically. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

We wish to support the amendment, explained in such detail by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, although I am a little surprised to hear him suggest, in basically a clause stand part argument, that the amendment could take the place of SPZs. I see the provision as a useful addition as well as an alternative, if you like, to SPZs in that it could be used by authorities in an area where there is no question of declaring a simplified planning zone. It could be a useful provision for quite small areas of land in almost any authority that wished to see development take place and wished to remove barriers to it. Whether or not we go ahead with SPZs, the amendment itself and standing by itself will be a provision worth having in the Bill.

There is little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said. I wish, however, to make the point that the amendment would enable local authorities to maximise the value of their assets. This will, I hope, appeal to the Government. It should appeal to them. Local authorities are constantly invited to dispose of their surplus land. It seems to me that if they had this tool to increase the value of that land, they would be even more inclined to dispose of it. This is an argument that should also appeal to the Government. Whether or not the amendment is an alternative to simplified planning zones will no doubt emerge as we continue our discussions. I hope, however, that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment for all the reasons given by the noble Lord and myself.

Lord Skelmersdale

This new clause, linked, as it is, with the desire to delete Clauses 13 and 14, strikes, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, at the heart of the Government's proposals to introduce SPZ legislation. In other words, in opposing the Question that those two clauses stand part of the Bill, the clear intention of the noble Lord is to prevent local planning authorities in England, Wales and Scotland from setting up simplified planning zone schemes. It is these clauses that insert the essential provisions in the relevant Acts of Parliament to require authorities to consider the benefits of establishing SPZs and to do so—I think this important—where they decide. If these enabling provisions were deleted from the Bill, the provisions in Schedule 4 allowing local authorities to prepare and alter schemes and prescribing procedures for so doing would fall. The Government's entire SPZ proposal would effectively be killed off.

Whatever else SPZs may be, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that they are anything to do with enterprise zones. I agree when he says that their initial conception is a result of enterprise zones, but they are significantly different. What exactly are they? I hope that it will help the Committee when I say that I have come to see them as local general development orders made by planning authorities, taking account of the particular circumstances of their areas or parts of their area. The essential point is that SPZs give planning permission for specified types of development without the need for a planning application or, of course, the payment of a fee. SPZ schemes can be tailor-made to suit a wide range of circumstances. They can vary in size and content. They could be for small areas, specifying a broad range of uses, say, for a central area site; or they could be larger but covering a more limited range of uses, for example, chimneys in a countryside area or whatever the local authority decides would be appropriate. SPZ schemes do not require the approval of the Secretary of State.

There is a basic difference between the concept behind SPZs and the power that the new clause wants to give to local planning authorities to grant individual planning permission. SPZ schemes give permission for a fixed 10-year period, not the normal five or three years, respectively, which detailed or outline permissions normally have. SPZ schemes offer a longer period of certainty. Individual planning permissions are granted for specific sites and for specific types of development. SPZ schemes, by their nature, are for larger areas and for a wider range of development types and forms. They have only to specify the basic requirements and thereby convey—this is again important—full planning permission when those requirements are met.

For example, an SPZ scheme may set out what types of development would be appropriate in an area subject to, say, certain density or height restrictions or perhaps parking and access standards. Developers can be certain of being able to carry out development of the types and forms permitted by the SPZ scheme without the need for further application to the authority and the time and effort associated with that process. Grants of outline permission conversely specify reserve matters that have to be sorted out with the local planning authority at a later date, the outcome of which, as we all know, is unsure.

Developers are given flexibility within the terms of SPZ schemes to respond to changing market conditions and client requirements. So long as they comply with the basic requirements of the scheme, they can adjust the details such as design and layout. This is unlike normal detailed planning permissions which are to be found everywhere in the planning system with the main exception of the general development order. Indeed, I look, as I have said, at SPZs as the local equivalent of the GDO.

Amendment No. 128A does, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says, offer an alternative. Instead of SPZs, the new clause proposes the extension of the powers of local planning authorities to obtain deemed planning permission. At the moment, as the noble Lord said, authorities can grant permission in response to an application by a developer. They can also deem permission for the development of land they own or for development they propose to carry out themselves, even where they do not own the land. I cannot accept the noble Lord's contention that planning authorities lose control. As I have said, it is the planning authorities themselves that make the SPZs.

The suggestion now is that, in addition, authorities should be able to obtain permission for the carrying out of development on land they do not own where they do not intend to undertake the development themselves—in other words, an automatic planning permission. That may seem superficially attractive but it is not a full substitute for SPZs. I am unable to accept this substitute proposal because it is inferior to SPZs. Also I see no case for both SPZs and additional powers for authorities to deem conventional planning permissions, if this is how the next few minutes, as I would hope, but possibly the next few hours of the Committee are to be spent.

I would not wish to quibble too much about the detail of the new clause. But I must point out, first, that the regulations that it proposes should be amended by order apply only to England and Wales. I would not have thought that this omission of Scotland from the effect of the proposed amendment was deliberate. Secondly, I am advised that the regulations cannot be amended in the way proposed to achieve the effect the noble Lord wishes. Primary legislation would be needed, expressly permitting the necessary regulations to come into force.

That said, I wish to turn to the merits of SPZs and to the reasons why the provisions to establish SPZ schemes should stand part of the Bill. The Government have never suggested that SPZs are a panacea to economic ills and development doldrums, nor that, because enterprise zones have been successful, SPZs will be too, even without financial incentives. The noble Lord made a great case of this. We know though that enterprise zones have not led to a deterioration in environmental conditions, as some had feared. It seems to me that the standard of design and quality of landscaping in enterprise zones has much to commend it.

What we are saying is that SPZs are another valuable measure to help ease the burden on business, to provide a more secure climate in which to plan ahead, to generate new confidence in the areas designated, to stimulate investment and development activity. They can be tailor-made in size and content to cope with a wide range of circumstances. They can be packaged together and promoted with the aid of various grants and other incentives where that is needed to give an extra boost.

SPZs are essentially for local planning authorities themselves to create. It will normally be for them to decide where to set up an SPZ scheme; it will be for them to work up the proposals and take them through the necessary procedures. They will be responsible for adopting schemes. SPZs will not, save in exceptional circumstances, be subject to ministerial control and intervention. I think, quite frankly, that SPZs are a very imaginative concept. There is a lack of imagination, however, as to how SPZs could operate and the uses to which they could be put. That may simply be due to lack of experience rather than an inherent opposition to a new idea. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said, with the evidence that he produced before the Committee, he feels it is the latter.

I am sure that, looked at from the point of view of a local businessman or industrialist—indeed, any developer—an SPZ scheme offers a unique combination of certainty and flexibility. Likewise, larger companies and investors are going to be attracted more to safe, secure areas than to those where the planning regime is unpredictable and imprecise. They know a good thing when they see it. The time taken in going through the procedures will pay dividends.

Finally, there is the important matter of due process. Deemed planning permissions obtained by local planning authorities under the general regulations are subjected only to a council resolution and limited advertising procedures appropriate to specific developments. SPZ schemes, on the other hand, go through a fuller process of public scrutiny. They would first be prepared in draft and be subject to public participation and consultation procedures. They would then be amended, as necessary, to take account of the comments raised. Subsequently they would be placed on deposit and formal objections would be invited. Where objections were made, objectors would have the right to be heard at a public local inquiry. Thereafter, there would be an opportunity to comment on any consequent modifications made to the SPZ scheme before it was finally adopted.

Of course, the whole procedure would take much longer. But we are concerned not to ride roughshod over other people's land, rights and intentions and, with broadly-based, long-term permissions it is only right that SPZ-style permissions are fully debated in this way, leaving it to developers rather than authorities to determine ultimately the precise form of development and use of land within the parameters of the schemes so drawn up.

I hope I have successfully demonstrated not only that SPZ permissions are different in character from individual deemed permissions, but that the procedures for preparing schemes add significantly to their accountability and, hence, to their acceptance. I do not see deemed permissions as an acceptable substitute for SPZs. Nor do I see the new clause as providing a necessary or useful additional measure to SPZs.

The Committee will appreciate that I have felt it necessary to speak at length. Both the new clause and the future of the Government's SPZ proposal deserve it. I should like now to reiterate very briefly my argument for SPZs and against these amendments. SPZs are a flexible new measure for local authorities' use and for the benefit of developers and businessmen, for whom they offer certainty. In turn, that should be good for the economy. There are full democratic procedures for preparing SPZs to ensure that all those with an interest can be involved in the details of schemes. SPZs are superior in all these respects to the deemed planning permission approach.

The amendment is technically flawed. It would require primary legislation. The regulations cannot be amended in the way proposed. Even if the amendment were properly drafted, the product that it would allow local authorities to create is of dubious merit. It would simply be another form of detailed planning permission lasting five years or an outline permission of three years with reserve matters that had to be cleared by the authority. It would enable authorities not only to deem permission on anyone's land but actually to dream up the type of development and all its details in the first place. I find this very questionable. Worse than that, the authority would not need to subject its proposals to proper public airing, as it would with SPZs. Deemed permissions of the type envisaged here would neither be of much benefit to developers nor inspire public confidence. I see little value in them in their own right, and certainly not as a substitute to SPZs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, had a point when she said that, in the case of a piece of land with a multitude of owners, which sometimes happens, deemed planning permission would be a way of giving certainty to the developer. But of course SPZs would give exactly the same sort of certainty, and from the beginning.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked for off-the-shelf development plans, if I heard him correctly. That is exactly what SPZs do. Therefore I urge the Committee to accept that Clause 13 and Clause 14 stand part of the Bill, and that the new clause seeking amendment to the regulations about deemed planning permission should be rejected.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Diamond

I am sorry that the Government have obviously given such little thought to a proposal which is not a party proposal—there is nothing partisan about this at all—and which has the support of all the local authority associations. It is very odd (is it not?) that they should be opposing unitedly something that the Government think is good for them and that they think is very bad for them. They are the people who make and grant the planning permissions. They are the authorities who seek to have developers come along and develop in their area. They are the authorities who want to see their derelict land turned to good use. They are the people who are elected by the local electorate in order to achieve that end for them. They know their local circumstances precisely. It is they who think that the Government's proposals are irrelevant.

If they are irrelevant, there is no need to have them in the Bill. It would be different if the Government had come along and said, "Yes, we have had lots of discussions"—as one knows they have—"with various interested parties about the kind of proposal made under the amendment, and we will look at it very carefully and produce an adjusted version which satisfies the requirements of the law and of the draftsmen, who are already familiar with this". It is not for amateurs such as us to have the knowledge to alter a Bill at the first go in such a way as to achieve finality and perfection.

It is our duty in the Opposition to put forward for consideration ideas that are intelligible in the way that they are drafted, and, if necessary, to come back with more detailed formulation at a later stage of the Bill. We have a number of stages for that very purpose. If the Government had said, "We like the idea in principle; we would like to think more about it and we prefer it to our own first thoughts of a simplified planning zone", then of course it would not have been necessary for Clauses 13 and 14 to be carried. There is nothing more to it than that. If the Government think that this is a possible useful additional power—as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, obviously does—then of course we would go along with that. It is the local authorities that are saying they dislike these simplified planning zones fairly intensely.

I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. It is not right for the Minister to give the impression that the local authorities were free to make up their own minds about these simplified planning zones. I am going to suggest to the Minister that that is quite wrong. It is for the Secretary of State to say to any local planning authority to which he thinks it would be appropriate to say this: "You shall create a simplified planning zone. We have given you long enough to think about it. We know you do not like it. We know that the local electors do not want it. We know that your professional advisers are against it. We, who happen to be situated in an area somewhere near Whitehall in London, think that this is the best thing in that area in the North-East of England and we require you to prepare a simplified planning zone."

That is one of the reasons that all the local authorities, as I hope I have made clear to the Committee—the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—are concerned that simplified planning zones will be complex and ineffective and will duplicate existing local plan procedures. I am sure that this document has reached the Ministry.

It is not the case that the Government are restoring freedom once more to the local authorities. On the contrary, it is the usual situation where the Government are withdrawing an area of local democracy. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to intervene.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. If the noble Lord likes to glance at Schedule 3 to the Bill, he will see that there is one occasion only where the Secretary of State is involved. That is in paragraph 3(4). That paragraph says quite simply that where a developer feels that a local authority should consider setting up an SPZ scheme, he may make application to the Secretary of State. That is the only time the Secretary of State becomes involved. When the noble Lord tries to say that we are taking away yet more democracy from a local authority, I do not think he can be allowed to get away with it.

Lord Diamond

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has made my point for me; namely, that the Secretary of State can require a local authority, against its will and the will of its electors, to create a simplified planning zone. That is all I was saying.

The noble Lord has said, "But this arises only where you have a developer." The whole matter arises only where one is concerned with development. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about simplified planning in order to assist developers. I give way to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Nicol

It is not quite as the Minister has said. As I recall the words, it is provided that a person, any person—not simply a developer, not a person with an interest, not a person living in the area, but any person—can require the Secretary of State to investigate. That puts a quite different complexion on it.

Lord Diamond

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, who is so well informed about this matter. I am sure that the Committee will forgive my attempting, as a complete amateur in these matters, to clarify the meaning of an amendment on behalf of my noble friend who is the authority on these matters.

We are therefore in the situation where I am suggesting that the Ministry has not given really serious thought to a serious non-party proposal. The argument that this should not be accepted because it is only five years instead of the Government's preferred 10 years is so slender as to hardly merit an answer. If the Government prefer 10 years to the normal five years, let them bring forward an amendment which provides for 10 years instead of five. If they think that they ought to have basic legislative powers in order to achieve their objectives let them bring forward an amendment in this Bill which provides exactly that. Let them say, "We will do this at Report stage".

There is nothing at all in these trivial matters which undermines the purpose of our putting down the amendment; namely, to help development in areas where development should take place. What is critical is the word "certainty". The Minister has said that certainty rests with the simplified planning zones. That cannot be sustained. One can have certainty only where there is planning permission for a precise area without general and wide reservations. For a planning zone, as is made absolutely clear in the Bill, a much wider area is intended—by no means the area for one developer alone. A variety of possible uses is intended. Nobody knows precisely what combination of uses would be acceptable, if one is a would-be developer.

There is no question that certainty for the developer is a most desirable objective—and not only for the developer but also for his financial backer. Precise certainty is most desirable. That can be achieved only by a detailed plan which the local authorities are seeking permission to carry out under this amendment. The amendment widens their scope by permitting it to be done on land which does not belong to them. It is a major step forward. It would assist, whether or not the Government want to carry on with their simplified planning procedures.

I again appeal to the Government to say that, although there are certain technicalities which are wrong with this provision, this amendment assists towards the purpose we all have in mind. It has the support of all the local authorities and the professional bodies. I ask the Government to consider this very carefully, and not necessarily to bring back the identical scheme but to let noble Lords know the results of their considerations in some appropriate form at Report stage. I suggest to the Minister that he has misunderstood the purpose of our amendment, and that he could well agree to this request.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am sorry that I cannot accede to the request so reasonably put by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. His scheme in the Bill for simplified planning zones is so incredibly flexible that where the local authority want to go into great detail for the corner site in a city, or whatever, they can make SPZ schemes to that effect. On the other hand, where they want to make very much more relaxed schemes, the local authority can do so. I am perfectly prepared to have discussions with the local authority organisations or with any noble Lords at any time. But I cannot see that the SPZ proposal, as it stands in the Bill with the various comparatively minor amendments that I shall be asking the Committee to consider, if we still have the clauses in the Bill, requires such amendment. If I am wrong, I shall come back at the next stage. However, as I say, this is my certain feeling at the moment.

4 p.m.

Lord Diamond

The difficulty about this amendment is of course that it had to be put down in advance of the very clauses which it seeks either to eliminate or to add to as an alternative approach. I feel (and I hope that the Committee will share this view) that we shall be better informed of the Government's plans after we have discussed Clauses 13 and 14, and that we shall know more precisely whether they can do everything which a proposal along the lines of our amendment can do, but I believe and am advised that that is not the case. However, we shall listen very carefully to what the Government say on Clauses 13 and 14.

We are grateful to the Minister for his invitation to discussions, which we may very well take up. I understand that the local authorities, and certainly the Town Planning Institute, have already been in touch with the ministry, and I am sure that they would welcome the opportunity to proceed further with their discussions.

In those circumstances, I think that the simplest thing is to come back to this matter again at Report stage after we have considered very carefully what the Government have to say on Clauses 13 and 14. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 [Simplified planning zones in England and Wales]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 129:

Page 27, line 25, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 35.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 129. I speak also to Amendments 132, 141 and 142. These amendments are a necessary practical device to safeguard the purpose behind simplified planning zones which I have just spent some time outlining. SPZ schemes, as their name implies, are intended to simplify the planning regime in an area; to allow a developer greater freedom and a readier opportunity to begin investing in an area. While it is only sensible for a local planning authority to be able to control, by conditions or limitations attached to an SPZ scheme, such matters as highways access or basic physical limits of permitted buildings, we would not wish to see an SPZ scheme being used to impose greater restrictions on an area than would normally apply. I am thinking particularly here of the freedoms given by the general development and use classes orders, which we would not wish to see nullified in any way.

These amendments will ensure that power to make an SPZ scheme cannot be misused in this way, and that, conversely, any freedoms given by an SPZ scheme permission cannot be negated by the terms of any other type of planning permission. They do this for England and Wales by transferring sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 24A(3) in Clause 13 of the Bill to a new Section 24AA and for Scotland by transferring sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 21A(3) in Clause 14 to a new Section 21AA, adding a further subsection in both cases. I commend these sensible amendments to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Nicolmoved Amendment No. 130:

Page 27, line 36, at insert ("whilst in the process of preparing or reviewing a Local Plan for its area or part of its area").

The noble Baroness said: I am not quite sure whether the amendment that we have just passed affects the wording of this amendment; it may do so. Perhaps we can look at that later. This amendment would seem to further one of the Government's aims, which is that of simplifying planning procedures. A short while ago we heard the Minister explain to us the very complicated procedures which will apply before a simplified planning zone is declared.

When one thinks of the equally complicated and lengthy procedures of local plans, including the length of time that it takes for a local plan to be approved as it has to go through the county council and to the Secretary of State, and so on, it seems that the amalgamation of SPZs into the local plan process is greatly to be desired. It would amalgamate public consultation procedures and it seems to me that it would make good planning sense. It would be easier for planning authorities and the public to assess the problems and the options available. It would make sure that the proposed simplified planning zone was in line with the approved structure plan, which at the moment it seems to me will be quite difficult to assess—at least for the public to assess. The local authority may be able to do it behind its desk.

The amendment would mean that the designation of an SPZ would be considered in relation to surrounding areas, and that again is something for which the present procedure does not allow—at least it does not allow for proper scrutiny. It would not in any way affect the Government's aim to create areas of free development. They would simply be outlined and declared at the same time as the local plan or the review of a local plan.

The local authority associations all support this amendment, and so does the Royal Town Planning Institute, who feel that the present proposals involve complex and lengthy procedures which may defeat the Government's stated objectives. The acceptance of this amendment would, in my view, remove some of the objections to Clauses 13 and 14 as they stand. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

Like the noble Baroness, I am totally sold on efficiency and value for money in local government. Therefore it is with some regret that I have to say to her that this modest spur to efficiency is not really a runner as concerns SPZs. I say that for the following reasons. I cannot agree that local planning authorities should be tied down to thinking about setting up SPZs only when they have a local plan or revision of a local plan on the stocks. That would be too restrictive and unrealistic.

Not all authorities will be contemplating the preparation of a local plan, while others may well have recently adopted plans which are not yet ready for review. Others may be well down the road of local plan preparation in one area which may offer no opportunities for an SPZ, whereas another area outside the local plan might. Such authorities could find themselves artificially inhibited when it came to considering whether they wanted to set up SPZs. Nor will it always be practicable or sensible to prepare SPZ schemes and local plans together. Local plans could cover a much larger area and contain a much wider range of policies and proposals than an SPZ. It could therefore take a good deal longer to prepare and process a local plan than an SPZ scheme, and consequently the SPZ could be held up if the procedures were locked together as the noble Baroness suggests.

In conclusion, I am not sure that the amendment would actually achieve its aims. I think it would introduce an unacceptable degree of rigidity in working up SPZ schemes, and unnecessarily restrict the occasions when authorities may contemplate preparing such schemes. In other circumstances and in other surroundings I might have said to the noble Baroness, "Nice try, Batman!" I appreciate the thought that has gone behind the amendment, but as I say I really do not think that it would work.

Baroness Nicol

I am sorry that the Minister feels like that because I think that, in the end, with a little more reflection, it will be seen that this would be a better process. I think that the end product would be better because the impact of SPZs on surrounding areas is something that we may have to consider very carefully; and we shall come on to that in a later amendment. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kennetmoved Amendment No. 130A:

Page 28, line 2, after ("desirable") insert ("provided that such part or parts of their area are in receipt of urban development grant under the criteria for implementation of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978,").

The noble Lord said: I rise to move this amendment in the stead of my noble friend Lord Hunt. It is another amendment which expresses the uncertainties and doubts—not the hostilities but the doubts and worries—of the Committee about this necessarily untried new idea of the SPZs. Its purpose is to ensure that simplified planning zones do exactly what the Minister and his colleagues in another place have been telling us all along they were designed to do; namely, to help the regeneration of run-down urban areas.

The amendment focuses SPZs specifically on to these areas. To limit them to areas receiving urban development grant seems to me a sensible definition, because those areas have already been identified as needing renewal. If we took the alternative course and linked them to the proposed new urban regeneration grants and loans, etc., which come in under this very Bill, that would be a kind of re-entrant and we would not know quite what we were doing. It would make one thing depend on the other, and we do not think that that would be the right way to do it. It proposes to link them to urban development grants under the 1978 Act.

The Government's White Paper Lifting the Burden, published in July last year, which proposed SPZs for the first time, made it clear why they were being introduced. It said: This type of planning scheme has proved to be effective and successful in Enterprise Zones and can provide a real stimulus to the redevelopment of derelict or unused land and buildings in areas that are badly in need of regeneration.".

Since then the governmental emphasis has always been on urban regeneration. Proposals distributed for information shortly after the White Paper last year stated: SPZs are most likely to be useful in areas in need of regeneration or a stimulus to new development or redevelopment.".

When this Bill was introduced in another place the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction made it clear in the Second Reading debate that the purpose of SPZs was urban regeneration. He said on 4th February at col. 160: Part II provides powers to establish simplified planning zones. They, too, will be of particular importance in the inner city. This is a radical new idea to speed up inner city and other development, exactly complementing urban regeneration grant".

That is the ones in the Bill. He also said: I turn to other planning aspects of the Bill that, to a lesser extent, complement urban regeneration grants and simplified planning zones, which together will be such valuable additional tools to those that we use already to implement our urban policy. We hope that the grants and zones will be another significant step forward for the inner cities".

It is clear that the thrust of the Government's idea for simplified planning zones is all about attracting development to the obvious place, where we all know it is needed; namely, the decayed inner city areas. It is clearly not intended to be a device to relax planning controls in places where development is not particularly required or is even actively discouraged. Our amendment is phrased so that the Bill can help urban areas in the way the Government intend without incurring the harmful possibility of enticing development to places that do not have the same priority, or indeed run the risk of favouring a general relaxation of planning control.

As the Bill is drafted, this specific negative limitation and positive focus for SPZs is not stated. The Bill would make it possible for district planning authorities to use their discretion by establishing some zones elsewhere than in derelict, run-down city areas or even elsewhere than in built-up areas altogether; that is to say, in neighbouring—perhaps neighbouring, or perhaps way away—undesignated countryside. We have just heard the quite alarming suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on an earlier amendment that they might be used to liberate the construction of chimneys in the countryside. That is what I understood him to say. If that is the idea, that is precisely what this amendment would seek to prevent.

We on these Benches feel that whereas speedy action to improve conditions in the inner cities is urgent, development of rural land for housing or other building purposes must continue to be subject to the present not overstrict planning control procedures. The amendment is therefore drafted so as to link the SPZs with urban development grants.

The idea of this amendment comes from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am a former chairman. When the Bill was first discussed in the House of Commons the Parliamentary Secretary of State was questioned along the general lines which now manifest themselves in these amendments. He was not able to provide the assurances or information sought in the House of Commons, and this amendment is a consequence of his inability to provide them.

He did not have any view on whether the SPZs could make the countryside more attractive to developers than the urban areas, which they are supposed to serve. Nor did he indicate what criteria would be recommended to local authorities for deciding where SPZs should be set up. Nor could he suggest under what circumstances the Secretary of State might wish to proceed with an SPZ in defiance of local opinion. He referred only to the need for local flexibility—that great old Whitehall friend—and quoted as sufficient safeguards for the environment only the consultative procedures in the Bill.

We are unimpressed by this. This amendment seeks to remedy what we think is a serious shortcoming in the Bill by focusing SPZs on to inner urban areas where they ought to go. There are gestures towards the countryside written into the Bill—the proposal, for instance, to keep SPZs out of certain highly restricted designated areas—but in a way these proposals merely highlight the problem instead of solving it, because of all the vast areas that are designated neither one way nor the other in which the local planning authorities would be perfectly free to introduce SPZs regardless of any external criterion of need. The amendment would provide a solution rather than merely highlighting the problem, and I think it is not necessary for me to assure the Committee that it is intended in a wholly constructive sense. I beg to move.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I hope my noble friend will not accept this amendment, which would be extremely restrictive in respect of the introduction of simplified planning zones. As I understand the clause, it puts on the local planning authority responsibility for considering the introduction of an SPZ.

If this amendment were accepted, as I read it, no local planning authority would even be entitled to consider this unless it were an area which received urban development grant under the inner urban areas scheme. Obviously if even consideration is to be ruled out, this must be extremely restrictive and would cut back a scheme which many of us regard as being full of promise. I hope therefore that my noble friend will reject the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale

My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is right. This amendment would have the effect of limiting the application of simplified planning zones only to those areas in the country which were in receipt of urban development grant under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, such as areas of the inner city partnership and programme authorities. But inner cities go very much wider than these areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, quoted from the White Paper and said that SPZs are most likely to be used in the inner cities; yes, but not as directly in those parts of the inner cities that the noble Lord has identified in this amendment. When my right honourable and honourable friends in another place spoke of a radical new idea to speed up development in the inner city, of course both the White Paper and my right honourable and honourable friends were right. But as I sought to explain in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, when I know I made a flippant remark about chimneys, which was perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, the point I was trying to make was that where the local planning authority want to have a wide general development order type of exclusion for the whole of their area, there is no earthly reason, given the flexibility of the SPZ scheme, why they should not do it. It might be appropriate for chimneys in one area and not in another, or whatever, but the scheme is so flexible that it can be done under it.

Taking the amendment in the spirit in which it was offered. it would impose an artificial constraint on local planning authorities fulfilling their duty to consider whether it would be desirable to set up SPZs in their areas. It would be tantamount to preventing the designation of SPZ schemes anywhere outside inner urban areas.

I really find such a tight restriction to be misplaced. I have no doubt that the local planning authorities will package their SPZs together, as appropriate. with urban development grants, derelict land grants, and the new proposed urban regeneration grant, where such measures would be needed to provide an additional boost to SPZs. However, we see the application of SPZs as being wider than this. As I have said, they can be varied in size and content to suit a range of areas and circumstances; for example, town centres and large new developments such as science parks. SPZs are not intended just to be agents of redevelopment in the worst areas. They are a very much more flexible measure. I suggest to the noble Lord that he is being too restrictive in this amendment.

Lord Kennet

I hear what the Minister says, and I take his point. Perhaps it is too restrictive, but it still seems to me that the Bill as drafted is too permissive; it is too wide. The Government's intention has always been clear; that I think the noble Lord would agree; it is for run-down derelict urban areas that need renewal-a very familiar goal and one which has not yet been achieved by the Government, try as they will. I give them credit for many efforts. This is one more effort, and good luck to it in those places.

I think it is not right to say that because of the urgent need to do this local authorities must be free to act absolutely anywhere they like except in national parks; that is to say, in all undesignated land not scheduled for development where nobody has a policy of seeking to attract development.

This is too wide. I listened hopefully to hear whether the Minister would give any assurances that the Government will between now and Report consider the possibility of introducing a lesser degree of limitation on where the SPZs may be set up than is proposed in this amendment. He did not give any such assurance. I wonder whether there is any chance that he might do so now. Can he say that the Government will consider whether it would be possible to introduce an amendment to make it clear that these things really are intended for urban renewal and not just to relax the existing controls all over the undesignated land of England whenever a local authority happens to feel like it?

Lord Skelmersdale

While the noble Lord was speaking I was rapidly looking for the part of the Bill where it states in what circumstances already not outlined in the Bill the Secretary of State would have the power to designate extra areas. In fact we shall come to that point under the amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. in a few moments.

The whole objective, as I sought to explain to the Committee in my last speech, is that the SPZ schemes should be flexible enough not only just to cover inner cities. If we wanted inner city SPZs and inner city SPZs alone, we should have found a definition of "inner city" and put it in the Bill. It has always been the intention that this is a way of letting local authorities do their own thing. It is important to bear in mind this concept when discussing this whole subject of Part II.

Lord Kennet

I hear no assurances there, and so the noble Lord will not be surprised if I say we should like to have some conversations with the Government, if the Minister can find time in the next few days and weeks. We shall try to find a way, which the Government will not mind too much, of introducing on Report an amendment alternative to this which will be somewhere between what the friends of this amendment think is right and what the Government think is right.

Lord Skelmersdale

I should be very happy to put myself at the noble Lord's disposal.

Lord Kennet

1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 131.

Page 28, line 15, leave out from ("counties") to ("by") in line 16.

The noble Baroness said: I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It is a purely technical amendment. A Government amendment made during the passage of the Bill through another place inserted new Section 24C(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 into the Bill. That provision specifically states that land in a national park must not be included in an SPZ. However, if new Section 24A(6) were to remain as drafted, the local planning authority for a national park would still be able to prepare an SPZ. This is not sensible. The bracketed reference to national parks would, following this amendment, be deleted. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 132:

Page 28, line 17, at end insert—

("Simplified planning zone schemes: conditions and limitations on planning permission.

24AA.—(1) The conditions and limitations on planning permission which may be specified in a simplified zone scheme may include—

1. (a) conditions or limitations in respect of all development permitted by the scheme or in respect of particular descriptions of development so permitted, and
2. (b) conditions or limitations requiring the consent, agreement or approval of the local planning authority in relation to particular descriptions of permitted development;

and different conditions or limitations may be specified for different cases or classes of case. (2) Nothing in a simplified planning zone scheme shall affect the right of any person—

1. (a) to do anything not amounting to development, or
2. (b) to carry out development for which planning permission is not required or for which permission has been granted otherwise than by the scheme;

and no limitation or restriction subject to which permission has been granted otherwise than under the scheme shall affect the right of any person to carry out development for which permission has been granted under the scheme.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 129. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Nicolmoved Amendment No. 133:

Page 28, line 21, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five")

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment, as it very clearly says, is to reduce the period of SPZs from 10 years to five. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has already touched on this in an earlier speech.

Simplified planning zones are new. We have never had anything quite like them since planning procedures began. I think they are an experiment worth trying. What I object to are some of the surrounding provisions, or rather lack of them, on some occasions. They are dramatically new and 10 years is a very long time to run an experiment. The controls over development within an SPZ are to be completely relaxed. It could affect major types of development such as shops, offices or light industry. We have all agreed that it could be quite a major development.

The consequences of this freedom will always be difficult to predict and there could be unintended consequences which the planning authority may wish to end as quickly as possible. The fact that an SPZ has been declared I hope does not mean that the people who live within it or round its boundaries and who are affected by it will cease to have a voice. It certainly does not mean that they will cease to be aware of what is happening to them. To go on suffering what has turned out to be a disaster— and it could happen—for 10 years is really rather a long time.

I strongly advise the Government that at least initially five years would be enough. The period could be extended if it proved to be successful. It should be possible for the planning authority to revoke a deemed planning permission once it has been declared.

The Public Accounts Committee has recently asked the Department of the Environment to review the effectiveness of enterprise zones at the end of a five-year period. I do not know whether this was entirely a financial exercise or whether there were other reasons as well. If it is right for enterprise zones, it should be right for SPZs. Does it not make sense to do the same for them? I repeat that 10 years is a long time if one is suffering from the effects of what is, or could be, a dramatic change in one's environment. I beg to move.

Lord Diamond

I want to make it quite clear that we are supporting this amendment for all the good reasons which the noble Baroness has given. In particular, I want to add a way forward, if it appeals to the Government. The amendment as it stands merely removes "ten" and inserts "five"; but as the noble Baroness said, the main reason for doing this is that nobody, not even the Government, if I may presume to say so, can read the future precisely over the next five years. We know to begin with that there are anxieties about the possible blight effects at the margins and so on. There may be very good reasons why the Government should like to limit this in the first place to five years, as the noble Baroness has suggested. But at the same time they could take powers in the ordinary way by resolution of both Houses of Parliament to renew such a period of five years for a further five years, if it seemed right to the government of the day to do so, and no doubt if it seemed right to Parliament, as would almost certainly be the case. I hope that in reply the Minister will bear in mind the possibility of this extension, which could easily be arranged between now and Report stage with the cooperation of all sides of the Committee.

Lord Skelmersdale

This very brief amendment, which is out of all proportion to the size of its effect, would seriously undermine the whole concept of the Government's proposals to introduce SPZs. The amendment, if accepted, would, as the noble Baroness has said, reduce the specified 10-year life span of SPZs schemes by half to only five years. This is the same period as ordinary detailed planning permissions run for.

This raises an important point of principle. It is not just a matter of detail. The noble Baroness is quite right. SPZs are a new idea and for them to be successful they must have something different to offer the potential developer. One of the main advantages of the schemes will be the climate of certainty that they will create. They will help to generate much needed confidence and stability for the future in selected areas. Investors, business men, property owners and builders will know for a considerable period what development is acceptable in an area. They will be able to plan ahead without being subjected to the unpredictable discretionary development control system.

The noble Baroness had a good point. What about the situation where it turns out that a SPZ scheme for possibly, but not necessarily, a restricted area turns into an absolute menace for the local residents? In those cases Schedule 4(2) allows local authorities to revise plans at any time. I should have thought that if that is her major worry on all this, that provision would be sufficient cover for her concerns. Potential developers looking at an area will know in advance whether the type of project that they have in mind is permitted and they will not have the bother and the expense of making an individual planning application, nor the delay of waiting for a decision.

As we know, they will have 10 years rather than five to get their schemes off the ground. This will be particularly useful in the case of major projects or phased developments where a slippage in timetable may occur, with the risk in the case of ordinary planning permission of the development not getting under way before the permission runs out. Combined with the flexibility to alter his proposals within the terms of the SPZ scheme in response to market changes without applying for further planning permission—as long as what he still proposes to do is within the limits of the scheme in the first place—the 10-year life of the SPZ offers the developer considerable advantages over the standard planning regime.

I cannot agree that this period could be shortened without giving a considerable blow to the whole basis of the SPZ. I hope that with this explanation the noble Baroness can see her way to agreeing with me.

4.30 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of Schedule 4(2). Can he enlighten me further? That schedule also has a heading: Power of Secretary of State to direct making or alteration of scheme. This is the point that I have been arguing about. Would that provision apply if a scheme is in existence and it proved to be a nuisance? Could a person go to the Secretary of State and ask for an alteration to the existing scheme? It would overcome some of my objections if we are to leave in "a person" to begin with.

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, certainly he could. Also the application to the Secretary of State is only a last-resort power. In the first instance the application has to be made to the local planning authority and the local planning authority has to have refused. I should have thought that a reasonable planning authority in the circumstances that the noble Baroness has just outlined would not refuse but would be only too delighted, for the benefit of its residents, to try to accommodate the concerns.

Baroness Nicol

This puts a new complexion on part of the provision. I was not aware under the terms of the schedule as it stands that local authorities could alter a scheme at the request of residents when a scheme was in existence. I understood that the local residents could ask for a scheme (or any person could ask for a scheme) but I did not understand that they could come to the local authority, say that the scheme was a nuisance to them and ask that it be looked at again. Then what happens?

Lord Skelmersdale

The basis for my remarks was paragraph 2(1) up to the second "or"; namely: A … planning authority may at any time decide to make a simplified planning zone scheme or to alter a scheme adopted by them". The next word is "or", and after that we get into the remit of the Secretary of State. The local planning authority is perfectly within its rights in the circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness to seek to alter the scheme. In doing that it would need to go through exactly the same consultation processes which were necessary to set up the scheme in the first place. The power is there with the words "alteration of scheme", which was the point I was trying to make.

Baroness Nicol

With that explanation, I should like to give further consideration to this and beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 134: Page 28, line 21, leave out from ("date") to end of line 23 and insert— ("(2) Upon the scheme's ceasing to have effect planning permission under the scheme shall also cease to have effect except in a case where the development authorised by it has been begun. (3) The provisions of section 44(2) to (6) of this Act (which provide for the termination of planning permission if the completion of development is unreasonably delayed) apply to planning permission under a simplified planning zone scheme where development has been begun but not completed by the time the area ceased to be a simplified planning zone. (4) The provisions of section 43(l) to (3) of this Act apply in determining for the purposes of this section when development shall be taken to be begun. Alteration of simplified planning zone scheme.24BB.—(1)")

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, in speaking to Amendment No. 134 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 137, 139. 140, 143, 146, 147 and 148. The Committee will be aware that during the passage of this Bill in another place concern was expressed about what would happen once an SPZ scheme had expired if developments had been started but not completed. As introduced, the initial provisions of the Bill would have meant that such projects could be left in that unsatisfactory state, leaving the local planning authority with no power to enforce their completion. It would have meant that any developments started under the terms of an SPZ scheme would have kept alive for all time the planning permissions bestowed by the SPZ scheme for those developments, even though the 10-year life of the scheme had expired.

An amendment to new Section 24B(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, inserted by Clause 13 of the Bill, was agreed, leaving the text which we have before us now. It requires any unfinished development to be completed to the local planning authority's satisfaction within 12 months of the SPZ scheme expiring. Although we accept that some arrangements are required to reduce the risk that partially completed developments might be left for several years and that extant planning permission may be prone to exploitation, we have looked at the possibility of something more flexible than a fixed period of time for completion and something which bites on specific developments rather than provision which applies in a blanket fashion. Since these are practical and more flexible amendments than the current provisions I commend them to the Committee.

Baroness Nicol

In spite of the apparent effect of this amendment we are opposed to it. The reason is that planning authorities would be dependent upon the issue of completion notices where a development was unreasonably delayed. Members of the Committee will know that to start a development, once you have acquired your piece of land, all is that necessary is to dig a trench. You can then go away and forget about it until either the expiry of the planning permission or, as this amendment would allow, for ever, until you decide that the value of the land has increased to the point where you wish either to develop it or to dispose of it.

The local authority can issue completion notices. I am well aware of that. But completion notices take time to become effective. They have to allow at least 12 months in any case; they are dependent upon the Secretary of State for confirmation (which can be a lengthy process); and they are subject to appeal. The effect of these amendments therefore is that SPZs will last for considerably longer than they would suggest. Recent appeal decisions suggest that the Secretary of State is reluctant to ratify completion notices where development has been started but not completed for market reasons.

The issue of completion notices in these circumstances is regarded as contrary to government advice in Circular 22 of 1980 that, Developers know their own business best". Planning permission given under a simplified planning zone could last indefinitely and when the development was eventually completed—which I suppose it must be—it could be totally out of character with its surroundings because the simplified planning zone provisions would have long gone. I appreciate that in many cases the SPZ will be renewed and there will not be a difficulty; but I am thinking again of cases where the SPZ has not been completely successful and it has been decided to draw it to a close. We are then left with this potential threat in the middle of an area which is no longer subject to a simplified planning zone provision.

SPZs should expire in 12 months from the cessation of the scheme. Developers would then know the conditions right from the start and could plan accordingly. I am not suggesting that anyone should suddenly say to them, "No, you can only have 12 months", but if that was made clear at the beginning of the scheme, they would know exactly what to plan for. However, under this amendment land could be kept undeveloped indefinitely simply by digging a trench, which does not cost very much.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England are very concerned about this amendment because they believe that it could lead to blighted and possibly even derelict land. They make a number of points which I should like to put to the Committee. They say: a developer has at least a year's grace after beginning the physical development to complete (under the Bill). If he did over-run on his building schedule he would have forewarning of this and could submit a planning application well in advance. A scheme well toward completion could not reasonably be refused permission, so there would be no break in the building works… The genuine developer therefore has nothing to fear. It is the land speculator who would be foiled". I ask the Government to take this very seriously. We must oppose this amendment.

Baroness Hooper

We do take this very seriously, and perhaps it would help the Committee if I were to go into a little more detail on what we intend to achieve by these amendments, and in particular Amendments Nos. 134, 137, 139 and 140. These now propose that permissions given by SPZ schemes should be brought into line with ordinary planning permissions. Under Section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a local planning authority which is of the opinion that a development which has been begun will not be completed within a reasonable period may serve a completion notice specifying a period of not less than 12 months, at the end of which the permission will cease to have effect if the development is not completed. These amendments apply the appropriate provisions of Section 44—that is, completion notices—and the provisions of Section 43, which defines when development has begun, to development in a simplified planning zone. They will allow decisions to be taken in the light of the circumstances of each case. For example, a developer may be thinking of embarking on a very large project shortly before the SPZ scheme expires. It would be unreasonable to expect it to be completed within 12 months of the SPZ scheme expiring; so much so that the developer may decide that the project is too risky to undertake. With this amendment, however, the developer could proceed secure in the knowledge that he would have a reasonable period in which to complete a scheme. The period could be adjusted for different projects so that the time allowed was commensurate with the scale and circumstances of the development scheme. I do not believe this would mean that, a ditch having been dug, it would necessarily be left in that state for several years. At the same time, the power to serve a completion notice, which must be approved by the Secretary of State, will give the local planning authority a safeguard if it became obvious that the development, once started, was to remain unfinished. Amendments Nos. 143 and 146 to 148 make similar provision in Scotland by amending Clause 14.

I think it must be agreed, therefore, that there are safeguards written in and that the situation described by the noble Baroness would not arise. These amendments provide a more practical and flexible way of dealing with the problem than the current provisions.

Baroness Nicol

I thought that I had already demolished the completion order escape route. As has been represented to me, in the beginning completion notices have to last for at least 12 months and they are dependent upon the Secretary of State's confirmation and subject to appeal. However, as I went on to explain, the Secretary of State has recently shown that he is inclined to support completion notices where a development is concerned.

I remind the noble Baroness that I said that the genuine development—the one to which she referred, which obviously is a proper development which has been begun but is simply not completed and is ongoing—is not what we are worried about. We are worried about the land speculator who really only has to make a mark on the land which is considered as beginning a development and who can then go away and not do anything else.

The genuine developer going ahead with a good development, who sees that he is running out of time on an SPZ, can make application to the local authority. No reasonable local authority would refuse him an extension of permission to complete his development. We are not really concerned with that, but we are concerned with speculators and we think that the Government's amendments, as proposed, leave that loophole for speculators. We are very anxious to close it, so we must resist this Government amendment.

4.46 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 134) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents. 72.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Alport, L.	Kimball, L.
Ampthill, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Auckland, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Belhaven and Stenton. L.	Layton, L.
Belstead, L.	Long, V.
Bessborough, E.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Blyth, L.	Lyell, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mancroft, L.
Brentford, V.	Margadale, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Butterworth, L.	Merrivale, L.
Caccia, L.	Mersey, V.
Caithness, E.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Mottistone, L.
Campbell of Croy., L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Carnock, L.	Orkney, E.
Chelwood, L.	Pender, L.
Coleraine, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Plummer of St Marylebone,
Cottesloe, L.	L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Porritt, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Portland, D.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Radnor, E.
Denning, L.	Renton, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Rodney, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Dundee, E.	St. Davids, V.
Eden of Winton, L.	Salisbury, M.
Ellenborough, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Sandford, L.
Elton, L.	Selkirk,E.
Falmouth, V.	Sharples, B.
Ferrers, E.	Shaughnessy, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Gibson-Watt, L.	Strathspey, L.
Glanusk, L.	Sudeley, L.
Gormanston, V.	Terrington, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Hailsham of Saint	Trumpington, B.
Marylebone, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Halsbury, E.	Vickers, B.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Vivian, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Ward of Witley, V.
Hives, L.	Westbury, L.
Hood, V.	Whitelaw, V.
Hooper, B.	Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Listowel, E.
Ardwick, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Aylestone, L.	Lockwood, B.
Blyton, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McNair, L.
Bottomley, L.	Molloy, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Brockway, L.	Mulley, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Nicol, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Oram, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Collison, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
David, B.	[Teller.]
Diamond, L.	Rhodes, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
[Teller.]	Ross of Marnock, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Rugby, L.
Ennals, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Scanlon, L.
Ezra, L.	Seear, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Seebohm, L.
Foot, L.	Shackleton, L.
Gallacher, L.	Shepherd, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Silkin of Dulwich, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Somers, L.
Hampton, L.	Stallard, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Jacques, L.	Tordoff, L.
Jeger, B.	Underhill, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Walston, L.
Kennet, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Kinloss, Ly.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Leatherland, L.	Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.55 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 135:

Page 28, line 25, at end insert— ("(2) The adoption or approval of alterations providing for the inclusion of land in the simplified planning zone has effect to grant in relation to that land or such part of it as is specified in the scheme planning permission for development so specified or of any class so specified.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 136, 144 and 145. These amendments are essentially technical. I appreciate, as the Committee will have realised, that we have vast numbers of amendments to get through this afternoon. Therefore I propose to say either "technical" or "drafting", and leave it at that in moving each amendment. But naturally, if any noble Lord has a particular yen to know the details of the technicality or the drafting, I shall be happy to provide the information on each and every occasion. Having said that, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 136:

Page 28, line 40, after "(a)" insert ("the exclusion of land from the simplified planning zone, (b)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 137:

Page 29, line 7, leave out from ("been") to end of line 12 and insert ("begun. The provisions of section 43(1) to (3) of this Act apply in determining for the purposes of this subsection when development shall be taken to be begun.").

The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 134. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 138 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 139:

Page 29, line 38, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3)").

The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 134. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 140:

Page 29, line 43, leave out ("commenced") and insert ("begun.

The provisions of section 43(1) to (3) of this Act apply in determining for the purposes of this subsection when development shall be taken to be begun.").

The noble Baroness said: Again, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 134.1 beg to move.

Lord Foot

With all these amendments being put to the Committee, may I record my pleasure, and the pleasure that will be felt from the grave by the brothers Fowler, the authors of The King's English, that we are proposing under this amendment to substitute the Anglo-Saxon word for the Romance?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Nicol

I probably have a slight advantage over the Minister and over the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, because I think that they have already made their clause stand part speeches. We have already had a considerable discussion on the provisions of these two clauses and we are about to discuss them even more as we come on to Schedule 4. So perhaps it will not surprise anyone if I now say that we do not like the proposal for simplified planning zones in their present form.

I think I have made it clear that we feel there are great possibilities, given a proper background and safeguards, but that certain of the provisions in these clauses are simply not acceptable. What could have been a very useful procedure, because it is to be separated from all other planning procedures, will lead to yet another set of complicated and time-wasting planning procedures. The fact is that a single vexatious person—and this we will come on to in Schedule 4; we have not yet reached it, but I have to deal with it in relation to these clauses—could set the whole cumbersome machinery in motion. All it needs is for a person to decide that his or her authority should have declared a simplified planning zone and there can be an appeal to the Secretary of State. By that act, local democracy is set aside.

The Minister may argue as he wishes, but by that single act of a single person local democracy is set aside and the Secretary of State has the right to come in and tell the local authority whether or not they should declare a simplified planning zone. There is no way around that. The fact that it may not happen, that it might not be abused, or that everyone who came in might have a legitimate reason for doing so, is by the way because vexatious persons exist and persons with political axes to grind exist. There is no safeguard against them in the clause as it stands or in the schedule as it stands.

In addition to this point, which I consider to be very important because it strikes at the heart of local democracy, and in addition to the many other points which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made at the beginning on our first amendment, the declaration of a simplified planning zone threatens the certainty of present owners and investors within the subject area. This point does not appear to have been considered at all. I have heard no reference to it in any of the Government speeches and I have seen nothing about it in any of the clauses or schedules. We have just voted on the open-ended provision to allow continuance of projects which have been "begun" long after the ending of the SPZ and the Committee has seen fit to leave the provision as it was, but it makes uncertainty even worse because those who are living in the area and are affected by it will see no end to their problems if they happen to live beside a development which has been "begun" and not completed. Even when the SPZ ends their uncertainty will not end. This cannot be good for the long-term economic well-being of the area concerned. For this reason and for the many other reasons which have been stated I wish to oppose the Motion, That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

5 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

I believe in a belt and braces approach to this Bill, especially after the past two Committee days.

Clause 13 places a duty on local planning authorities in England and Wales to consider and keep under review the need for simplified planning zones in their areas. The clause provides authorities with a discretionary power to prepare and adopt SPZ schemes but does not compel them to do so. The noble Baroness made great play of the vexatious application for an SPZ scheme. She said—and I am fairly sure that I wrote her words down as she said them: all it needs is for a person to decide that an SPZ is needed. It goes further than that, because I have already made it clear that where a person feels particularly aggrieved that an SPZ scheme is not planned by his local planning authority, in the first instance he has to go to the local planning authority. When the local planning authority decides and the noble Baroness's vexatious person wants to persist and take it up to the Secretary of State, the fact that the local planning authority has already decided would be germane to the Secretary of State's thinking. So to run away with the idea that one person can start the whole wretched ball rolling is to misunderstand the position.

Perhaps I may return to the clause itself. The provisions have built-in protection for national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest, green belts and conservation areas. SPZs cannot be set up in the environmentally sensitive areas, and any that are designated in the future can be protected through the Secretary of State's order-making power. Again, we shall come to that amendment shortly. SPZ schemes will grant a general planning permission for 10 years for the types of developments specified in the scheme subject to any essential limitations or exceptions included. There will be no need for planning applications and associated fees for projects which conform to the SPZ scheme. So time, effort and money will be saved.

SPZs will provide the business community with both the certainty of knowing in advance what is allowed and the flexibility of knowing how and when they can carry out their developments. SPZs will help to restore confidence in the future of selected areas. They will encourage investment and development both by themselves and especially if packaged together with appropriate grants and incentives. They can do far more than normal detailed planning permissions, including local authority deemed permissions which last only five years. SPZs offer more positive planning and a simpler and easier way of controlling developments once they are set up. They can be tailor-made to suit a variety of areas and circumstances. They are a novel way of setting down both policy and requirements for development and land use change and at the same time giving automatic authorisation to projects that so comply.

SPZs are a new concept in zoning. It is this very novelty which has led to the direct questions asked by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Kennet, backed up by the slight suspicion, and possibly on occasions the misunderstanding, of the local authority organisations. I freely admit that they are experimental, but I do not see that that is any bad thing. In fact, I would go so far as to say, in the words of 1066 and All That: "They are a Good Thing". I commend the clause to the Committee.

Lord Diamond

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. We are in some difficulty since I understood the Minister to say on an earlier amendment that he is willing to see representatives of the local authorities, professional representatives and any noble Lord who wants to accompany them in order to consider whether or not, quite apart from the provisions of this clause, there ought to be the kind of proposal which was made in Amendment No. 128A which I had the privilege of moving. I would suspect that any vote against the clause stand part Motion is capable of being interpreted by the Minister as a hostile act in anticipation of those discussions.

Lord Skelmersdale

Perhaps I can explain. I said—and I hope that Hansard will bear me out, because this is what I meant—that I am perfectly happy to discuss any matters pertaining to SPZs with noble Lords and with the various local authority organisations. I am prepared to consider making the SPZ scheme in the Bill more effective. However, although obviously I shall be asked about certain points and new ideas are bound to come up, I thought that from my reaction to the noble Lord's amendment on deemed planning consent it was sufficiently clear that my action was pretty negative.

Lord Diamond

The noble Lord the Minister has added to his many qualities that of complete ambivalence, and it makes it not all that easy for those who wish to see business pursued with expedition to know what to do. Nevertheless I am still hopeful that between now and Report stage he will study what has been said and that Report stage will provide a further opportunity for deciding whether the simplified planning zone schemes are, as the Minister says, likely to adduce certainty, which is the essence of what all developers want, or are, in the view of all the local authorities, likely to do the very reverse. None of us wants to prevent an experiment from being tried, even though it would be an over-long and over-complicated experiment. Therefore the stance of noble Lords on these Benches who supported that first amendment would be that we would not wish to oppose the passing of the clause at this stage and would hope to find something better at Report stage.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I should like to give a warm welcome to this clause and to the purpose behind it. Those who like myself in the past have had some association with the problems of development know what a handicap to developers our planning system in this country can sometimes be, not least because of the sheer delay inherent in the system—a delay derived sometimes from the rather bureaucratic activities of the planning officials of local authorities and sometimes from the extraordinary infrequency of the meetings of planning committees. Anything that can speed up that process must surely be in the national interest, from two points of view.

First, as we discussed on an earlier amendment, there is the problem of the inner cities, which, the Committee generally agrees, require vigorous redevelopment. Secondly, there are the problems of employment. Some Members of the Committee will be aware that with the high level of employment in many areas of the South of England one of the problems is to find accommodation for people coming to those areas to work. Owing to the shortage of land with planning permission, it is often the case that it is lack of accommodation for those people which prevents them from transferring to areas where they can get a job. Therefore that factor contributes to swell the total of unemployment. Consequently it seems, at any rate to me, very sensible for the Government to produce such proposals.

I accept that local authority associations are in many cases suspicious or unhappy about this, as noble Lords opposite have said, but Members of the Committee with experience of local authority associations know that they are intensely conservative bodies—with a small "c"—and it is fear or suspicion of change rather than a clear feeling as to the demerits of this proposal that motivates them to take this line. Given my noble friend's expository powers, and given experience of the working of the scheme, they will come to welcome it. Certainly I do.

Baroness David

At Second Reading, there was a great deal of discussion about enterprise zones and their similarity to simplified planning zones, and I know there are fiscal benefits with enterprise zones which do not happen with SPZs. However, I think it is of interest that research commissioned by the Department of the Environment into the effects of enterprise zones has shown that a reduction in detailed planning control has not been a significant factor in attracting development to enterprise zones. Recently, both the National Audit Office and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee have further questioned the value for money of enterprise zones and pointed to adverse effects on other areas. That can apply equally to simplified planning zones.

In another place, the Government came under pressure not to have simplified planning zones in environmentally sensitive areas, and as a result there was an amendment to exclude national parks, conservation areas, areas of outstanding beauty, green belts and areas of special scientific interest from the areas which could be made SPZs. However, after the exclusion of those areas, and allowing for places where there is such limited development interest that local planning authorities do not need any encouragement to favour applications, we wonder which areas SPZs will assist.

The implication must be that the Government see them as being imposed in areas where development pressures are greatest and where the local authorities are most circumspect in granting permission. Can that, for example, apply to major out-of-town housing proposals following in the wake of Tillingham Hall? The Royal Town Planning Institute has told Ministers of its view that SPZs are an irrelevance for central issues facing the planning system. It does not believe that there will be a suitable tool for controlling or permitting development in areas of extreme pressure—coincidentally, those where the Government might face most resistance from their own supporters. Therefore I shall be voting against clause stand part.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I wish to speak only briefly on this point and to develop a comment made by my noble friend Lord Diamond a few moments ago. It would be wrong to oppose an experiment in this direction. It is desirable to have constant experimentation in such areas and undoubtedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, there can be a degree of unnecessary bureaucracy in local government, as elsewhere. Therefore it is worth looking at such proposals on their merits.

I do not totally join the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his view that the major problem we are facing is that the local authority associations are conservative bodies. If I may say so—and I think on this I perhaps carry his agreement—I should like to imagine that at least some local authorities, particularly in inner London, could be described in that way; but that would be rather difficult given the way that they carry out their statutory responsibilities.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

May I intervene? I spelt out "conservative" with a small "c". I hope the noble Lord heard that.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I did, and it is only fair to add—the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say this—that it is unlikely any of the inner London authorities will be Conservative—with a large "C"—for a substantial number of years, if ever.

Moving away from the entrancing possibility of a further debate with the noble Lord on that point, I come back to the issue of principle which is involved. It is reasonable and right to have some form of experiment in this area. But I am slightly nervous about what Section 24B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 will be like as a result of the passage of this piece of legislation. That will say, as I understand it, that once the scheme has been made it will be in effect for a period of 10 years.

I can understand of course, the need for some degree of certainty for developers, but we all know perfectly well that in many local authority areas—and this is where I agree with the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench—that local democracy is an important issue. One often finds substantial public protests about planning applications. It may be that when a local authority decides to make a scheme and includes particular areas in that new zone, there will be substantial public opposition to it. One may then find a situation in which there is a change of political control in the local authority, or major changes in the character of the planning authority. However, they will find themselves, as I understand it, locked into the scheme for that period of 10 years.

I may be wrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, implies that I am; in which case perhaps he will be good enough to explain the situation. I repeat: we are not root and branch opponents of this approach, but if there is to be this element of rigidity, this 10 year requirement, that causes me some concern.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am not sure whether the noble Lord was in his place when I answered the noble Baroness earlier and said that the provisions of Schedule 4, paragraph 2(1) state: A local planning authority may at any time decide to make a simplified planning zone scheme or to alter a scheme adopted by them". Therefore they are not locked in for the 10-year period, as the noble Lord appears to think.

There is another point from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to which I should have responded, and I am sorry that I did not do so. It is the idea that SPZs strike at the very heart of local democracy. There is a local planning inquiry on every case for the formulation and alteration of an SPZ scheme. I should have thought, since a public inquiry only happens under normal planning schemes in a call-in situation, that that is very much better for local democracy than normal planning schemes.

Baroness Nicol

I seem to be having some difficulty in getting my point across. I hope I did not say that SPZs strike at the heart of local democracy. I hope that what I said— certainly it is what I meant to say—was that the power for a single person to call in the Secretary of State and thereby set aside the local authority was striking at the heart of local democracy; and I hold to that view. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that whether the conservatism of local authorities is defined with a small or with a large "c", in this case and indeed in some others they like to see that when a new provision is brought in, from the beginning it at least rules out all possible abuses that have been observed. We have drawn the Government's attention to a considerable number of possible abuses, and the Government seem content to leave the legislation worded in such a way that those abuses can still take place.

We are not opposing the idea of simplified planning zones. At Second Reading, we said that they could be a useful tool. We still believe that. But we think that the legislation surrounding them is not providing safeguards, mostly against abuses, and that is our main argument against it.

I should like to return to one other point that the Minister did not answer. Quite properly so, he is concerned about the certainty that will be given to developers by the creation of SPZs. I asked him whether thought had been given to the certainty of the present owners and people who live in the area at the moment, because the creation of an SPZ will bring great uncertainty to them. My argument was that the open-ended provisions of the present scheme will make their uncertainty unending. Has thought been given to that, and does the Minister have any answer?

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, I cannot see that the noble Baroness has a point on this occasion. If an area is zoned under an SPZ scheme for particular development within particular parameters —for example, the size of houses or gardens or whatever it happens to be—the only uncertainty that the local residents will have (and often it will be to their advantage to speed matters up) will be knowing that it is intended to happen within 10 years. I do not see that that is a bad thing.

Lord Foot

Before we finish this little debate I wonder whether I may draw the attention of the Committee to one aspect which seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic. Under the provisions of paragraph 3, which concerns the power of the Secretary of State to direct the making or alteration of a scheme, it is provided—as we all know now—that if a person requests a local authority to make or alter a simplified planning zone scheme but the authority refuses to do so or does not within the period of three months from the date of request decide to do so, then he may, subject to subparagraph (2), require it to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. If one reads on one finds that if the Secretary of State thinks fit he can impose a direction upon the local authority that it shall adopt a scheme which is to his satisfaction.

Here is the question that I want to ask the Minister. Let us suppose that the local planning authority in a particular case shares the philosophic view, which has been expressed here tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Diamond, and others that the whole concept of simplified planning zones is a misconception, and that the local authority takes the same view of this measure as do all those voluntary organisations and the like who have expressed an opinion on the matter. It is perfectly legitimate for it to take that view, is it not? If it takes that view and rejects the proposal for a simplified planning zone simply because it objects to the whole principle of the measure, is it not inevitable, so long as we have a government with the political persuasion of the present Government, that the Secretary of State will say, "No, you are wrong and I am going to insist that you adopt a zone scheme which I regard as satisfactory"?

I think that that is the most outrageous interference by central government in what is essentially a matter for local decision and local democratic control. It is quite in keeping with what we have seen throughout the record of this Government over the last seven years or so; namely, a steady desire to concentrate power and influence in central government at the expense of the regions and the local authorities. If the noble Baroness had thought of carrying this matter to a division, that is an aspect which would certainly have persuaded me to go with her into the Lobby to vote against this amendment.

I was disturbed to hear the way in which the Minister replied to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and said that he could not give an assurance of any worth as to reconsidering this matter as a whole. I regret therefore that we shall not take this matter to a a Division if, indeed, we do not. Moreover, if we do not and if any conversations which may take place between this side of the Committee and the Government between now and the Report stage come to nothing, I hope that somebody will raise this matter again on Report.

Lord Skelmersdale

I do not think I should repeat what I said at the beginning of this afternoon's proceedings to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I trust that now both he and I know exactly what I meant and that I have been able to spell it out to the Committee. So far as concerns the substantial point of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, he will know only too well that central government, in the shape of the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales, have to approve the county structure plan. I do not see that it is a particular imposition on democracy that the SPZ scheme should have some access (I suppose that is the word) for the Secretary of State.

I think that the noble Lord asked how the Secretary of State would become involved. As I have been at pains to point out several times, he can come in only where a local planning authority has refused to set up a scheme and where there is an aggrieved person, if you like, which I would equate very much with the more normal call-in procedure. The noble Lord also asked what would happen where a council is philosophically opposed to the setting up of a scheme for that particular area. With the best will in the world I cannot answer him for the very good reason that it would obviously be a germane thought in the Secretary of State's mind as to whether he should pursue his request for the local planning authority to set up an SPZ scheme; in other words, it would depend on the circumstances in each case.

Baroness Nicol

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify what he has just said. Is he saying that the political complexion of the authority would be a factor that the Secretary of State would take into consideration? What he said sounded like that.

Lord Skelmersdale

Even in my few weeks in the department I have discovered that the political complexion of various local authorities is regularly taken into account. I do not see anything wrong in that. The Secretary of State would have to know the general philosophy of the local authority in this case—the noble Baroness looks questioningly when I say that; I am sorry. He can hardly ignore it, can he?

Baroness Nicol

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I am rather surprised that it would apply to something like this which until now I had thought was a fairly non-political exercise. I note what the Minister has said.

5.30 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 48.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Hooper, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Alport, L.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Ampthill, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Auckland, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Beaverbrook, L.	Layton, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Long, V.
Belstead, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Lyell, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	McAlpine of West Green, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Butterworth, L.	Mancroft, L.
Caccia, L.	Margadale, L.
Caithness, E.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Merrivale, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Mersey, V.
Carnock, L.	Molson, L.
Cathcart, E.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Coleraine, L.	Mottistone, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Munster, E.
Cottesloe, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Craigavon, V.	Onslow, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Orkney, E.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Orr-Ewing, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Pender, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Perth, E.
Dundee, E.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Plummer of St Marylebone,
Ellenborough, L.	L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Portland, D.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Radnor, E.
Elton, L.	Reay, L.
Ferrers, E.	Renton, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Rodney, L.
Gibson-Watt, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Glanusk, L.	St. Davids, V.
Gray of Contin, L.	Salisbury, M.
Gridley, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly
Hailsham of Saint	Selkirk, E.
Marylebone, L.	Sharples, B.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Hives, L.	Somers, L.
Hood, V.	Strathspey, L.

Thorneycroft, L.	Vivian, L.
Trumpington, B.	Ward of Witley, V.
Tryon, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Vaux of Harrowden, L.	Young, B.
Vickers, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ardwick, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Blyton, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Molloy, L.
Brockway, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Mulley, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Nicol, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Oram, L.
David, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Ennals, L.	[Teller.]
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Rhodes, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Foot, L.	Scanlon, L.
Gallacher, L.	Shackleton, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Silkin of Dulwich, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Stallard, L.
Jacques, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Jeger, B.	[Teller.]
John-Mackie, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Kirkhill, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Leatherland, L.	Underhill, L.
Listowel, E.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Lockwood, B.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 13, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

5.38 p.m.

Clause 14 [Simplified planning zones in Scotland]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 141 to 148:

Page 30, line 25, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 35.

Page 31, line 7, at end insert—

("Simplified planning zone schemes: conditions and limitations on planning permission.

21AA.—(1) The conditions and limitations on planning permission which may be specified in a simplified planning zone scheme may include—

1. (a) conditions or limitations in respect of all development permitted by the scheme or in respect of particular descriptions of development so permitted, and
2. (b) conditions or limitations requiring the consent, agreement or approval of the planning authority in relation to particular descriptions of permitted development;

and different conditions or limitations may be specified for different cases or classes of case.

(2) Nothing in a simplified planning zone scheme shall affect the right of any person—

1. (a) to do anything not amounting to development, or
2. (b) to carry out development for which planning permission is not required or for which permission has been granted otherwise than by the scheme;

and no limitation or restriction subject to which permission has been granted otherwise than under the scheme shall affect the right of any person to carry out development for which permission has been granted under the scheme.").

Page 31, line 11, leave out from ("date") to end of line 13 and insert— ("(2) Upon the scheme's ceasing to have effect planning permission under the scheme shall also cease to have effect except in a case where the development authorised by it has been begun. (3) The provisions of section 41(2) to (6) of this Act (which provide for the termination of planning permission if the completion of development is unreasonably delayed) apply to planning permission under a simplified planning zone scheme where development has been begun but not completed by the time the area ceases to be a simplified planning zone. (4) The provisions of section 40(1) to (3) of this Act apply in determining for the purposes of this section when development shall be taken to be begun.

Alteration of simplified planning scheme.

21BB.—(1)").

Page 31, line 15, at end insert— ("(2) The adoption or approval of alterations providing for the inclusion of land in the simplified planning zone has effect to grant in relation to that land or such part of it as is specified in the scheme planning permission for development so specified or of any class so specified."). Page 31, line 30, after ("(a)") insert ("the exclusion of land from the simplified planning zone, (b) "). Page 31, line 43, leave out ("commenced") and insert ("begun. The provisions of section 40(1) to (3) of this Act apply in determining for the purposes of this subsection when development shall be taken to be begun."). Page 32, line 22, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (3)"). Page 32, line 27, leave out ("commenced") and insert ("begun. The provisions of section 40(1) to (3) of this Act apply in determining for the purposes of this subsection when development shall be taken to be begun.")

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur I move these amendments en bloc. They are all comparable to the amendments to Clause 13. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Simplified planning zones: further provisions]:

Baroness Nicolmoved Amendment No. 149:

Page 103, line 40. leave out ("but the authority—(a) refuses to do so, or") and insert, ("the authority shall take the proposal into consideration".)

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall at the same time speak also to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. Amendment No. 149 requires local planning authorities to consider proposals for making and adopting SPZ schemes put forward by members of the public. Amendment No. 150 requires a local planning authority, on receipt of a proposal from a member of the public, to prepare an SPZ scheme for its area, and if it does not proceed to do so, it should justify its decision in writing. Amendment No. 151 removes the Secretary of State's powers to override the wishes of democratically elected local councils and the views of the public, as established through public participation, by directing authorities to make SPZ schemes.

We have already had considerable discussion on this point. I shall not therefore speak at length. I would, however, remind the Committee that the Bill, as currently drafted, allows any individual to request his or her local planning authority to make or alter an SPZ scheme. If the local authority refuses to do so or fails to do so within three months, the individual can refer the matter to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can, after due consideration, direct the local authority to prepare or modify a scheme.

Local authorities and the Department of the Environment will have to consider any vexatious application for an SPZ. I have already had a good deal to say about vexatious people. No matter how outlandish or perverse the proposal may be, it will have to go right through the system. As we heard from the Minister at the beginning of our discussion, the procedures through which it has to go are quite complicated and lengthy, and therefore expensive.

The amendments would not remove the rights of individuals to make proposals to local authorities. The authorities would have to consider the proposals and would have to give their reasons for any refusal within three months. The approach is the same as that in Clause 7 on housing co-operatives. We recommend it as an alternative to the Government's existing provisions to which we have already objected. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

I appreciate fully that these amendments would not remove the reaction between the local authority and the individual. What they would do, however, is to remove the right of an individual to request the Secretary of State to direct a local planning authority to prepare an SPZ scheme. As the Bill stands, this right would operate only where an individual had put a proposal for an SPZ to the authority and the authority had either refused to comply with the application or failed to make a decision within three months of receiving the request. It would also be the only situation in which the Secretary of State could initiate the setting up of SPZ schemes.

As I have said probably five times, I should think, today, these amendments remove this right by deleting the relevant provision in paragraph 3(1) of new Schedule 8A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as inserted by Schedule 4 to the Bill, which enables an individual to require an authority to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. They do, however, still leave it open for an individual to put proposals for SPZs to an authority. If the authority refuses to cooperate within three months, that is the end of the matter.

There may well be some merit in retaining only a limited entrée for the individual to get SPZ schemes established. But without the back-up power of directions, the developer or land-owner—whom we have in mind—may find himself rather impotent in seeking the co-operation of authorities. I am, therefore, hoping to persuade the Committee to reject the amendments.

The Government have been wedded to this aspect of the proposal to introduce SPZ legislation for some time. After all, we all need a little prompting from time to time. Many of my noble friends behind me have been prompting me for over a week on other amendments that we shall reach later in the Bill. We see this prompting as an important element of the SPZ package in helping developers and business men to encourage local planning authorities to introduce deregulation measures in their areas to speed up and simplify the development control process. It gives prospective developers and land-owners the chance to spot opportunities that might otherwise be missed. More generally, it helps to ensure that the provisions to establish SPZs and to keep the need for them under review are not overlooked or left idle without good reason.

In practice, there may be only a few bona fide requests from developers for SPZs which authorities were disinclined to take up. But these SPZs could well be significant in terms of the potential development opportunities they offer. They would certainly, if they had gone ahead, be a reminder to others of the value of SPZ schemes. These chances should not be lost.

Let me also reassure the Committee about how the power might operate. I have already said that it would be applicable only where an individual had identified a valid, worthwhile opportunity and the authority had rejected it without making a good, sound case for not making a scheme. In this way, the merits and circumstances of each request would be considered.

The Secretary of State is obliged to seek the views of the local planning authority. He may issue a direction only after considering the matter and the representations that the applicant and authority have made to him, and after carrying out whatever consultation he thinks appropriate.

Directions to prepare SPZs will not, I can assure the Committee, be issued as a matter of course. Any bogus requests—the noble Baroness's vexatious requests —for SPZ schemes will be treated summarily. Let me make that clear. In the event of directions eventually being issued, it would still be for the local planning authority to prepare the scheme in order to give effect to the direction. The normal procedures for preparing and adopting schemes would have to be followed, including public participation and consultation, a period for objection and, if necessary, a public local inquiry.

There is, I believe, a justifiable case for the direction power to remain part of the Bill for those few but very important schemes not to get away. I think, too, that there are plenty of safeguards in how the provision would be used for Members of the Committee and the local authorities whose views you have represented not to worry about inappropriate SPZ schemes being imposed. Consequently, I hope that the Committee is persuaded not to accept the amendments.

5.45 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

There is some reassurance in the Minister's words. I moved the amendment without hope, and I was quite right. I beg to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]

Lord Foothad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 151 A: Page 107, line 34, after ("scheme") insert ("if no objection is duly made").

The noble Lord said: I have given notice—I hope that this got through to the Minister —that I was not proposing to move the amendment. This also applies to Amendments Nos. 151 B and 151 C. The reason is that they are in the wrong place, I fear. Also, they do not give effect entirely to what I had in mind. I reserve the right to come back to the matter on Report, but at this stage the amendment is not moved.

[Amendment No. 151A not moved]

[Amendments Nos. 151B and 151C not moved.]

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 152:

Page 113, line 26, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph 6(2) below,").

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, I beg to move. This is a purely drafting amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 [Power to give assistance]:

[Amendment No. 152A not moved.]

Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 153:

Page 33, line 16, at end insert— ("(g) any other matter which is requisite for the purpose of establishing or maintaining an activity providing employment".).

The noble Baroness said: We come now to a different part of the Bill, the regeneration grants. The amendment is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State may assist socially desirable and employment generating schemes with long-term prospects of success but which find difficulty raising sufficient short-term finance. It would extend the list contained in subsection (2) of categories of expenditure that qualified for assistance under the clause to include the provision of venture capital. As the clause is drafted, the only activities that qualify for support are the acquisition of property and various practical and physical improvements to property and infrastructure.

The successful regeneration of inner cities depends upon more than the physical improvement of properties. It must rest on the creation of a vibrant economy which can provide employment to those who live there. The private sector is currently reluctan` to develop or invest in enterprises in the inner cities. New and indigenous firms that wish to locate or expand there generally lack capital. The availability of venture capital for investment in enterprises in inner cities would help to increase the attractiveness of these areas as locations for new enterprises and secure the growth of the area's existing firms. I should have thought that the encouragement of new firms and small businesses is exactly what the Government say they want and is in line with their philosophy. The amendment would facilitate this. It also fits in with the phrase in Clause 15(1): "providing employment for people who live in the area".

That phrase was introduced into the Bill in another place on Report. It seems only logical that the words in my amendment should be added to the listing Clause 15(2).

I wish to give a few examples of where this has been successful. Where venture capital has been provided by bodies such as the local authority, backed West Midland Enterprise Board, large numbers of jobs have been created and many other jobs have been safeguarded. For example, the West Midlands Enterprise Board, by investing £60,000 of equity capital in Laurel Tackle, a new start-up, helped create 25 secure jobs in an expanding company in an area of high unemployment and deprivation. The board's £500,000 investment in Butler Foundries in Walsall helped to restructure a company which was foundering in the recession of the early 1980s. This company now provides 160 secure jobs, has a full order book, and is profitable. Similar examples could be found in London, Lancashire and other areas where local authorities have established enterprise boards.

I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment, which seems to be in line with their thinking and with what was done in another place on Report.

Lord Skelmersdale

It was not apparent to me on reading the amendment that the noble Baroness sought to give assistance in the form of loan or share capital. I am advised that there is a bar in Clause 16 to doing this. Therefore, she has tabled the amendment to the wrong clause, which is what has confused my advisers.

Baroness David

If I may interrupt the Minister, one sees at the beginning of Clause 15(2) the words: Expenditure incurred in connection with any of the following qualifies for assistance".

Lord Skelmersdale

I can explain that. Loan or share capital is not part of it. The words that the noble Baroness has quoted could include the provision of productive machinery—I am sorry; I shall start again. The second part of Clause 15, which is what all this refers to, is what I like to think of as a laundry list of types of qualifying activity. Assistance may be given on expenditure incurred in connection with any of these activities. The present list is wide. The phrase "in connection with" means that expenditure on such items as fees and finance charges legitimately incurred would be eligible as well as the cost of materials and works, but there is a common theme: all items concern expenditure on land or buildings.

The proposed amendment is a departure from that common theme. It is almost unlimited in scope. It could include the provision of productive machinery, which is already covered by the powers of the Department of Trade and Industry. It could extend to the provision of working capital and of advertising and even, I am advised, to expense account lunches.

I recognise that the noble Baroness has picked up an important aspect of the assistance to be paid under Part III, and she has sought to generalise this general power even further. I submit that the clause as drafted, with the amendment made in another place, makes clear that employment is a major objective of the assistance. The list of qualifying expenditure is quite broad enough to cover any likely expenditure on land or buildings, which would meet the objectives of the clause.

As I said at the beginning before I got myself into a muddle, there is a bar in Clause 16 for the giving of assistance in the form of loan or share capital. It was never intended that this power should cover that. Indeed, the Department of Trade and Industry has other grant-giving powers which cover that. I am not yet convinced, therefore, that we need this sort of power in the Bill.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

As I understand the amendment of my noble freind Lady Nicol and the observations that the noble Lord has just made, I presume that the Bill gives the Secretary of State for the Environment the same powers to provide direct grant aid to the private sector as are already held by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

We would all support any legislation that increases the amount of money available for the inner areas if it creates employment. As has already been said, the inner cities require massive funding to enable them to be fully developed. If the money comes from direct grants under financial assistance for urban regeneration, will it mean, as so often happens with government disposal of money, that they take it with one hand and give it with the other, so that the same amount of money is being shuffled round and is being put into a different box under a different name?

While emphasising what my noble friend has said, I think it is important to have an assurance from the Minister that any direct grants given in whatever form are not at the expense of the other urban aid given to inner city areas.

Lord Somers

Is this yet another case of the Government regarding it as part of their duty to refuse any amendments that may come from the Opposition? What is wrong with the amendment? All the activities listed in Clause 15(2) provide employment, but there may well be others. Various districts may have activities which none of us have ever heard of or considered but, if they provide employment, surely so much the better.

Lord Skelmersdale

I sought to explain to the Committee not that I was automatically rejecting amendments tabled by the Opposition but that I though I had good reason to do so. My good reason was that the amendment as drafted, as I understood from the initial speech of the noble Baroness, Lady David, either was in the wrong place or, if it meant what I thought it meant, was drawn too wide. I should have thought that both reasons were perfectly apposite.

Baroness David

I take it that the Minister is in sympathy with the aim behind the amendment. The amendment does not mention loan or share capital. It was perhaps my mention of venture capital that upset the Minister.

I have looked again at Clause 16, which says: Assistance may, in particular, be given by way of—

1. (a) grants,
2. (b) loans,
3. (c) guarantees".

All that Clause 16(3) says is that the Secretary of State,

shall not in giving financial assistance under section 15 purchase loan or share capital in a company". That is not what I asked for; it is more like pump priming money that I was asking for.

It seems to me that there have been misunderstandings. As the Minister seems sympathetic to the idea, I shall withdraw the amendment and have a good look at what has been said and see whether we can word it better or put it in a different place. I hope that it will then be accepted by the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness David

May I ask two questions which I asked at Second Reading? I do not believe that they were answered. First, will the money for this urban regeneration grant be in addition to the existing urban development grant? My second question is this. Will the grants be used in areas of deprivation and dereliction which are not in inner cities?

Lord Skelmersdale

There is nothing like being bowled out by the noble Baroness. I should obviously have taken more notice of what she asked at Second Reading. As I understand the position—subject to rapid correction—any money that is spent on urban regeneration grant would, first, be in addition—

Baroness David

In addition?

Lord Skelmersdale

In addition. Secondly, derelict land can occur outside urban areas but urban regeneration grant is kept specifically to within urban areas, but that does not necessarily mean the inner cities.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 154:

After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause:

("Requests under section 15.

.—(1) Any person requesting financial assistance under section 15 shall copy that request to the local authorities concerned at the same time as submitting the request to the Secretary of State. (2) If the Secretary of State should determine to make financial assistance without the submission of a formal request he shall notify the local authorities concerned. (3) If the local authorities concerned wish to make any representations in the matter they should do so, in writing, within 28 days,").

The noble Baroness said: I gave warning at Second Reading that I may be moving an amendment of this kind when we came to Committee. Part III of the Bill would give the Secretary of State power to pay urban development grant direct to firms rather than through the local authority. This procedure is not opposed in principle. However, as the sums of money, and therefore the schemes to part-fund, are considerable, it is essential that the local authorities, county and district, within whose area the proposed development will take place should be consulted.

The new clause would guarantee that right without introducing a timetable, which would slow down the process of grant-making and urban regeneration. The local authorities would have to make their representation within 28 days. Subsection (3) of my new clause uses exactly the same wording as is used by the Government in Schedule 4(3)(3)(b). We do not quite like the idea that the local authorities are being bypassed to such a degree. We feel that they should know what is going on. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

When my noble friend Lord Elton in his Second Reading speech was taking noble Lords through the individual provisions of the Bill, he described Part III as providing "well precedented flexible powers". Although there has not previously been a general power for the Government to give financial assistance to urban regeneration, there are in existence general powers to give assistance for other purposes. As far as I am aware, none of these other powers requires local authorities to be informed of applications or of offers of assistance. When, for instance, the Department of Trade and Industry offers regional selective assistance to enable an employer to extend his factory, there is no requirement that the local authority should be consulted before the assistance is provided. Indeed, applications are always subject to the strictest commercial confidentiality. Equally, my department has since 1982 had powers to give grants directly to the private sector for derelict land reclamation. Private sector derelict land grant seems to work perfectly well without consultation on individual applications.

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that local authorities have legitimate interests in urban regeneration projects. But their interest is surely in the regeneration itself and not in the way in which it is financed. Is it of different concern to the local authority if the redevelopment of a derelict site is partly funded by a government grant than if it is wholly paid for by the private sector?

I emphasise that Part III of the Bill will not give developers any rights to carry out development that they would not otherwise have. It is purely a financial matter. Normally they will have to obtain planning permission, and the local authority will have its say at that stage. Where a SPZ has been introduced, the question of what types of development should or should not be allowed in the zone will have been considered in the procedures (which we have already debated) introduced by Part II of the Bill.

I cannot see that this new clause would give any advantages to local authorities in terms of their legitimate interest in the planning of their areas. Nor would it encourage the private sector to come forward with proposals for regeneration. If I am wrong in that, I shall consider the matter further. But at the moment I cannot see that this would be of use to local authorities.

Baroness David

I shall read what the Minister said. If I find that I am still not satisfied I shall have to come back at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 [Hazardous substances authorities]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 155:

Page 34, line 36, at end insert—

("(3) For the purposes of this section any land to which this subsection applies but which is not operational land of statutory undertakers authorised to carry on a harbour shall be treated as if it were such operational land. (4) Subsection (3) above applies—

1. (a) to a wharf; and
2. (b) to harbour land,

as defined in the Harbours Act 1964. (5) Any question whether subsection (3) above applies to land shall be determined by the Secretary of State and the Minister who is the appropriate Minister in relation to operational land of statutory undertakers who are authorised to carry on harbour undertakings.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 155 and speak also to Amendment No. 181. We now move to another part of the Bill, Part IV, which deals with hazardous substances.

Amendment No. 155. provides that the appropriate Minister shall be the hazardous substances authority in relation to all wharves and land in harbour areas. There are special circumstances in ports where goods of all kinds move in and out with rapidity. As the Bill stands the hazardous substances authority in respect of the operational land of a harbour undertaking will be the "appropriate Minister"—that is, the Secretary of State for Transport—while the authority in respect of other land in the harbour area (for example, land belonging to a haulage firm) will be the local planning authority. This division of responsibility is undesirable. The amendments provide that the appropriate Minister shall be the authority for all wharves and harbour land.

Amendment No. 181 makes similar provision for Scotland. I should add that the British Ports Association has told us that it is in complete agreement with these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 [Hazardous substances]:

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 156:

Page 35, line 1, leave out ("58") and insert ("58A").

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, let me say that this is a drafting amendment. Clause 19 inserts new Sections 58A to 58M into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. However, another Section 58A was inserted into that Act by the Local Government Act last year and the sections inserted by Clause 19 should go in after that. This amendment will achieve that result. If Members of the Committee agree to this amendment the sections inserted by Clause 19 will in the next print of the Bill be renumbered 58B to 58N. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 157:

Page 39, line 11, at end insert ("and of all conditions relating to that substance subject to which the consent is granted").

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, let me say that these are again drafting amendments. They will require a hazardous substances consent to include a statement of all conditions subject to which it is granted, as well as the other information specified in Section 58C(4) and its Scottish equivalent, Section 56E. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton)

May I ask the noble Baroness whether or not the other amendments to Clause 19 stand together or are separate?

Baroness Hooper

I apologise. I should have said that I was speaking to Amendment No. 182 as well as Amendment No. 157.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 158:

Page 39, line 32, at end insert ("but an authority who are a hazardous substances authority by virtue of section 1A above may only grant consent subject to conditions as to how a hazardous substance is to be kept or used if the conditions are conditions to which the Health and Safety Executive have advised the authority that any consent they might grant should be subject").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 158, and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 183. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there is no overlap of functions between hazardous substances authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. Authorities need power to impose conditions relating to the manner in which a hazardous substance is kept and used, but only where that manner may affect the advice which the Health and Safety Executive gives to planning authorities about development of land in the vicinity of the installation concerned. The amendments would therefore limit the power to impose conditions of this type to cases where the Health and Safety Executive has advised that they should do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

I should like to make a brief comment on this amendment. The Association of District Councils are not entirely happy with this amendment. Although health and safety considerations obviously must come first in matters concerning hazardous substances, the feeling of the Association of District Councils is that they are not the only consideration. Indeed, they would wish to have a discretion. If another condition were necessary—some type of planning control or perhaps some visual means of disguising what is there—they would wish to have the power to put that into action. I wonder whether this matter has been considered, whether the Government have thought of it, and whether the Minister has any answer to give on the matter.

Lord Mottistone

Perhaps I may intervene before my noble friend answers. I am advised on this part of the Bill by the CBI. This particular type of issue is one as regards which the whole of this part of the Bill is potentially very restrictive of efficient industrial process. It is very important that it should not be any more restrictive than it needs to be.

This amendment seeks to put the right responsibilities with the right people. The Health and Safety Executive has been given the job of safety control and its expert advice should be paramount if and when conditions need to be imposed upon hazardous substances consent, and how substances should be kept or used. Local authorities are not expert in that area and could well inadvertently interfere with industrial process and industrial success and efficient use, by making some sort of restraint that was not technically well advised, which the Health and Safety Executive will be.

However, the local authorities retain responsibility for the location of the substance, and that is a genuine planning consideration. The amendment is rather carefully worded to do just the right thing in giving the right responsibilities to the right people and interfering as little as possible with the efficient industrial use of these substances, on which—I have to repeat—the very survival of the country as well as the successful use of our industrial capability depends. It is very important that that is not interfered with any more than necessary. I shall not repeat that statement time and again, but that will be behind every comment I have to make on these amendments.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Seear

Perhaps I may mention a point which must sound almost frivolous in comparison with the points that have already been made. I am sure I am wrong, but it seems very odd that "an authority" should be followed by a verb in the plural: "an authority are". Is not that a very strange way of writing English? It says, "an authority who are". Is that the normal practice?

Lord Skelmersdale

It certainly is not my normal practice. Obviously I shall have to look into the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has made. It may be a printing mistake or it may be something that needs amendment at Report. As I have said, I shall certainly look into the matter.

I think the noble Baroness has perhaps missed the point that was brought very strongly to the fore by my noble friend Lord Mottistone; namely, that the whole purpose of this part of the Bill is that it should be a planning matter and not a health and safety matter. The noble Baroness looks surprised. We are considering the situation where there is a factory and the local planning authority has to decide how close to have a school or a housing estate, or whatever. We have to bear in mind the health of the surrounding people rather than the health of the workers in the factory or the difficulty of the processes. This is where the Health and Safety Executive comes in. The whole point of the amendment is to streamline the position so that there should be no overlap and the people operating the factory in question should not be confused as to whom they are answerable—it will remain the Health and Safety Executive.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Perhaps I may mention a point relating to that raised by the noble Baroness opposite. Why does the amendment say, "an authority who", rather than "an authority which"?

Lord Skelmersdale

Perhaps my noble friend has a personal view about that.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

It is not a question of a personal view; it is a question of the drafting of a statute. "Who" is used generally in respect of persons. I say, "The noble Lord who is conducting these proceedings with such skill", but I would refer to "the Government which is conducting them with equal skill".

Lord Foot

I should like to comment on that very important point. In other parts of this Bill, as indeed in other Acts of Parliament, the local authority is treated as a plural, a number of persons. If that is right, does it not follow that "who" is appropriate?

Lord Skelmersdale

Obviously I shall have to look to see whether it is normal statutory language. I rather doubt that it is, and if it is not I shall make sure it is put right.

Lord Foot

I am obliged.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 159:

Page 43, line 33, leave out ("164") and insert ("170").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 159, and I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 160, 186 and 187. These amendments were made at the suggestions of the CBI, with whom we discussed this whole matter.

Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 make a small change to the basis on which compensation would be payable following the revocation of a hazardous substances consent. The amendments are brought forward following those representations. As the Bill stands, such compensation would be payable in accordance with Section 164 of the 1971 Act which provides for the payment of compensation following the revocation of a planning permission by an order under Section 45. However, the revocation of a hazardous substances consent will be more nearly analogous to a discontinuance order under Section 51. The compensation payable in those circumstances is provided for by Section 170, and the amendments substitute references to Sections 170 and 51 for Sections 164 and 45. Under Section 170, compensation is payable in respect of depreciation of the value of an interest in land, which must surely be appropriate. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 160:

Page 43, line 37, leave out from ("where") to ("of") in line 39 and insert ("an order is made under section 51").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 161 and 162:

Page 46, line 37, at end insert ("(a)").

Page 46, line 39, at end insert ("or (b) that commission of the offence could be avoided only by the taking of action amounting to a breach of a statutory duty.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 and speak to Nos. 190 and 191. Amendment No. 161 is paving and No. 162 provides that in any proceedings for an offence of contravention of hazardous substances control it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he could only have avoided the commission of the offence by taking an action that would have contravened some other statutory duty.

One possible example of such a situation, which was drawn to our attention by the British Ports Association, arises for harbour undertakings which are obliged in certain circumstances to permit cargoes to be unloaded. It would clearly be unjust if in those circumstances the contravention of hazardous substances control was still punishable and Amendment No. 162 therefore provides a statutory defence in such cases. Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 make equivalent provision for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 163 and 164:

Page 49, line 22, after ("granted") insert ("or are deemed to have granted"). Page 49, line 23, after ("or") insert ("who have").

The noble Lord said: These are minor tidying up amendments. Section 58M provides that where there is a conflict between requirements imposed under the provisions of the Bill concerning hazardous substances and requirements arising from health and safety legislation, the latter shall prevail. However, Section 58M omits to mention the deemed hazardous substances consents which existing operators will be able to claim under Clause 22.

It is important that the requirements of health and safety legislation should apply equally to all those who use hazardous substances, and that is why these amendments are necessary. Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 make equivalent provision for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Hazardous substances contravention notices]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 165:

Page 50, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 165 and speak to Nos. 166, 194 and 195. As usual, Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 are the Scottish equivalents. Amendment No. 165 is paving for the substantive Amendment, No. 166, which prevents a hazardous substances authority from issuing a hazardous substances contravention notice in cases in which the contravention of hazardous substances control could be avoided only by taking an action that amounts to a breach of some other statutory duty. The reasons for making these amendments are the same as for the amendments to Section 58J that we have just discussed. Taking enforcement action in such cases would clearly be unfair. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 166:

Page 50, line 13, at end insert— ("(1A) A hazardous substances authority shall not issue a hazardous substances contravention notice where it appears to them that a contravention of hazardous substances control can be avoided only by the taking of action amounting to a breach of a statutory duty.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Transitional]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 167 to 180:

Page 52, line 21, leave out from ("if") to ("quantity") in line 23 and insert ("the substance was present on, under or over the land at any time within the establishment period and—

1. (i) in a case in which at the commencement date notification in respect of the substance was required by any of the Notification Regulations, both the conditions specified in subsection (1A) below were satisfied; and
578
2. (ii) in a case in which at that date such notification was not so required, the condition specified in paragrpah (b) of that subsection is satisfied.

(1A) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

1. (a) that notification required by the Notification Regulations was given before the commencement date; and
2. (b) that the substance has not been present during the transitional period in a quantity greater in aggregate than the established").

Page 52, line 31, at end insert ("and as to how and where it was kept and used immediately before the commencement date").

Page 52, line 37, after ("by") insert ("regulation 3 or 5 of the").

Page 53, line 25, leave out ("maximum established amount") and insert ("established quantity").

Page 53, line 27, after second ("the") insert ("place and").

Page 53, line 28, after ("which") insert ("information supplied in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) above shows that").

Page 53, line 29, at end insert ("and (c) none of the substance shall be kept or used in a container greater in capacity than the container, or the largest of the containers, in which the substance was kept or used immediately before the commencement date.").

Page 53, line 33, leave out ("6") and insert ("12").

Page 53, line 35, leave out ("maximum established amount") and insert ("established quantity").

Page 53, line 39, after ("with") insert ("any of the").

Page 53, line 39, after ("Regulations") insert ("(i)").

Page 53, line 41, at end insert ("or (ii) a quantity equal to twice the quantity which was so notified or last notified before the start of the establishment period, whichever is the greater").

Page 54, line 1, leave out ("such a notification was not so required") and insert ("a notification was not required before that date by any of those regulations, a quantity exceeding by 50 per cent.").

Page 54, line 7, leave out ("or any regulations amending or replacing them").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 167 to 180 inclusive and speak to Nos. 196 to 209 inclusive. These clauses are intended to provide for the right of existing users of hazardous substances to go on using them after the commencement date in the same way as before that date. However, as it stands the clause is overrestrictive in its effect. In particular operators will not, without consent, be able to increase their holdings of substances even in a way which would make no difference to the safety of people on neighbouring land or to the kind of development that might safely be allowed on such land, nor will they be able to alter the manner of their operations even marginally without consent.

These provisions are unduly restrictive and the Amendments are intended to make them less so. It is no secret that the CBI has been making representations to us about this clause and that we have been discussing the ideas in these amendments with it. We have also consulted the local authority associations and the Royal Town Planning Institute about them.

Our general objective is to allow the greatest degree of growth of the industries concerned that is possible without significantly altering the effect that these industries have on the use of neighbouring land. We have involved the Health and Safety Executive in these discussions since it has the responsibility for advising local planning authorities on the risks for people on neighbouring land to which the substances in question may give rise.

Our amendments make a number of changes to the clause. Perhaps the most notable is that under Amendment No. 178 it will be possible to claim consent for either the quantity in respect of which notification has most recently been given to the Health and Safety Executive under the 1982 regulations or for twice the quantity which was last notified before the start of the establishment period.

The HSE advises that the flexibility that this amendment will give to industry to expand its operations will generally not significantly affect the safety of people in the surrounding area or the development that may sensibly be undertaken on it. But the amendment does not include a safeguard against unscrupulous operators increasing the quantities that they have notified to the HSE before these provisions came into force and then being able to double that quantity. The executive could not be confident that its advice would continue to hold good in those circumstances, which is why the amendment has taken this form.

Amendment No. 179 provides a similar tolerance for substances which are not notifiable under the 1982 regulations. For these substances the quantity in respect of which deemed consent may be claimed under the clause as it stands is the maximum quantity that was present at any one time during the establishment period. The amendment will allow deemed consent to be claimed for a quantity that exceeds that amount by 50 per cent. Once again I can assure the Committee that the Health and Safety Executive advises that the greater flexibility that this amendment will give to industry will not significantly affect the risks to people in the areas surrounding the installations concerned.

An important part of the package is Amendment No. 173 which imposes a condition to the effect that both the NIHSS and the non-NIHSS substances must be kept in a container or containers, the largest of which is no greater than the largest that was used for keeping that substance on the land during the establishment period. Size of container is an important consideration in the Health and Safety Executive's assessment of the risks arising from the presence of hazardous substances.

Amendments Nos. 168, 172 and 173 are concerned with another aspect of the rigidity of the clause as it stands. Subsection (8) attaches a general condition to deemed consents under the clause to the effect that the substances to which the consents relate shall be kept and used in the same way as they were kept and used before the commencement date. This provision makes no allowance for changes in industrial methods, economic circumstances or safety practices. Even small changes in such matters which had no bearing on the safety or the development of neighbouring land could give an authority the right to take enforcement action.

There are aspects of the manner of operation which have a bearing on neighbouring land. They include such matters as the precise location of the substance on the land, the size of containers and the pressure and temperature at which the substance is kept. It will be important to ensure that operators are not free to change those aspects.

The scheme proposed by these amendments is that the operator will be required to include with his claim information about these matters which will be prescribed in regulations, and it will be a condition of the deemed consent that these aspects of the operation shall not be changed. However, on all other aspects of the manner of keeping and use the clause will impose no restriction.

I am glad to say that the other amendments in this group are not so complex. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that. Amendment No. 167 to subsection (1) removes an anomaly in the clause under which it would be possible in certain cases to take enforcement action during the six-months' transitional period immediately after the commencement date against the presence on land of substances in respect of which a valid claim for deemed consent could be made. The effect of the amendment will be that during the transitional period enforcement action against existing operators may be taken only in respect of quantities of substances in excess of those in respect of which they may claim deemed consent. Amendment No. 174 alters the length of the establishment period from six months to a year. This will ensure that the seasonal nature of some operators' activities are taken into account in establishing their entitlement to claim deemed consent under the clause. The remaining amendments are consequential and tidying up.

I have made these comments by reference to the amendments to Clause 22 which applies to England and Wales. Amendments Nos. 196 to 209 inclusive make precisely similar changes to the Scottish clause, Clause 26. These are very technical amendments and are so complicated that I thought it was my duty to explain them fully to the Committee, and I trust that the Committee will be able to approve them. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Unless any noble Lord objects I propose to put together this amendment and all the other amendments to Clause 22 to which the noble Lord has spoken.

Lord Mottistone

If I may intervene briefly, I should like to thank on behalf of the CBI my noble friend for the care that he and his department have given to take the CBI's advice into consideration on all these amendments to this clause. This has indeed been most helpful.

Lord Diamond

May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that we are altering the Town and Country Planning Act so as to be almost unrecognisable—as we have already altered the Housing Act 1985—the Government have any early intention of introducing a consolidation measure so that those who are interested in these matters may be able to ascertain what is the law of the land?

Lord Skelmersdale

There is a planning publication in three volumes which I have always been told is referred somewhat inelegantly to as the "Planning Bible". It is regularly updated to take account of changes, such as those in this Bill, that are made. Parliament in its wisdom put enormous pressure on the Government as a result of the Housing Act 1985, as the noble Lord will remember, to persuade the Law Commission to speed up its revision of the law in that area. Many of the amendments that we have had to consider over the last two days in the Committee were due to errors caused by that extra speed. Although I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has made—that we need a comprehensive guide to planning legislation—I think that the way we do it at the moment is perhaps better than consolidation which the noble Lord has asked for.

Baroness David

May I ask the Minister whether he knows when we shall receive the printed version ready for Report stage because the time is not all that long? Where there are a substantial number of amendments to a clause it will read totally differently from its present form. If we do not have the printed version quickly, perhaps we may have a draft of the clauses that have been substantially altered before the printed version comes out.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am totally unable to answer that question. What I can tell the noble Baroness is that the powers that be in the Public Bill Office and the Clerks at the Table have been working consistently and very conscientiously to make sure that there will be no delay in printing. As far as I know that was the position on Tuesday night. All the amendments to the Bill were already in printers' block form by the following morning. Therefore I do not expect any undue delay.

If it appears that there will be undue delay, I shall do my best, where we have these very complicated and longwinded amendments, to put them into some non-statutory Keeling schedule for circulation.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

The Question is that the 14 amendments to Clause 22 be agreed to?

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [Hazardous substances—Scotland]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

We have already discussed Amendments Nos. 181 to 185 and I propose to put them together, unless any noble Lord objects.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 181 to 185:

Page 54, line 33, at end insert— ("(3) For the purposes of this section any land to which this subsection applies but which is not operational land of statutory undertakers authorised to carry on a harbour shall be treated as if it were such operational land. (4) Subsection (3) above applies—

1. (a) to a wharf; and
2. (b) to harbour land,

as defined in the Harbours Act 1964. (5) Any question whether subsection (3) above applies to land shall be determined by the Secretary of State and the Minister who is the appropriate Minister in relation to operational land of statutory undertakers who are authorised to carry on harbour undertakings.").

Page 59, line 11, at end insert— ("and of all conditions relating to that substance subject to which the consent is granted").

Page 59, line 32, at end insert— ("but a planning authority other than the appropriate Minister may only grant consent subject to conditions as to how a hazardous substance is to be kept or used if the conditions are conditions to which the Health and Safety Executive have advised the authority that any consent they might grant should be subject").

Page 62, line 12, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").

Page 62, line 14, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 155. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 185A not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 186 to 193:

Page 63, line 21, leave out ("153") and insert ("159").

Page 63, line 25, leave out from ("where") to ("of") in line 27 and insert— ("an order is made under Section 49").

Page 65, line 3, leave out ("32(3)") and insert ("32(4)").

Page 65, line 3, leave out ("34") and insert ("33").

Page 66, line 24, at end insert ("(a)").

Page 66, line 26, at end insert— ("or (b) that commission of the offence could be avoided only by the taking of action amounting to a breach of a statutory duty.").

Page 69, line 4, after ("granted") insert ("or are deemed to have granted").

Page 69, line 4, at end insert ("who have").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Hazardous substances contravention notices]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 194 and 195:

Page 69, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").

Page 69, line 36, at end insert— ("(1A) A planning authority shall not issue a hazardous substances contravention notice where it appears to them that a contravention of hazardous substances control can be avoided only by the taking of action amounting to a breach of a statutory duty.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 165. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Transitional (Scotland)]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 196 to 209:

Page 71, line 39, leave out from ("if") to ("quantity") in line 41 and insert— ("the substance was present on, under or over the land at any time within the establishment period and—

(i) in a case in which at the commencement date notification in respect of the substance was required by any of the Notification Regulations, both the conditions specified in subsection (1A) below were satisfied; and (ii) in a case in which at that date such notification was not so required, the condition specified in paragraph (b) of that subsection is satisfied. (1A) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

1. (a) that notification required by the Notification Regulations was given before the commencement date; and
2. (b) that the substance has not been present during the transitional period in a quantiy greater in aggregate than the established").

Page 72, line 6, at end insert— ("and as to how and where it was kept and used immediately before the commencement date").

Page 72, line 11, after ("by") insert— ("regulation 3 or 5 of the").

Page 72, line 38, leave out ("maximum established amount") and insert ("established quantity").

Page 72, line 40, after second ("the") insert ("place and").

Page 72, line 41, after ("which") insert— ("information supplied in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) above shows that").

Page 72, line 42, at end insert ("and (c) none of the substance shall be kept or used in a vessel or container greater in capacity than the container, or the largest of the containers, in which the substance was kept or used immediately before the commencement date.").

Page 73, line 4, leave out ("6") and insert ("12").

Page 73, line 6, leave out ("maximum established amount") and insert ("established quantity").

Page 73, line 10, after ("with") insert ("any of the").

Page 73, line 10, after ("Regulations") insert ("(i)").

Page 73, line 12, at end insert— ("or (ii) a quantity equal to twice the quantity which was so notified or last notified before the start of the establishment period, whichever is the greater").

Page 73, line 13, leave out ("such a notification was not so required") and insert— ("a notification was not required before that date by any of those regulations, a quantity exceeding by 50 per cent").

Page 73, line 19, leave out ("or any regulations amending or replacing them").

The noble Lord said: I propose to move Amendments Nos. 196 to 209 en bloc. They were all spoken to with Amendment No. 167. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Hazardous substances: consequential amendments]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 210:

Page 120, line 26, leave out ("or section 20(7) of the Housing and Planning Act 1986").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 211:

Page 121, line 21, at end insert—

("Gas Act 1986 (c.44.)

9. In sub-paragraph (1)(xxiv) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the Gas Act 1986 (enactments for the purposes of which a public gas supplier is deemed to be a statutory undertaker and his undertaking a statutory undertaking)—

1. (a) after "sections" there shall be inserted "1B,"; and
2. (b) after "49," there shall be inserted "58E,".")

The noble Lord said: I should like also to address myself to Amendment No. 215. These are technical amendments to ensure that public gas suppliers are treated like statutory undertakers for the purposes of hazardous substances control. The Gas Act 1986 already provides that gas suppliers are to be treated as statutory undertakers for all existing town and country planning purposes. These amendments simply continue this arrangement. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 212:

Page 121, line 26, leave out ("of Schedule 1") and insert ("in Part II of the first Schedule").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 213 and 214:

Page 121, line 42, leave out ("97A") and insert ("97B").

Page 123, line 6, leave out ("97A(2)") and insert ("97B(2)").

The noble Lord said: These are simply amendments to correct printing errors. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 215:

Page 123, line 28, at end insert—

("Gas Act 1986 (c.44.)

8. In sub-paragraph (1)(xxv) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the Gas Act 1986 after "46", there shall be inserted ("56B, 56G,".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 [Abolition of Secretary of State's power to authorise opencast working, &c.]:

[Amendment No. 216 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Nicolmoved Amendment No. 216A:

Page 73, line 28, leave out ("to 3") and insert ("and 2").

The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment with considerably more hope than I moved the last amendment. The effect of this amendment is to retain Section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958, thus continuing the present duty on the NCB to have regard to: the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest".

This duty is even more important now than it was when it was first imposed in 1958.

I should say at this point, before we proceed—and I am sorry if I have confused the Committee—that I am speaking first to Amendment 216A, which is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 217 and 217A. I should also explain that it was decided that the wording in Amendment No. 217A was defective, but we were unable to contact the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and it seemed discourteous to eliminate it without his permission. Therefore it is still in. But, in essence, we are discussing Amendment No. 217A. I apologise to the Committee for a false start.

It is quite clear what the amendment intends to do, and it is equally clear that that provision exists now and is a charge on the NCB. Opencasting is environmentally damaging, and there is no way of escaping that. But it is essential that it is done in as environmentally sensitive a way as possible. This provision encourages the National Coal Board to promote schemes which are environmentally acceptable. It is important that legislation should require industries in public ownership to set an example for the private sector to follow. The National Coal Board has had this requirement for 28 years, so that no extra burden is imposed by this amendment.

Even the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently agreed that it should have regard to amenity in its activities. There seems no good reason why the slackening of policy indicated in this Bill should be approved. If the Minister decides to resist this amendment, I hope that he will be able to spell out for us what the Government's intention is and exactly why they are resisting it.

6.45 p.m.

Viscount Ridley

I apologise to the noble Baroness for being incommunicado or not available, but I supported the original amendments without knowing that they were defective. I am sorry for that. It was not my fault.

I support what the noble Baroness has said about opencast coal. I spoke on this matter at Second Reading, and this is no time to go into details. But I think that the Government should look seriously at the amendments that we are debating because, first of all, I think that they want to have a nice, new, green image (which I understand Mr. Waldegrave and others would like to see promoted) and this seems to me a good way of doing that.

Secondly, the amendment has the support not only of all the local authority associations, I think, but also of the National Farmers' Union and others who have connections with and experience of opencast coal workings. Thirdly, I am quite sure that opencast operations are damaging and that what might appear to be any lessening of the constraints of the National Coal Board in restoration in dealing with these important matters will be seen by them as a weakening of resolve. Therefore, I believe that no harm can be done by leaving the Opencast Coal Act intact, and these amendments will do that in this respect. I hope very much that my noble friend will see his way to support them.

Lord Skelmersdale

I rather thought that the noble Baroness, in moving this amendment, was going to utter a threat that if I resisted this amendment I would do so at my peril, if not now certainly at a later stage of the Bill. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, I think, know me better than that. I have not the least intention of resisting these amendments, but I shall have to consider the exact form that would be appropriate because, as my noble friend has said, this particular wording has been in an Act of Parliament for 28 years, and things change.

One of the things that has changed is Section 11 of the countryside Act, which has come into being since then. Under that section, in exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minster, government department and public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. I shall certainly investigate this matter and come back with something (though I have no idea at the moment what it will be) at a subsequent stage of the Bill.

Baroness Nicol

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. We shall look hopefully for a government amendment at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]

Clause 27 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Opencast coal: miscellaneous amendments]:

[Amendment No. 217A not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale: moved Amendment No. 218:

Page 130, line 22, leave out from ("shall") to ("a") in line 25 and insert ("publish").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 218, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 219, 220 and 221. They all concern the advertisement requirements for applications for, or the making of, orders under Section 15 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 to suspend or divert footpaths to enable opencast coalmining to be carried out. In rewriting Section 15 for the Bill, the requirement to place advertisements in the appropriate gazette was omitted. It was certainly not our intention to restrict the rights of interested persons or organisations to object to proposals to suspend or divert footpaths. If this is the impression that has got abroad, I can only apologise on behalf of the Government to the Committee and to those people who have it.

These amendments restore the requirement on British Coal to advertise their intention of applying for an order under Section 15 in two successive weeks in the appropriate gazette as well as in one or more local newspapers, and similarly, reinstate the requirement on the Secretary of State to advertise the making of such an order in the appropriate gazette as well as in local newspapers. This will ensure that interested parties will have the same opportunity to object to proposals for orders under the revised Section 15 as they do under the existing provisions.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 219, 220 and 221: Page 130, line 36, at end insert— (" (1A) The duty to publish a notice imposed by subsection (1) above is a duty to publish it —

1. (a) in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land over which the right of way subsists is situated; and
2. (b) in the same or any other two successive weeks, in the appropriate Gazette.").

Page 131, line 34, leave out from ("publish") to ("a") in line 35. Page 131, line 43, at end insert— (" (9) The duty to publish a notice imposed by subsection (8) above is a duty to publish it—

1. (a) in one or more local newspapers such as are mentioned in subsection (1) above; and
587
2. (b) in the appropriate Gazette.

(10) In this section "the appropriate Gazette" means—

1. (a) the London Gazette in a case where the land over which the right of way subsists is situated in England or Wales; and
2. (b) the Edinburgh Gazette in a case where it is situated in Scotland.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 [Listed buildings and conservation areas]:

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 222:

Page 74, line 20, at end insert— ("(d) dangerous structure orders in respect of listed buildings;").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 222 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 225, 229, 231 and 243. Amendment No. 222 is simply an addition to the list of items in Clause 28 to pave the way for Amendment No. 229 in Schedule 7. Amendment No. 225 is a similar paving amendment for the Scottish amendment, No. 243. I should say to the Committee that if it agrees these amendments I shall need to introduce an English and Welsh paving amendment to Clause 28 which will be similar to Amendment No. 225 in Clause 36.

Turning now to the substantial amendment, No. 229, this deletes the amendment tabled by the honourable Member for Chipping Barnet inserted into the Bill in another place against government advice and replaces it with a strengthened version of Section 55(6), which overcomes the objections to the provision now in the Bill. We fully appreciate the reasons which prompted the amendment but believe that there are some genuine emergencies when demolition is the only way of making a building safe quickly.

We therefore consider that it is wrong to remove completely the defence offered by Section 55(6) if demolition is involved, though we accept that in its present form it can be abused. The amendment we put forward incorporates all the good points in the provision now in the Bill but removes the parts which are unacceptable and tightens up the subsection generally. There is a consequential amendment to the enforcement provisions of the Act which reflect the new wording in Section 55(6).

Amendment No. 231 does two things. It requires local authorities to consider whether they should use their powers to carry out urgent repairs under Section 101 or serve a repairs notice under Section 115, followed up by a compulsory purchase order under Section 114, before they either go to a magistrates' court to seek a dangerous structure order or issue a dangerous structure notice. Amendment No. 243 makes provision for Scotland equivalent to Amendment No. 229.

The second measure is to add a new subsection to the sections of the Building Act 1984 and the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 dealing with dangerous structure orders and notices in order to make it clear that the orders or notices do not override listed building control. That should once and for all dispel any notion that listed building consent is not required if a building is the subject of a dangerous structure order or notice. Either listed building consent must be obtained or notice must be given in accordance with the new provision in Section 55(6) if the defence offered by that subsection is to be relied on. I believe that these measures greatly strengthen the existing powers and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Marquess of Salisburymoved Amendment No. 223:

Page 74, line 29 at end insert— ("(h) the use of Building Preservation Notices in connection with proposals to list buildings, (i) the power of the Secretary of State to make a scheme for payment of grant.").

The noble Marquess said: In moving Amendment No. 223, I declare an interest. With the permission of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 241, 242 and 303.

The first point I should make is that these amendments in no way affect the principle of listing. All they aim to do is to give the owners of property some rights once the decision to list has been taken. That is the first matter. The second matter is the right of appeal against listing.

What the amendments do is to demand that the Department of the Environment should give prior notice of a decision to look at a building with a view to listing. This is not only common courtesy but it is important for the owner who may suffer considerable financial disadvantages as a result. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Elton, announced that there would be a code of conduct. A code of conduct is not binding but he said that it was preferable since it allowed flexibility and would allow alterations to be made as was found necessary. He stated that it was therefore preferable to enshrining the code in statute.

This may well be so but the fact is that notification in the past was never given and, as the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, pointed out at Second Reading, the inspector was told to go out of his way not to say that he was having a look round. I feel that in the circumstances it would be better that we should have this code on the statute book. At this stage I would point out that the noble Lord accepted the principle of notification and the only question is whether it should be within the statute. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to accept this proposed amendment.

Also in connection with the code of conduct there are certain areas in which I hope it may be possible for the Minister to amend and adjust. For instance, there are variations in the interpretation of the instructions given by the ministry. In some areas I understand that virtually any building coming within the scope of the Act is more or less automatically listed. In other areas, there seems to be some doubt as to whether the inspector has the necessary experience to perform his duties. Indeed, some buildings have been listed which fall well outside the ambit of the Act. I hope that it will be possible so to amend the instructions to the inspectors that account can be taken of these problems. It is not something which I feel can be dealt with by legislation but it needs further attention.

I also hope that the Minister can arrange at the time that the listing is announced for details of why the listing is being given to be more full. At present it is simply stated that the listing is in conformation with the Act and nothing more.

To achieve this intention, there are problems in drafting legislation and I am advised that the route I propose to the Committee could deal with the matter satisfactorily. That route is via the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. One would use the building preservation notification procedure contained therein. This would prevent owners taking evasive action, such as pulling down a building or altering it during the period between notification of a visit and actual listing. The effect of this procedure would give protection to the building for up to six months, pending a decision whether to list. Under the Act, this procedure could give rise to a claim for compensation. These amendments are devised so as to prevent, under Amendment No. 242, such a claim for compensation being admissible during the period of six months which I have mentioned.

The other subsections of Amendment No. 242 deal with the proposed right of appeal. Many owners feel they are entitled to this. There is a precedent for this in the case of refusal of an application to demolish a listed building. Although the basis is slightly different, the principle is the same. This amendment seeks to correct the anomaly and provides normal democratic rights to owners. This is possibly one of the few areas in law where there is no right of appeal against what could amount to a sentence to very severe expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the appeal procedure already existed. All I can say is that few people seem to have known about it. I do not know whether this was a deliberate intention. Anyway, under this procedure in the Ministry, the Minister was, in effect, prosecutor, judge and jury and surely owners are entitled to better treatment than that.

Perhaps I may briefly say a word on how listing can seriously affect owners. For instance, it may involve an owner in substantial costs in carrying out repairs to a listed building. These in turn may be completely uneconomic and there is no guarantee about receiving a grant, on which I shall say something a little later. The uneconomic expenditure is in no way recoverable. There may also in certain circumstances be a loss of capital value. Furthermore, in some cases local authorities have power to order expenditure to be carried out, and in others a local authority may even enter in and carry out the work and send the owner the bill. At present, there is little that an owner can do and he has no recourse against these activities.

This modest—I repeat the word "modest"—amendment gives owners no rights other than the right of appeal against being required to carry out these duties. Once again, it was difficult to find a suitable appeal procedure, for unlike the appeal against a refusal to allow demolition, where the appeal is to the Minister against a local council's decision, in this case the Minister is responsible for the decision to list and therefore could not be the person to whom an appeal should be made.

Among others, there appear to be two possible alternatives: either to appeal to the Minister before the decision to list had been taken—that is, before he was responsible and was therefore the person to whom the appeal should not be made—or to have the appeal to an independent tribunal where the Minister was not personally involved. This could be either to a body of suitable persons or to a suitable organisation which would have the power to deal with the problem. I picked the former in the hope that it might he more acceptable to the Government.

Briefly, I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 241. This is purely a probing amendment. In speaking to Amendment No. 223, I have already covered the reasons why I put it down. The present position is that Her Majesty's Government accept responsibility only for listing. The question of grant is handed over entirely to the English Heritage organisation. They are, as we all know, very short of funds and this means that many buildings which one hopes will attract support are unable to receive it. In the end, the full responsibility falls fairly and squarely on the owner of the property and he is required by statute to carry out what may prove to be very expensive repairs and maintenance. It seems to me that this is not a very satisfactory situation. I hope by putting down this amendment that when the Minister replies he will be able to give some indication of how the Government view this problem and to say whether there is any prospect of them taking action to improve the situation. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Earl De La Warr

I should like very briefly to give my strongest support to my noble friend's amendment. He has argued it with great knowledge and in great depth and all it needs is for me to suggest to the Committee that there is in many ways a negation here of natural justice. An inspector may go and look at a building deliberately without the owner knowing, and knowledge of what happens after that right up until the building has been listed by the Minister is kept from the owner. The nub of these amendments seems to me to be a demand that the owner should know before the Minister decides to list the building and should have a statutory right of appeal. There is the statutory right to list and it seems quite wrong that a statutory right should not exist on the other side.

Viscount Dilhorne

I should like to support my noble friend in what he said and add a few words myself. I shall be reasonably brief. At present, as we all know, buildings are listed by the Secretary of State without any notice of the intention to list being given to the owners. This is because it is feared that prior notification might give the opportunity to demolish, to damage or otherwise to interfere with that building after the notification has been received.

This procedure was criticised judicially some time ago and I have a part of that judgment which I think focuses attention on what my noble friend has said. They are the words of Lord Justice Lawton in the Amalgamated Property case. He said: I share Buckley L.J.'s surprise at the way in which this warehouse came to be listed as a building of architectural or historical interest. Between March 1971 and June 1972 a woman civil servant whose qualifications do not appear to be known to the parties wandered around the London Borough of Tower Hamlets looking for buildings which she thought (subject to certain criteria which she was given) were of architectural or historical interest. It was part of her instructions that she was not to let either of the owners or occupiers of the building know that she was surveying them from the outside with a view to possible inclusion in the list which she was compiling. The only check upon her judgment seems to have been that she had to make a report to the Chief Investigator. He in turn had to report to Miss Price, another civil servant, seemingly without any professional qualifications relating to the subject matter of the woman civil servant's investigations. Not only was this warehouse listed but it was listed without any opportunity for, protesting being given to the owners. Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 empowers the Secretary of State to draw up a list; and he is also given power to amend it when it has been drawn up. There does not appear to be any statutory procedure for enabling those who object to having their property listed to make representations. One presumes that if they do make representations to the Secretary of State he will consider them. But who is he going to take advice from, if anybody, and when or whether he does so is unknown. That procedure lacks the appearance of fairness". As a very recent postscript to that, there is a building in South-East London which has been listed as a genuine 18th century Georgian building. But it has a 20th century replica Georgian facade.

I shall not say very much more. There is a lot of law in this. The law as it stands at the moment—to put a short phrase on it—is cumbrous and difficult to apply. What I am strongly supporting is that my noble friend the Minister should consider—and I put this in slightly different words, but I think that they amount to the same as the proposed amendments—first, that at the very least there should be a requirement that the Secretary of State should consult with the owner or the occupier prior to listing taking affect. If the consultation process was not genuine, then of course the owner or the occupier could resort to powers that are already provided, go to the courts about the decision and seek to have it quashed. The likelihood of his success would not be very great because there is usually a problem over obtaining the evidence to support such an action.

Because consultation may only be a palliative to the owner, I would urge the Minister to go further than this and at the very least make provision after the consultation process has taken place for there to be an appeal, at least by written submissions—perhaps only by written submissions. While consultation and the appeal process are going on, the equivalent restrictions imposed by the building protection notice procedures would prevent any of the owners from interfering with the structure of the building and thus you would preserve the status quo. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take seriously what my noble friend has put forward, which I strongly support.

Lord Mottistone

I should like briefly to support these amendments. Once again I am advised by the CBI. My noble friend who has just spoken and referred to warehouses made the point; many listed buildings are business premises and factories. I have some examples in front of me, one of which is from Birmingham. A whole building used to he a courtyard 120 years ago behind a facade. The facade was let for office buildings, the courtyard has long since disappeared but the firm cannot develop any further in order to improve its business because the premises have been listed. Quite apart from the argument as to how they were listed (which seems to be quite wrong anyway if it can be done apparently by any Tom, Dick or Harry without reference to the owners), the important point about the amendments is that common sense would be properly applied as to what is allowed to be developed in the future rather than its being restricted by this process.

I hope that in considering this matter my noble friend will realise that, as well as harming what individuals might like to do with their private properties, if the Bill is not changed in the way that my noble friend Lord Salisbury suggests business developments will be restricted and the prosperity of the country will be imperilled.

Viscount Ridley

I too should like to support the amendments moved by my noble friend, particularly in relation to the right of an owner to be notified. As I said on Second Reading, this can cause conspicuous embarrassment and I hope that we shall look at this most seriously.

The Committee may be aware from the Sunday newspapers that a man arrived to list the gates belonging to the house occupied and owned by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The man said to the owner of the house, "The Secretary of State has decided to list your gateposts". It was bad luck on him when the Secretary of State replied, "Oh, no, I haven't".

7.15 p.m.

Viscount Falmouth

I speak but seldom in this Chamber and I am delighted that my noble friend has brought forward these amendments. They follow from the discussion on Second Reading when several noble Lords expressed great concern about the present procedures when buildings are listed.

The purpose of these amendments is to try to close by statute the gulf between the listers of buildings and the owners; those who have the power to list and those who have the heavy responsibility of owning and maintaining listed buildings. Power and responsibility should work together in these respects.

The first amendment deals with prior notification. My noble friend's amendment whereby the building in question is fully protected by a building protection notice once the intention to list has been served by legal notice counteracts the Government's fears that unscrupulous owners will destroy a building if they think that the authorities have an intention to list. Nothing is more likely to destroy the goodwill of a responsible owner than the present system in which he may find someone wandering around his property or looking at it, perhaps from afar, without prior consultation; and then he is told by official letter that his house is listed and he has no right to comment or to state his case. We must remember that the preservation of old and beautiful buildings depends almost always on the good sense and the purse of their owners. We come to the stating of the case and the right of appeal later in my noble friend's next amendment.

Many owners have been very worried indeed by the way in which in the past 12 months the listing survey has been carried out by private architectural firms using young fieldworkers (perhaps freshly trained and inexperienced) who have been sent to list a district and who in the nature of things know far less about the circumstances of each property than the owner who may have lived there for a very long time. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I own many listed buildings of great beauty.

The method of some of the fieldworkers employed by these firms is that everything old should be listed. There is no inherent virtue in age but there is in beauty and historic links. Indeed, too much listing debases the currency of listing. The duty to give prior notice of listing may prevent some of the absurdities of the present system, such as the listing of agricultural barns, buildings of no particular merit, fences, gates and stone water troughs, which does so much ill to the desired cause of preserving beautiful buildings and those which are historic.

In the statutory declaration to be made before authorising a new listing the Committee should note that it states: The Secretary of State has consulted those persons who appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of, and interest, in such buildings. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society, the Ancient Buildings Society, English Heritage and architectural societies are often consulted, but surely the owner must be consulted too, as he is the one who is most interested and as the principal he should at least be warned of an intention to list.

I turn now to subsection (3B) of Amendment No. 242. The listing of buildings, as my noble friend said, is a serious and permanent diminution of the rights of an owner. Often the listed house is the one great possession a man or a woman has. Some may want for pride's sake to have their home listed but some may well not when they come to know its disadvantages. An owner must obtain listed building consent if he wants to make any alterations inside or out, if it would affect the character of the building of special architectural or historic interest. This can lead him to tremendous legal expense. He can suffer a repairs notice from a local authority, with a threat of compulsory purchase tacked on.

The poorly advertised and little known procedure mentioned in the letter to The Times from Northumberland on 15th September, whereby one can write to the Secretary of State about a listing and ask to have the building taken off the list, is not a satisfactory safeguard for owners who feel aggrieved. That of course will stay under the noble Lord's amendment. The reasonable owner always thinks to himself that once a listing has been made there is a very strong presumption in the mind of the department against its being changed. I understand that there may be a non-statutory code of guidance for fieldworkers. Again, that does not give adequate protection for owners.

Owners who object to listing should have the legal right to a fair hearing on appeal. Such a hearing should take into account the owner's circumstances, the number of similar structures of the same date and style, the cost, and, most important, the future use of the building. We have rent tribunals, rate assessment panels, income tax commissioners, many quasi judicial courts dealing with unfair dismissals, employment and health law. Surely it is only right to have a legal right of appeal against listing which would be consistent, as one of my noble friends said, with natural justice—a principle in this country of all administrative law.

A right of appeal would perhaps make the lister more responsible and careful in the listing and thus close the present divorce between power and responsibility, Whitehall and the world outside. Again, the onus of proof might well shift to the department to show cause for listing, as against the present system where in an application for listed building consent the burden of proof is on the applicant. The costs, too, might well be awarded against the Secretary of State for applicants who are successful.

I have spoken long enough on this vexed question and I trust the Committee will give it a sympathetic hearing. It is undoubtedly an anomaly in the law that there is no appeal for owners against the listing of buildings when listed by the Secretary of State.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

It may be helpful if I, as chairman of English Heritage, make a few remarks. I am sorry that I am unable to agree with my noble friends on this subject because I believe that these amendments are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the listing of historic buildings and the effects of listing.

Taking the effects firsts, I must emphasise strongly that listing does not fossilise ancient buildings or prevent them from being altered or demolished. Listing only prevents those things happening without thought and consideration being given to the possible options. The main obligation which listing places on the owner of a listed building is to obtain authorisation —known as listed building consent —from the local authority for work he wishes to carry out.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, consent is given without difficulty or demur in about eight weeks, as provided by the regulations. Even in the more problematic cases which are referred to the Secretary of State, some 95 per cent. of approvals is granted within eight weeks. As regards the nature of the listing procedure, I should like to make it clear that whether or not a building is listed depends on a very strict set of criteria, involving architectural and historical importance, drawn up by the Secretary of State. It is not done by students. Only those buildings which pass the test are added to the list.

The Committee will not be surprised to learn that the Department of the Environment employs many qualified architectural historians and experts to apply the test which the criteria lay down. Their findings are subject to review and close oversight by the commission; otherwise the English Heritage inspectorate. The great aim of English Heritage is to ensure uniformity, objectivity and impartiality. Only after those very careful processes have been exhausted are the recommendations put to the Secretary of State for him to take the appropriate statutory action.

One knows that occasionally, but not frequently, owners raise objections to being listed; as do owners when they do not have their houses listed. Almost invariably, those are based on financial and economic considerations. With respect to my noble friend Lord Falmouth, I do not think the financial position of the owner has anything to do with the architectural position of the house. Those considerations are irrelevant to the listing decision. They only become relevant when the owner seeks consent to alter or to demolish.

If, on weighing them up, the authorities consider them to be of substance, consent is granted. If a building is generally beyond economic repair, permission is given for demolition. As I have said, the procedures are designed to ensure that for every listed building adequate thought is given to the possible options to demolition or to damaging alterations.

For the reasons I have given, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to introduce a formal right of appeal against listing in the way proposed. Our experience has convinced us that overwhelming public support exists throughout the country for policies which secure the conservation of old buildings. Those policies have been developed essentially since the late 1960s when the inadequacies of the policies then in existence gave rise to so much public concern. Those policies were totally inadequate to prevent the wholesale destruction and redevelopment of our historic cities, towns and villages. They were inadequate to protect additional historic buildings in the countryside from damage or destruction. Even now, and notwithstanding the development of those policies since the 1960s, less than 2 per cent. of our total building stock is protected by being listed.

I know that there has been criticism in some speeches about owners not being notified. I remind the Committee of cases where developers have moved in when there was a suggestion of a building being listed. The most famous case was of course the Firestone factory on the Great West Road, which was demolished over a weekend because the owners knew it was to be listed. However, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Elton in a Written Answer on 30th July. He advised that anyone who felt that his building was wrongly listed had but to send his reasons to the Secretary of State for them to be reviewed.

I believe that is much quicker and cheaper than setting up a bureaucratic appeal organisation, quite apart from the fact that there are serious economic and practical difficulties. Certainly it will be much more bureaucratic. Therefore I hope Members of the Committee will consider the consequences of this appeal procedure coming into effect. It will cost a great deal of money and involve a considerable amount of time for people attending the appeals. We shall end up with one set of experts against another set of experts, and I do not think it will affect the listing procedure in any way at all.

Lord Swinfen

With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Montagu, so far no one has spoken against listing. I believe that most people are fully in favour of listing. However, justice must be seen to be done. In the eyes of a large number of people, listing buildings without any warning to the owner is seen to be an injustice.

The idea that by giving an advance warning and notifying the owner that listing is contemplated would mean that someone who wants to develop will immediately demolish the building is not necessarily true. The law can be fixed in such a way that the notification of a proposed listing immediately stops demolition until the appeal procedure is completed.

I understand also that in the past, though possibly not now, when the listings were originally put in a number of buildings were inspected by students who were inexperienced and therefore a number of mistakes were made. Mistakes may still be made, and these can be sorted out by an appeal procedure. As I said before, not many people object to listing, and I am sure that the vast majority of people who are told that their house, barn, factory or whatever it may be is likely to be listed will not object. I am sure that the cost talked about by the noble Lord will in fact be very small. It will not be an economic burden on the country, and it is a small price to pay to make certain that the nation sees that justice is being done.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Kennet

Perhaps I may add a few words of support to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. He was very kind in suggesting that the present system has its roots in legislation of the 1960s, but as the Minister who took the Planning Act 1968 through this assembly I should remind the Committee that by then it had already been going for 20 years.

The duty of listing buildings of historic and architectural interest was laid on the Secretary of State by Parliament in 1947, and it has now been carried out for 40 years, in the overwhelming majority of cases—99.9 per cent. of cases—with no trouble and no questioning of the judgment of the listers. It has been accepted by those who own historically and architecturally important buildings that the judgment of whether or not such buildings are historically and architecturally important does not carry any economic burden. That burden may come later, when it is a question of judging whether or not a proposal for demolition or alteration is a good one and is in the public interest. The owner of a listed building loses nothing by the fact of it being listed.

There is in existence—the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has just quoted a Written Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—a system by which an owner of a building which is being listed can write to the Secretary of State and say, "Oi! A mistake has been made. This is a late Georgian copy of a medieval building—or whatever it is—it was built in 1942. I built it myself with my own hands". It is what the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, was saying at Second Reading, particularly about gardens: "I quite like it, but there is no historic or architectural importance about it, whatever it is." Errors of fact will arise among the listers, as they will arise among all other professional people. They can be put right by a letter to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can have no possible motive for wishing to perpetuate errors of fact. If the error of fact bears upon the question of whether or not the house should be listed, whether it is or is not of historic or architectural interest, he can say, "Okay, we shall not list it".

However, I beg the Committee to think very seriously before considering, let alone voting for, a solemn system of statutory appeals, with the attendant preliminary listed building preservation notice which would have effect only for a short time and which would then be succeeded by the real listing, so giving two statutory bites of the cherry, or two stabs at it. Until now, owners of historically and architecturally important buildings have been content with the objective judgment that is brought to bear on the matter by the state at the bidding of Parliament. I hope that we can let it rest like that.

Lord Kimball

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and my noble friend Lord Montagu have made a very good case for the existing procedures, but they have utterly failed to deal with the argument, which has been put forward so well by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that the whole of the procedures at which we are looking at the moment are quite simply undemocratic and unfair. That is an argument to which I hope we shall have an answer from the Government when they reply, because that is the feeling on this side of the Committee.

Listing affects property rights. It takes place without the knowledge of the owner in many cases, and a landowner should at least have the right to appeal against that listing. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will not underestimate the very strong feelings that exist on this side of the Committee on this subject.

Lord Skelmersdale

When last month I arrived at the department I discovered that there was growing concern in some quarters about the way that the department adds buildings to the statutory lists. From the tone of the small debate that we have had this evening it is quite clear to me that the dust has not yet settled. Incidentally, I must say that it adds a certain je ne sais quoi when my Secretary of State is the brother of my noble friend Lord Ridley.

The national resurvey of listed buildings is a major exercise and represents an achievement in the heritage field which I believe few noble Lords would wish to dispute, but we have already been reconsidering our procedures. The Committee should know what administrative changes are already being undertaken. First, we have recast our informal letter to owners notifying them that listing has taken place. I believe that the letter will now be clearer. Secondly, we shall now be sending our guide to listing legislation with this letter. It has previously been issued with the local authority's statutory notice of listing and was accordingly often delayed by several months. Lastly, we are issuing two guidance notes which I hope will cover the concerns of my noble friends who have spoken tonight and to which I shall turn in a minute.

However, my noble friends are now asking me to do something rather different. The fieldwork for the resurvey is being supervised, and very well supervised, by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Montagu. It is of course his organisation which provides the professional advice that my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said was required, and I am hardly surprised at his stout defence of his own organisation. In that respect I would not add anything to what he has said. However, knowing the concern of my noble friend Lord Salisbury and others, my officials have spent many weeks over the summer in consultation with the Country Landowners' Association and the CBI drafting a new code of conduct for fieldworkers, which is now being issued and is publicly available. I must confess, though, that I am not yet sure that it is quite perfect; nonetheless it satisfies best current practice.

It it were in regulations, in other words, if it had the statutory backing for which my noble friend Lord Salisbury was asking in one of his amendments, it would not he possible to amend it as fast as might well be reasonable and necessary. I know that the comparatively rapid amendment by regulations is sometimes canvassed in the course of discussions on a Bill on the basis that in many circumstances a statutory order is very much quicker than primary legislation. "Relax" would be the wrong word to use, but I would suggest to the Committee that this scheme allowing constant amendments which must be a matter of judgment would not be appropriate to have in statutory form. Nonetheless that code instructs fieldworkers to make contact with owners whenever possible and practicable.

I believe that we should see whether these new non-statutory methods work satisfactorily before contemplating any major change in the legislation. I am afraid that in any case I cannot accept the first part of the amendment as drafted. It attempts to link a new form of provisional listing at Section 54(3)(a) to the powers of a building preservation notice and I have to say that this would create a serious lacuna in the legislation; for whereas protection to a listed building takes effect as soon as the list is signed, a building preservation notice takes effect only when it is served on both the owner and occupier or when it is fixed to the building in question. One can envisage a situation in which officials are trying to find the owner and occupier of a building on the eve of a demolition or perhaps rushing round the country with hammer and nails. I must tell the Committee even now, irrespective of the accelerated listing programme, that the department urgently spot lists some 800 buildings a year. I fear that if this amendment is accepted, we should not always succeed in the protection that is required, and I do not think that my noble friend really intended that quite such an effect should ensue.

There is a further objection on that score. The third part of my noble friend's amendment provides that the fieldworker should enter upon land only for the purpose of listing after a provisional notice of listing has been served. That seems to be putting the listing cart before the inspection horse. In practice, it may well mean that if a fieldworker had only a suspicion that a building was listable he could recommend that we serve a notice of provisional listing pending a closer inspection. I think that the fieldworker would wish to be safe rather than sorry, and a great many hapless owners would find their buildings temporarily listed and thus subject to the full range of listed building controls until such time as the fieldworker had completed his full inspection. That seems to be unfair but inevitable under the system proposed.

I should nonetheless like to consider this matter a little more deeply and to appraise myself of any cases which have caused difficulty to see whether there is anything that should be done to overcome that difficulty. I have less sympathy for my noble friend on a statutory right of appeal against listing as set out in Section 54(3B) a point dealt with by my noble friend Lord Montagu and, somewhat to my surprise, by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.

A workable non-statutory right already exists. It is an important right. As I told the Committee a few minutes ago, we shall shortly be issuing a guidance note to assist owners contemplating an appeal. Despite the publicity that we give to our informal procedure in the literature that we send to owners of newly listed buildings, last year my department received only some three dozen appeals of which I believe five were successful. That was out of a total of 23,000 new listings. I must ask the Committee and my noble friends whether it is necessary to create a whole new appeal system for such a small minority of cases.

Finally, I must deal with the proposal for a new scheme for repair grants for listed buildings. The National Heritage Act 1983 transferred the Secretary of State's powers for the award of repair grants to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. I should not want to change that by the creation of a new power now. If my noble friend feels that the sums available to owners from the HBMC are insufficient, that is a matter that we can discuss at another time. I do not think that the creation of a separate but parallel scheme would achieve the end that he seeks.

I understand, and my noble friend Lord Montagu will correct me if I am wrong, that the HBMC pays grants for the repair of outstanding listed buildings and work, which is mainly repair, in conservation areas. It has ways of assessing whether the grant is going to the right people.

On at least one interpretation Amendment No. 303 may be legally defective in that it could mean that the other amendments concerning appeals against the listing of buildings that my noble friend Lord Salisbury has proposed today would lapse after a period of six months. I am sure that that is not his intention. It is a good reason for us all to reconsider this matter.

I am well aware of the feeling that lies behind the main thrust of my noble friend's amendments. It is clear from this short debate that there is a need for us to go away and put on our thinking caps. If any Member of the Committee would like to join me in that, I should greatly value his advice.

A noble Lord suggested that the reasons for listing could be given. They could be given, but listing descriptions are not sent to owners at the moment except on request because of the costs involved. As I said, we are currently listing some 30,000 buildings a year. That again is something at which we may well wish to look.

My noble friend Lord Swinfen put his finger squarely on the problem, which is that of prior notification, under what circumstances it should be used and where we should have realistic safeguards for the buildings concerned. However, the amendments, as I understand them, do not cover that crucial point. For that reason I should like to take all this away and consider it with much greater thought than I have been able to up until now. I hope that in those circumstances my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mottistone

Before my noble friend sits down, will he tell me whether consultations have taken place with the CBI in the production of this code of practice for fieldworkers? Does he agree that the fieldworkers are unlikely to understand the commercial factors which may lie behind factory rebuilding, alteration or demolition and which may be rather different from those of stately homes?

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, I was obviously mumbling, as I am rather apt to do, at the time. I can confirm that my officials have spent many weeks of their summer in consultation with the CLA and the CBI in drafting the new code of conduct.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness David

I wish to take the opportunity to say something about Amendment No. 241 which has not had the discussion that Amendment No. 242 has had. If I do not speak now, I shall lose the opportunity, because these amendments are being spoken to together.

I want to make a point about rescue archaeology, particularly where there are major road schemes. Private developers accept that they have some moral responsibility to contribute most, if not all, of the cost of an archaeological dig when an important site would be destroyed or permanently covered by the development. The British Property Federation has given its blessing to that philosophy. Where the Government act as a developer we think that they should set an example. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be happening.

Once it is discovered that, for instance, an important archaeological site lies in the path of a new motorway, the Department of Transport is asked to provide something towards the cost of the dig. The department says, "No, that is nothing to do with us. Go to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. It is the commission's job to provide grants". Of course, it does not have nearly enough money.

Before the commission was set up, the Department of the Environment administered all government grants for archaeology. No doubt some of that went towards digs necessitated by government development. There was no need to identify that as a separate head of expenditure, and so it was still not separately identified when the function of giving grants was handed over to the commission as an independent body. The commission is not being funded by the Government on anything like the scale needed to pay for the digs necessitated by the present motorway and trunk road programme. In a notable instance in Warwickshire where the remains of a medieval village are on the line of the M.40 extension, the estimated cost of the dig is £100,000 a year for three years. The commission has been able to offer only £5,000 for the first year with no guarantee for later.

It is time that the Government made realistic provision, as a good developer, towards those costs. It is for government to decide how to do that either by individual developing departments giving grants or by allocating adequate funds to the commission for the purpose. It must be done one way or another to avoid not only the loss of potentially important historical evidence but to allay the sense of grievance felt by private developers that the Government are not practising what they encourage others to do.

The Minister is taking back a good many matters to consider. I am not asking him to make any great pronouncement on this matter now, but I should like this to be one of the matters considered and perhaps we can return to it on Report.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am prepared to consider anything but not in the remit of the consideration that I have just offered to my noble friend Lord Salisbury. The rescue archaeology grants to which the noble Baroness has referred have nothing to do with listed buildings. They may or may not have something to do with ancient monuments but they have nothing to do with any amendments that have as yet been put down.

Earl De La Warr

We should be grateful to my noble friend for the offer he has made to have another look at this matter and to have discussions on it. The central point lies in the words: the Secretary of State shall give to the owner and occupier of that building notice of his intention to do so —to list a building. That is where the argument as to natural justice applies. I hope and believe that my noble friend has taken that point when making his offer.

The Marquess of Salisbury

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I do not think that he will expect me to agree with everything that he has said. My noble friend declared that an enormous number of buildings had been listed and that there had been very few objections. However, as I pointed out in moving the amendment, very few people knew that there was a procedure for making an appeal. I have no doubt that this will have had some effect. Of course my noble friend is right. The vast majority of buildings will remain listed, because there is no disagreement. All that concerns me in respect of these amendments on listing is that the owners' rights should be preserved. I suggest that this is not the case at the moment.

The only remark of my noble friend Lord Montagu with which I agreed was his statement that listing in itself did not carry any obligations. It is what follows afterwards that one is concerned about. These amendments attempt to advance the point at which an appeal procedure would operate. As my noble friend Lord Dilhorne pointed out, there is a later stage at which the owner, if he wishes to make changes, has the right of appeal to the Minister under existing procedures.

As for the suggestion that the procedure would cost a great deal, I do not believe that it would cost any more than the other procedure. In fact, it might save a great deal of expense later. I find myself therefore in disagreement on these points.

Another matter touched upon only at the periphery is that of internal or minor changes. There must be very few houses more than 100 years old where changes have not taken place. It seems to me that getting agreement for changes to a listed building to accord with the owner's taste would be very difficult. We know how difficult it is to get agreement in any committee. In this instance, there would be a tendency to allow the status quo to remain. This would stifle a great deal of change that might be for the better. All these old buildings have changed through the centuries. In many cases, those changes have added to the attractions of the building. There is no provision at present other than discussion in committee for this to be allowed.

Consequently, I have considerable doubts about what the Minister has said. I regret that he does not consider that some of the wording of the amendments hold water. I shall have to look at that aspect again. In view of my noble friend's undertaking, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I may have to return to these matters at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Hooper

This may be a convenient moment to break the Committee's proceedings for dinner. I suggest that we resume at five minutes to nine. I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.55 p.m.]

House again in Committee.

Lord Kennet

moved Amendment No. 224: After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:—

"Repeal of s.2 Redundant Churches etc Act 1969.

(".—Section 2 of the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 is hereby repealed.")

The noble Lord said: I move the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady David, and myself. It is necessary to start by saying what is wrong—why have an amendment to this effect at all? I shall give in a nutshell an appreciation of what is wrong, which may be contested; but it is what seems to me to be wrong, and one has to set the background.

The Church of England owns 2,600 Grade 1 listed buildings. That is about half the total of Grade 1 listed buildings in the country. Since 1969 it has demolished 70 listed churches. Only one of those was Grade 1—we shall return to that one in a minute; the other 69 were Grade 2 and Grade 2 starred. The reasons for this sad record are in no way dishonourable or deplorable. This arises out of the very difficult situation in which the modern Church of England finds itself, and is completely comprehensible.

One reason for it is that many churches, especially Victorian ones, in cities where there may be declining congregations, are on extremely valuable sites; and for a church which even today would like to pay more to its incumbents, site value is something not to be sniffed at. There is a judgment to be made here. If nobody is going to the church, if one can get £1 million or £500,000 for the corner site and if thousands of priests are living on a very low wage indeed compared with all other earners in the country, it is not an open and shut case that the beauty or historic value of the church must prevail. This is a matter that the Church of England faces every week.

A second reason for the loss has been the cost of upkeep and the cost of repair of these buildings. Many of them are perfectly gigantic; larger and larger churches are becoming redundant these days and the upkeep is correspondingly gigantic. That is on one side. On the other side is the fact that we are contemplating the demolition or ruination by other means of the most extraordinary stock of magnificent architecture that we have in this country and one of the most extraordinary in Europe.

These buildings are all inherited. None of them was put up by the work of our generation. They all came to us from our ancestors, whether from the Middle Ages, from the Restoration or from the immensely prolific and powerful Victorian age. All the sites are inherited, too. None of the sites on which the question of the demolition of a church arises was acquired by this generation. Difficulties abound for the church: the astronomical repair costs are compounded by a Government who charge 15 per cent. VAT upon building repairs. These difficulties arise at different stages.

Almost every story is different. Parishes owning and running a church in use as a church with a full congregation have difficulty in looking after the small repairs. This may sometimes be due to lack of diocesan control or help. But if one neglects a gutter now one gets wet rot first, dry rot second and one faces demolition. What began 10 years ago as a blocked gutter may itself cause the redundancy of a church even though it could have been put right at the time in two hours by two chaps with a ladder and two buckets.

Later during the waiting period there is another vulnerability to decay and vandalism. The waiting period is when the church is declared redundant on pastoral grounds and everyone is theoretically looking around for three years to find an alternative use for it or to decide whether it should be vested in the Redundant Churches Fund. The waiting period is often shamefully more than the three years provided by statute. At that time, too, early minor neglect becomes the current loss of the building. When the church is passed to the Redundant Churches Fund—which is a joint Church/state body—it is maintained and repaired with moneys coming in the proportion of 60 to 40 from state and Church respectively.

I should now like to tell the Committee briefly about four cases which illustrate the different kinds of trouble which we seek to rectify with this amendment. State aid is withheld from churches in use unless a declaration that redundancy is not contemplated can be obtained from the church authorities. The most conspicuous example of this—although not the only one—is the church of St. Cuthbert's in Philbeach Gardens in Earls Court, the interior of which is a perfect marvel of intricacy and wealth of decoration. It is a Victorian church; they almost all are these days in different cases.

At this point I should like to introduce into the debate the relatively new system of the non-statutory inquiry. After many churches were lost a new unofficial arrangement was reached between Church and state by which if the Church invited him to, the Secretary of State would hold a public inquiry into the best fate for a given redundant church. He would then come to an opinion about what ought to be done about it. It was a non-binding opinion. That system has not worked well. The very first such public inquiry was held in the case of the church of the Holy Trinity in Rugby. Although the Church Commissioners were represented by counsel—and this in itself shows one of the drawbacks of the public inquiry system; it is an important matter of Queen's Counsel, all wearing robes—the diocese did not bother to turn up. The Secretary of State formed his opinion that the church should be saved; it was demolished. That was in 1980.

My third example is the church of St. Wilfred in Brighton. That is a remarkable church by a remarkable architect called Goodhart Rendel, who is not much known but of considerable historical importance.

I must pause for a moment to speak of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches. This is another of these joint state/Church bodies. Half the members are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister and the other half by the archbishops. The board advises the church authorities on the historic and architectural value of a redundant church and what should happen to it; whether it should go to the Redundant Churches Fund for perpetual preservation or whether another use might be all right, and, if so, what kind of use.

The advisory board said that St. Wilfred's in Brighton must be kept and given to the Redundant Churches Fund. After a public inquiry in April last year under this new voluntary non-statutory system, the Secretary of State for the Environment also said that it ought to be kept. However, since then it is sad to record that the Church has wasted the succeeding 18 months in trying to convert the church into flats, a solution long since rejected by its own joint Church/state Advisory Board.

Lastly the current case at the moment is the church of St. Alban's in Teddington. This is a great Victorian church which has similar shape and proportions to the cathedral at Beauvais. I call it Beauvais-on-Thames. It has been closed and abandoned since 1977 against the advice of the church's own Committee for the Care of Churches. Since then the church has been pursuing the idea of putting squash courts in it. Members of the Committee have only to imagine the idea of squash courts in Beauvais Cathedral to see how appropriate or inappropriate this might be.

This notion was pursued against the advice of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, against the advice of the local planning authority, and against the advice of the national amenity societies. In the nine years since then vandalism has naturally taken the most dreadful toll of that church. Every window is broken. The absolutely amazing, wonderful interior is almost entirely smashed up. Although it could be pieced together, it would cost probably more than £1 million.

In January of this year—that is nine years after the church was abandoned and closed—a non-statutory inquiry was decided upon. But it was postponed for another six months while the church authorities went into another plan, which I believe may have been for flats, although I am not sure. But it was a plan for other than the squash courts that they were previously pursuing. The Advisory Board for Redundant Churches said that that was, likely to be even more detrimental to the architectural merits of the church than those it had previously rejected and for which the local authority refused planning permission.

The non-statutory public inquiry finally began a few days ago and has now finished. I do not know whether the Minister will be in a position to tell us what conclusion the inspector has come to or is coming to about that, but that is the position at the moment.

In order to set something of the background of opinion and the spiritual values which accompany the period which I have been outlining I want to quote from a letter to The Times written on 1st September this year by the Secretary of the Churches Main Committee. I am sorry that there are so many committees involved, but those who know the matter—and above all the right reverend Prelates opposite who will be speaking for the churches as regards this amendment—know how they all fit in. However, I think that I am right in saying that the Churches Main Committee is a very important one. Its secretary wrote on the question of listed buildings—listed churches—and the demolition thereof: the suggestion has been made that religious observance is enhanced by a respect for monuments of the past. This may well be so, in spite of a lack of supporting hard evidence. But history shows that religious observance increasingly flourishes most readily under conditions of hardship—e.g., persecution—where its practice has necessarily to take place apart from monuments of the past".

I submit that as an extreme and well-phrased example of the true spirit of masochistic iconoclasm in the Church of England.

On the other hand, if we look at the public economic aspects of the matter, we find that two-thirds of foreign tourists to this country visit our historic churches and that may usefully be compared to the one-third who visit museums and galleries.

One must ask: what needs to be done? In 1913 the Church of England proposed that the then new historic monuments legislation should not apply to it, saying that its system of faculty legislation would preserve the buildings better than any state system. The state at the time accepted this view and since then the Church of England has been exempt from historic momuments legislation. When planning law, as we now know it, and listed buildings legislation was introduced in 1947 and reinforced in 1968 (as we mentioned on an earlier amendment) the ecclesiastical exemption was carried forward into historic buildings law. That is the present position.

The faculty law is time-honoured, it has its use and is a worthy system devised to good ends. The problem is that it completely lacks teeth. There is no penalty whatever for breaking it. When we face a system of law which supplies an exemption from state law and under which this terrible loss of 70 listed churches in 17 years has taken place, I think we are bound to question it. The question of the preservation of non-Church of England churches is a related one, but it is not covered by the amendment before the Committee.

The whole relation between planning law as a whole and that part of it called "listed building law" is intensely complicated. However, one has to begin somewhere, and I submit that that somewhere is the question of outright demolition of listed churches, and that is what the amendment would do.

This amendment is similar to one introduced by Mr. Freeman in the House of Commons which was withdrawn after Mr. Tracey the junior Minister had used the following language (at col. 487 of Commons Hansard for 24th April 1986): My honourable friends know very well that my noble friend the Minister of State

—I believe that at that time it was the noble Lord, Lord Elton— who has prime responsibility for the subject within the department,

—that is, the Department of the Environment has held discussions with representatives of the Church of England and the Churches Main Committee in an effort to find a way forward that would be acceptable to the churches, to the local authority associations and to amenity societies. Those discussions have been going on for some time. We are getting to the point where they should perhaps draw to a conclusion; nevertheless they are continuing. My noble friend still hopes that it will be possible to arrive at precisely the right, mutually acceptable solution. The speeches in the debate will be noted when the legislation goes to the other place. I remind my honourable friends that not only will the Minister of State be there, but also the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, who is chairman of English Heritage".

I do not see Lord Montagu in his place.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

Yes, I am here.

Lord Kennet

I do beg the noble Lord's pardon. I see that he has moved. One cannot trust anyone these days; he has moved at least 25 places! We have another worthy representative in our midst—the Minister from the Department of the Environment. We also have the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I hope he may see fit to intervene in the debate from his own personal experience.

Therefore, the amendment comes to us straight from the House of Commons by the will of all parties. They referred the matter to us quite explicitly, by agreement in their debate on this Bill. The amendment is desired by the following people. It was desired in a rather contorted form, and laden with reservations and side issues, by the Church of England's own Faculty Jurisdiction Committee, chaired by the Bishop of Chichester. Because of one of the side issues that was attached to that recommendation, it was rejected by the Synod of the Church of England, so that, I think, is now an historical footnote. It is desired by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, by the Royal Town Planning Institute and by the Association of District Councils.

It is desired by the six relevant national amenity societies and by the Friends of Friendless Churches, to whom a position of honour must always go because it was they who started up this business about the loss of churches in the first place, more than 30 years ago. It is also strongly desired by English Heritage, which is the colloquial name for the Commission on Historic Buildings and Monuments. Of course none of the statutory bodies, except English Heritage—neither the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches nor the Redundant Churches Fund—is in a position to declare its opinion.

What does the amendment do? If we have it right, it simply gives the Secretary of State a veto over the demolition of a listed church, as he has over the demolition of all other listed buildings. I have heard tell of the possibility of a voluntary, non-statutory package deal between the Church and the state. I hope that we shall hear about this from both sides—both from the Church and from the state.

In presenting the amendment, I should like to ask both sides, particularly the Church side, to remember that it is not after all those who speak for the Church in this Chamber—namely, the right reverend Prelates —who will have authority over these matters, but it is subordinates of theirs, over whom they have no worldly authority; that is, those subordinates who first put the four churches I have mentioned in danger by negligence.

The package deal between Church and state might consist of the Church agreeing to refer to the Secretary of State all cases of demolition, and perhaps also major alteration, when any or all of the Advisory Board, the local planning authority and the recognised amenity societies are against it. If that were so, the Secretary of State might agree that he would always consider it, and—and here is the punchline—it might be that the Churches would then agree to abide by his decision.

In return, it might be that the Secretary of State would be willing to give certain underakings about the availability in the long term of state funding, both for redundant churches and for churches in use. As well as more money, it would be highly desirable to get more certainty, especially to the Redundant Churches Fund which at present gets five-yearly commitments only. The present one ends shortly. This should be improved on with certainty, and there are many ways of doing it.

That is the possible non-statutory commitment. The Church has had trouble before in delivering a non-statutory commitment. I think of the Book of Common Prayer. I rake no ashes and make no charges, but as I hinted just now we should like to know whether the bishops and the commissioners are quite sure that they do not want statutory strengthening for the good work they will be doing.

I have to ask the Government one or two questions. First, is this package deal the outcome of the two-year consultation on the departmental paper called The Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Building Control, published in 1984? If so, the package deal should be very broad indeed. The Committee will listen carefully to what we hear about it. If the assurances we hear are not satisfactory, the Committee may wish to pass this amendment; or it may wish us to withdraw it and introduce another version of it on Report. It may naturally be the case that its drafting is at present imperfect or that it is too narrow.

However, I have great hopes that the assurances, the package deal, will be satisfactory. If the Committee feels that is so, I shall have some more questions to put to the Minister about how the proposed new, non-statutory system would actually work. There are certain fairly obvious pitfalls to be avoided, and we had better have them out in the open at this stage. I beg to move.

Baroness David

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Birk I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in the amendment. It seems a very strange anomaly that in 1986 the Church of England should have this particular privilege. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister—I have given him notice of this question—what is the Government's attitude to the ecclesiastical exemption under Section 56(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which gives exemption to those in charge of ecclesiastical buildings used by any denomination from the need to obtain listed building consent for their demolition, alteration or extension in such a way as to affect their character as buildings of special architectural or historical interest as would otherwise be necessary under Section 55(1) of the Act. I hope that when he replies to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, the Minister will be able to add something on that as well.

Lord Skelmersdale

I think the noble Baroness will get from the flavour of my reply the answer to her question, but not in quite the same form as she might have anticipated. Before I go into all this I should say that I do not think it is proper to discuss individual cases this evening, especially when decisions have not yet been arrived at by my Secretary of State.

After the article in The Times this morning it will come as no surprise to the Committee to hear that the Government have been considering the future of the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building control in the light of the responses to the consultation paper issued in January 1984 and subsequent discussions with representatives of the Church of England and the Churches Main Committee. Widely differing views are held on whether churches in use for worship should be exempt from listed building control. Many church bodies consider that the exemption should continue, while the local authority associations and many national and local amenity societies favour amendment or repeal.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, both sides hold their views sincerely and argue forcefully for their point of view. There are over 16,000 listed church buildings in England and Wales which make a most important contribution to our architectural heritage. Most of these are in the care of the Church of England. The control of the appearance of these buildings is a sensitive issue to church and secular authorities, to worshippers and to all those who value their architecture. In our discussions we sought to find ways to foster understanding and co-operation between the parties concerned. The Government concluded that it would not be conducive to that understanding to sweep away all the exemptions conferred on listed buildings by the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969 or Section 56(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

At the same time we have decided that public concern about the future of church buildings demanded some changes in procedures and some additional controls. I am therefore pleased to announce that representatives of the Church of England and the other churches and religious organisations—the latter through the Churches Main Committee—have agreed to the following proposals. First, the effect of a judicial decision in the House of Lords is that the present ecclesiastical exemption will not apply to the total demolition of a church. Accordingly, listed building consent will be required for that demolition, except in the case of the Church of England where the demolition in pursuance of a pastoral or redundancy scheme is made under the Pastoral Measure 1983. It has been agreed that proposals that would materially affect the architectural or historical interest of a church not belonging to the Church of England, such as a spire, tower or cupola, should require listed building consent but that the exemption should continue to apply to proposals which would have a lesser effect.

Secondly, in the Church of England, when the demolition is in pursuance of a scheme under the Pastoral Measure 1983 the Church Commissioners have agreed always to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he wishes to hold a non-statutory local public inquiry into any proposal to demolish, wholly or partially, a listed church or a non-listed church in a conservation area in circumstances where the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, the local planning authority or a national amenities society give reasoned objections to that proposal.

What is more, the Church Commissioners have undertaken to accept a recommendation from the Secretary of State following such an inquiry that the church is of sufficient importance to be vested in the Redundant Churches Fund or, in cases where the recommendation was not that the building should go to the fund, to make further efforts to find an alternative use and to engage in further consultation with the Secretary of State before using the pastoral measure powers to demolish. The scope and terms of reference of such inquiries will be broadened in consultation with the Church Commissioners.

Thirdly, the Church Commissioners have been assured that the Government will maintain their commitment to the Redundant Churches Fund and ensure that at each quinquennial review it receives adequate resources to continue its important work. In considering the recommendation which he will make following a non-statutory inquiry, the Secretary of State for the Environment will take into account the financial implications of retaining a church building as well as the architectural and historic interest of the church and other planning and social factors. Next, it has been agreed that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, the local planning authority and the national amenities societies should be represented in the membership of diocesan advisory committees. It has also been agreed that further discussions will take place over the question of whether work to church halls and other buildings, objects or structures within the curtilage of the church should be subject to listed building control.

Furthermore, external alterations and extensions to all churches already require planning permission, and local planning authorities are required to take into account the effect of the proposed development on a listed building or its setting when considering whether planning permission should be granted. These existing planning controls, combined with the discussions between Church bodies and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, render unnecessary any further listed building controls over external alterations and extensions. All the Churches have undertaken to consult the local planning authority, and, in England, the HBMC, before undertaking any significant external works which remain exempt from listed building control.

The exemption from listed building control for buildings in ecclesiastical use will thus generally be retained. In order to implement those limited changes which require statutory authority, I propose to seek at the Report stage of this Bill appropriate powers which would enable the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales to make orders subject to negative resolution. These orders, which will be the subject of further consultation with the Churches, the commission and the local authority associations, would then provide authority for the changes over partial demolition and curtilage buildings to which I have referred.

In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the future of ecclesiastical exemption has been under review. A consultation paper was issued in December 1984 and, following consideration of the responses received, further discussions were held earlier this year with the Scottish Churches. Like ourselves, our Scottish colleagues feel it desirable to respond to public concern for the safeguarding of the Church heritage. They propose therefore to seek a similar order-making power for Scotland. It would be their intention to use this power in a way similar to that which I have already described to place some limited restrictions on the scope of the current exemption. I should emphasise, however, that no use will be made of the new power for Scotland until further detailed discussions have been held with the Scottish Churches and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

These proposals—across the whole country—have not been arrived at without difficulty. The Church Commissioners and the Churches Main Committee are very concerned with the financial implications, while the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission have expressed some disappointment that the Government chose not to seek to repeal more of the existing excemptions. Clearly, the effectiveness of the proposals will depend in large measure on a great deal of co-operation between planning authorities and Church bodies. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission have agreed to continue offering grants to churches in use. I have every hope that with good will on all sides these proposals can bring lasting improvements to the way we protect our church buildings—not, I would suggest, before time.

The Committee will appreciate that I have just made a long and comprehensive statement, and I suggest to the noble Lord that he does not pursue the matter further this evening, pending review of what I have said in the Official Report. He will of course have an opportunity to put down amendments at subsequent stages if he wishes and also to comment on the Government amendment which I have announced this evening.

9.30 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester

I should like to thank the Minister for his important and informative statement, which I hope many other noble Lords will welcome as gratefully as we do on these Benches. I know that during the last three years an immense amount of work has gone into the original consultative document issued by his department, as well as into consideration of the numerous replies received from all interested parties (including amenity societies, local authorities and churches), and more recently by the preparation of the carefully balanced statement that the Minister has just made to this Committee.

It has been my responsibility since 1971 to take the lead for the Church of England in negotiations with successive governments about state aid for historic churches that are still in use. For me this has meant consulting over the years that noble army of martyrs in your Lordships' House who have been the junior Ministers responsible in the Department of the Environment, including most recently the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to whom we owe a great deal, and the late Lord Avon, together with some of those prominent in tonight's debate, such as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.

It was the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who took the lead in 1977 in the inauguration of state aid for historic churches at the rate of £1 million a year at 1973 prices. I would remind the Committee that when that arrangement was entered into it applied to churches of all denominations. However, in view of its major involvement, the Church of England gave two undertakings: first, that it would itself conduct a major review of its own faculty jurisdiction system; and, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has already reminded us, that no listed church would be demolished without the Secretary of State first being given the option of holding a non-statutory public inquiry. Both these undertakings were fulfilled before the department issued its consultative document in 1984.

It was later in that same year that the General Synod first gave general approval to the report of its own Commission on the Continuing Care of Churches and Cathedrals, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. It then went on to approve by a vote of 290 to four the response of the Church of England to the department's consultative paper which had set forth the arguments for and against retaining the exemption and had also suggested possible refinements such as are, in fact, now being proposed.

I make no apology for mentioning the question of state aid for churches in use. This is the primary concern of those with responsibility for the on-going witness and mission of the Church in England who, at the same time, are alive to their responsibility for the heritage that they have of so many historic buildings. What the Minister has told us tonight about the outcome of his department's protracted negotiations with all the many interests involved enables me to say on behalf of the Church Commissioners for England and on behalf of the General Synod that we are ready to give the undertakings asked of us. I know I may also say the same for all the religious bodies associated in the Churches Main Committee, of which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is the chairman, and for whom in this matter the archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Southwark took the lead and consulted personally the noble Lord, Lord Elton.

In accordance with undertakings that have previously been given, we are now ready to make improvements in our system of care for both parish churches and cathedrals, and we shall do this the more readily in the light of the assurance that the Minister has given us tonight about the Government's continuing financial support for redundant churches and the encouraging news that he gave us that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has agreed to continue making grants to churches in use.

This will give renewed hope to many small rural communities especially, who have the responsibility for large and beautiful historic churches—churches which, I would remind the Committee, have in recent years cost the Church of England overall £44 million every year to maintain. I hope that that is sufficient evidence that the living Church in 1986 accepts its role as trustee for its share of the inheritance from the past.

I should like to say to the Minister that we are grateful to him and to his predecessor, and to their professional advisers, for the care with which they have handled these complex and difficult matters. I have every confidence that he can rely, as he asked that he might, upon the continuing co-operation and goodwill of the Church of England, of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Free Churches in the next stage of this significant partnership between Church and state—a partnership which is designed to keep as many churches as possible open for worship, as well as to provide responsibly for those that have to be declared redundant for the present, if not for all time. For these reasons, I hope very much that the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is moving will not be pressed tonight.

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Although I have little interest in churches built after AD400, apart from those that were built on sites used before AD400, I should like to say as a Roman Catholic that I am sure Catholics in this country welcome what has been said by the Minister and are grateful to him. If I may keep my speech shorter still, thank you.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said and, on behalf of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, I welcome the fact that at long last progress has been made on this very difficult and complex issue. Naturally, the commission will need to study the details.

Before I offer some brief preliminary comments, I should like to underline the reason for the commission's continuing concern about ecclesiastical exemption by referring to the news only today of the partial demolition in progress at the former Huguenot chapel in Fournier Street, Spitalfields, which is a Grade II^* building. Since it was built in the early 19th century, this building has been used successively as a Protestant church, a Methodist chapel, a synagogue and now as a mosque, which presumably can still claim the benefit of ecclesiastical exemption. The interior with its galleries, panelling and fittings is today being stripped out and materially altered without the need for consent and without the archaeological examination and recording which, at the very least, it deserves.

I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed that the additional control proposed over the demolition of Anglican churches made redundant under the pastoral measure still appears to be comparatively weak. I say that because the Secretary of State appears to be restricting unduly the recommendations which can flow from the non-statutory inquiries that he is proposing. The recommendation must be either that the church in question should be vested in the Redundant Churches Fund or that the Church should try again to find an alternative use and consult again with the Secretary of State before using its power to demolish.

I suggest that if we are to go down the non-statutory inquiry path as an alternative to abolishing Section 2, the inquiries should be conducted on all-fours with, and take account of, the same criteria as statutory listed building consent inquiries and the Church should undertake to abide by the recommendations. The effect of what the noble Lord announced would seem to constrain matters unduly.

The proposal to limit the ecclesiastical exemption enjoyed by other Churches under Section 56 of the 1971 Planning Act to works which would not materially alter the architectural or historic character of the church is a welcome move. I also welcome the undertaking by all the Churches to consult the commission before undertaking any significant external works which remained outside listed building control. Useful though these steps are, I hope the Minister will not expect me to agree with his statement that the changes he has proposed "render unnecessary any further listed building controls over external alterations or extensions". The arrangements outlined by the Minister place a heavy onus on the ecclesiastical authorities to demonstrate the validity of his claim.

Much will depend on the details of the proposed arrangements, especially of the order, and I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking to consult the commission and the national amenity societies fully when working them up.

Finally, I can confirm the Minister's statement that the commission has agreed to continue offering grants to churches in use. That agreement reflects our concern for the preservation of important ecclesiastical buildings which are so much a part of the fabric and cultural heritage of all our villages, towns and cities. It does not imply a blanket endorsement of all the proposals in the Minister's statement but I can confirm that the commission will be glad to co-operate constructively in the work that must follow to give effect to the noble Lord's announcement.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Sandford

I must begin by declaring an interest in that I am a Church Commissioner, a member of the board of governors and responsible for settling the future of the churches of the Church of England that are no longer needed for worship. I also have a personal interest in this matter, having been a Minister at the Department of the Environment in 1971 in the early stages of the negotiation of state aid to churches in use.

I welcome the sensible outcome of the two years of consultation that my noble friend on the Front Bench has just announced. It would have been absurd, when public interest in our building heritage is so strong, to sweep away the careful arrangements that the Church of England has now been building up for seven centuries—an arrangement that controls not only demolition and changes to the buildings themselves but also the contents and the curtilages and requires quinquennial inspection of them. None of the latter matters is included in town and country planning legislation, which, as the Committee knows, has been in place for only 40 years.

In this context, it is worth recalling the scale as well as the longevity of the Church of England's involvement in the care of the built heritage. English Heritage, chaired so ably by my noble friend, spends £18 million a year on its own buildings and gives another £18 million in grants to help others look after theirs. The National Trust, drawing to a large extent on the subscriptions of its own members, spends another £36 million on its priceless part of the heritage. The 400 to 450 local authorities spend £45 million on theirs, but drawing of course on other people's money in the shape of taxes and rates. The Church of England spends £55 million on its part of the heritage and derives most of that from its own members, its own parishes and its own dioceses, with a welcome but small contribution from English Heritage.

The Church of England has more listed buildings open to the public than all the rest of the owners of such buildings put together. Of course there is scope for improvement in the arrangements. State aid needs to be maintained. There had been signs of it declining, so we welcome what my noble friend has just said. There is certainly room for better cross-representation between Church and state on the diocesan advisory committees, something that was recommended by the Faculty Jurisdiction Committee.

In addition, the Church of England should be more directly represented at a higher level in English Heritage itself. I hope that my noble friend Lord Montagu will bear that in mind. I should be very glad to draw English Heritage into closer consultation over the more difficult cases of redundant churches with which I have to deal.

It is easy to say, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, that the local planning authority should be represented on the diocesan advisory committees, but if one takes the case of the Winchester diocese, that would mean involving over a score of district councils on the DACs in some way. I note that my noble friend's statement referred to the local planning authority in the singular. That cannot, of course, be the county, because the county does not have jurisdiction in this matter; and I do not think Winchester, for example, would take kindly to being represented in these matters by Southampton, or Southampton being represented by Eastleigh. Therefore, all that has to be thought through.

The introduction of public local inquiries to deal with difficult cases of redundancy has been welcomed from the outset. I welcome it as a very useful device for getting at the facts and arriving at a balance in the more difficult cases. But we shall need to watch—and I am grateful for what my noble friend said—the financial implications. The public local inquiry that was conducted recently has cost the church alone more than it would cost to take two churches of the normal size into the Redundant Churches Fund. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree that he and I need to meet very early so that we can reach a mutual understanding on how not to overload the Redundant Churches Fund and break the camel's back.

All that is detail. The overall package is sensible and is to be welcomed and I am sure it is workable. So far as concerns the Church of England, it does not require legislation. However, I feel I must advise caution to my noble friend in respect of the parts that will require legislation. They affect only the non-Anglican churches, so I make this point as a parliamentarian and not as a Church Commissioner. My noble friend says that he proposes to seek powers in this Bill to make orders at Report stage. I wonder whether that is wise.

Nothing about these matters was originally envisaged in this Bill. Nothing of this proposal to seek order-making powers in this Chamber was mentioned during the passage of the Bill through the Commons. Nothing about any of these matters was mentioned by any speaker on Second Reading. It is true that a letter in May at official level mentioned considering the tabling of new clauses—which is a different matter—to deal with the partial demolition of non-Anglican churches. However, when my noble friend Lord Elton wrote to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and to the Archbishop of Southwark, acting then for the main committee, on 10th September no mention of introducing order-making powers in this Bill was included. It was on the basis of that letter that the Churches were consulted.

As I said, the package proposed by my noble friend seems to be thoroughly sensible and practical, and it can be made to work. My caution is about the means being sought to give effect to the small amount of legislation needed in respect of the non-Anglican churches. It is very late—I should say too late—to spring this proposal on Parliament in this Bill. The Commons have heard nothing about it so far. It is, too, inappropriate to ask for order-making powers. Such powers are all right when Parliament is content to leave matters for the Secretary of State to get on with. However, we all know that once he has order-making powers we in Parliament, for all practical purposes, will lose further control.

Furthermore, all the matters regarding the care of our built-in heritage have recently been the study of a Commons Select Committee on the environment. I suggest that it would be insulting to another place to legislate in advance of the publication of its recommendations.

So I welcome the package that has just been announced by my noble friend. As a Church Commissioner I look forward to helping to make it work well, but as a parliamentarian I advise my noble friend to think carefully before seeking the particular form of legislative change in this Bill, especially if he seeks powers to proceed by order.

9.50 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of London

I do not think that I have the reputation of being iconoclastic in theological matters and I should like to assure the Committee that my zeal for tradition in that sphere is matched equally by my concern for the past in the matter of buildings. I should like this evening to make one or two points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and then to say a few words as chairman of the Churches Main Committee. I have been involved with the churches in London for some time, from 1962 to 1973, first as archdeacon, then as Bishop of Willesden, and then, since 1981 when I returned as Bishop of London. I should like simply to say that I cannot think of a single case in which the amount of money that we should obtain from a particular site has been in any way a consideration in decisions that we have made. I want to say that as clearly as I can.

I shall not refer to specific cases this evening, except simply to say that I am not ashamed of the care and the money which the churches have had expended upon them in the most difficult circumstances —money which we personally feel would have been better spent in furthering the pastoral work of the Church. However, I shall refer to just one example. If I intended to sell a site for money in the area of the Earl's Court Road, I should not choose the site of St. Cuthbert's. Of course other considerations come into that matter, which is still not a matter for decision. But I should like to emphasise that I cannot think of a single case in which financial consideration has in any way been a determining factor, and I wish to refute that suggestion with all the power at my command.

I think that the problem is that when this matter is debated we tend to forget the pastoral measure and its purpose. The Church is put in a very difficult position. Like so many others in life, we are trying to cope with two different demands. We are living under tension. There is no simple solution to resolve it, short of abolishing one side or other of the problem. Let me remind the Committee that the pastoral measure has for its purpose the better pastoral provision in the Church of England. That is our overriding duty under that measure. The kind of problem that we face has to be seen in that light.

But then, of course, we have another duty laid upon us in various ways by statute; namely, the preservation of buildings. The two duties have to be held together. It would be quite wrong if the operation of the pastoral measure was exercised without any reference to our need to preserve the buildings of the past; it would be totally wrong. But I maintain that it would be equally wrong if the Church of England were ever put into a position in which it could not adequately fulfil the provisions of the pastoral measure because all its resources were being put into maintaining buildings from the past.

I believe that this package, which the noble Lord the Minister has put before the Committee this evening, represents a very honest and workable compromise between these two demands which not only the Church of England but in other ways all the Churches have to face. I do not believe that the amendment that is proposed will help us to face that problem. There is a problem, and I make no bones about it. Of course it is a problem that exists particularly in our great cities. It is not only a question of shifts in population; it is also a fact that in many ways our predecessors were unwise in that they did not in any way attempt to control the zeal of some wealthy and pious people who wished to put up churches. I can think of one church which is but 200 yards from another. That presents a difficulty in terms of pastoral care and financial maintenance.

I shall take up one other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He rather suggested that we on these Benches with regard to the Church of England lacked power. We do not have much power in many things but we have a certain amount of power and responsibility as regards the pastoral measure. We must take responsibility for that. When the proposals, which may include proposals on redundancy, go to the commissioners it is we who have to sign them and send them. A considerable amount of consultation takes place beforehand, and the consultation which follows after we have sent the proposals to the Commissioners is considerable.

When we speak on these Benches, we speak as those who sign our names and say, "yes, after consultation with all interested parties, we believe that this is the right"—we do not say "the best", "the ideal" or the one that we like—"solution to the problem that faces us".

It is a problem particularly in the great cities. I do not know whether the situation still obtains now that I have ceased to be Bishop of Truro, but I always rejoiced—I hope this illustrates my concern for the past—that in the diocese of Truro when I looked at the map of England with the redundant churches marked on it and looked down at Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly there was a glorious virgin whiteness with no redundant churches. I do not know whether that still pertains.

Lord Sandford

No.

The Lord Bishop of London

I am sorry to hear that. The point I am making is that that was because the churches were needed there. They were in the right place. The only ones with which we had slight difficulties were the Victorian churches. Conservationists seem to love them much more than the churches built many hundreds of years ago.

If we do not cope sensibly and intelligently with the tension that exists between our pastoral duty and the preservation of the buildings of the past, one must go. I do not want to see the Church of England turned into a society for the preservation of ancient buildings. It is ironical that at the time when, understandably, the Church is called upon to be more faithful to its gospel and its mission, it is told that it must spend more and more of its money on the preservation of buildings. Often they are not buildings which are in active use and needed for worship but are to be preserved merely because of their beauty. We must keep a balance.

I gently remind those who are of a conservation turn of mind that it is as untrue to suppose that we sell sites merely to obtain money as it is to suppose that a mere zeal for preserving ancient buildings produces cash. It does not. Those who are left to face the problem are often not the conservation bodies but the faithful, who have to spend an immense amount of their time and energy trying to preserve buildings.

I shall not go into details of cases. Accounts of such cases are often presented in unfortunate ways. They are often presented solely from the conservationist side. The needs of the people, the parish and the mission in that parish must be balanced against the need of conservation.

I have tried to act fairly as chairman of the Churches Main Committee. As already stated, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester has conducted these affairs for the Church of England, while the Archbishop of Southwark has represented the Roman Catholic Church. As chairman, I have tried to ensure that not only the Church of England but also the Roman Catholic Church and the free churches have been able to have their interests represented in the best and most straightforward way.

I can say this evening on behalf of the free churches, if I dare do so, that they are well content with this package. I shall not say that they wholly like it. There are certain factors that they would perhaps like to change in this or that way. I can, however, say that what is put forward tonight has the support of all the churches represented on the Churches Main Committee, of which I have, as I say, the honour to be chairman. I ask that the amendment be resisted. It is not, I believe, in the interests of the best solution to a problem that is not capable of easy or quick solution.

10 p.m.

The Marquess of Salisbury

I sympathise with the view expressed by the right reverend Prelate about the problem of the faithful raising funds. I have similar problems in my parish church, which failed to secure a grant from English Heritage, although my noble friend Lord Montagu has kindly explained the reason for this. However, it is a matter that raises considerable problems.

I wish to refer to the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate about the considerations in making churches redundant and the assurance that he has given that financial considerations do not enter into the equation. Certain churches—

The Lord Bishop of London

I did not actually say that financial considerations did not enter into this. That is not the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made. Of course, financial considerations enter into it because of the whole question of maintenance. I said that the value of the site available for disposal was not a material factor. That is very different. We do not look around at possible churches to sell and say that a certain one would produce the greatest sum of money. That is the point I was making.

The Marquess of Salisbury

I accept that. The fact remains that many redundant churches are on prime sites. I can perhaps give one example of what I mean. The church of St Mary's next to Lambeth Palace has great historical associations. The church was made redundant, and the plan was, I understand, to demolish it. Fortunately, another use was found for it. If, however, it was demolished, it occupies a prime site in London. Whatever the considerations, it would be very valuable to the Church Commissioners if the site was available for development. I raise this because the Minister has said that financial considerations would come into decisions as to what happens to churches in the future. This appears to be quite a different approach to that applying to secular buildings. I should like to ask him to enlarge upon what the intention is and to explain the difference between religious and secular buildings in this respect.

Lord Kennet

The Minister may find it convenient to reply to everything at once. I suspect that I was not alone in feeling a deep sense of relief, warmth and gratitude on hearing the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester when he said, "On behalf of the Church Commissioners and the Synod, we are ready to give the undertakings asked of us". Those words can begin a new age in the relationship between Church and state in this matter.

The principal undertaking asked of the Church was that it should agree always to obtain the opinion of the Secretary of State when the relevant boards, local authorities and suchlike gave reasoned objections to the demolition of a redundant church and to accept always the recommendation of the Secretary of State that a church should go to the Redundant Churches Fund or, if he does not recommend that, to proceed to find some other way to save the church in consultation with him.

I should like to ask one question of the right reverend Prelate. Does what he says mean that the Church of England will henceforth agree not to demolish a listed church in any circumstances, against the recommendation of the Secretary of State? I have also some questions to put to the Minister. Perhaps I may put them all at the same time so that the right reverend Prelate can answer first and the Minister follow, if that is agreeable to them.

These are the pitfalls I mentioned that might beset this highly desirable new informal, non-statutory arrangement. First, if we are proceeding by inquiry in these cases, as we have been doing and as we shall now do more often, who pays for the inquiry and what long-term system will there be for that? Secondly, will it be open to the Secretary of State to proceed by written procedure when everybody is agreed and there is no need for a public inquiry; simply written submissions from the parties concerned, as is normal in planning law? Thirdly, if that is so—or, indeed, in any case—do the Government agree that there will have to be arrangements settled in advance and adhered to about who advertises the forthcoming public inquiry, whether Church or state or both, and who advertises for written submissions if the process is to go forward without public inquiry? Those are my questions, first, to the Church and, secondly, to the state.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester

I remind the Committee that the Minister said that the Church Commissioners have given an undertaking that, where the recommendation was not that the building should go to the fund, they would make further effort to find an alternative use and would engage in further consultation with the Secretary of State before using the pastoral measure powers for demolition. The answer is that it would be a matter of further consultation, but the powers of the pastoral measure would remain.

Lord Kennet

To make it doubly clear, does that mean that if the Secretary of State does not recommend that the Church goes to the fund, the Church pursues alternative uses and the Secretary of State says, "That sounds a good one. Why don't you do that?", the Church will still retain its liberty to demolish, despite his opinion?

The Lord Bishop of Rochester

My understanding is that the consultation with the Secretary of State would be—what has been referred to elsewhere in the debate tonight—on the making of funds available for the purpose by an additional grant to enable what the Secretary of State wishes to happen.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am at the end of this quite long debate for a Committee stage grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the discussion. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London spoke of a compromise, I think that it is nothing less than balancing on a tightrope and any one of the three parties—namely, the Churches Main Committee, the Church Commissioners or, indeed, the Government—can knock the others flying at any moment; and so his point was very well taken.

Several Members of the Committee have asked me for answers. First, my noble friend Lord Montagu asked about consultation of the commission in all this. Of course we shall consult; there is no question about that. My noble friend also asked what exactly the Church Commissioners have undertaken to do. In respect of the question that he asked, what I said was this. The Church Commissioners have undertaken to exact a recommendation from the Secretary of State, following such an inquiry, that the church is of sufficient importance to be vested in the Redundant Churches Fund or, in those cases where the recommendation is not that the building should go to the fund, to make further efforts to find an alternative use and to engage in further consultation with the Secretary of State before using the pastoral measure powers to demolish. That is as far as everybody can reasonably go. I feel that it is satisfactory to all sides concerned.

My noble friend Lord Sandford—of all the unlikely people, if I may say so—asked the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, whether the Church could be invited to be commissioners on my noble friend's commission. It is for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners and I shall pass on to him the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Sandford. He will be able to consider that when the filling of vacancies is considered.

My noble friend Lord Sandford was particularly interested and perhaps not a little concerned about the financial side, on which there has been a certain amount of discussion among the Committee this evening. Again, I do not think I can do better than repeat what I said in the statement. In considering the recommendation which he will make following a non-statutory inquiry, the Secretary of State for the Environment will take into account the financial implications of retaining a church building as well as the architectural and historic interest of the church and other planning and social factors. In other words, it will be a germane matter in my right honourable friend's mind.

I think it was my noble friend Lord Sandford who said, "Wait a bit; do not do it now. Let us have a jolly good, long think and do it at some unspecified time in the future". My noble friend, who has much more experience of these matters than I have, knows only too well that windows have a habit of closing; and this is one occasion when the Lord God, I suspect, will not be prepared to open a door for us. I think that while we have this impetus we would be well advised to get cracking with it.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked who pays for the inquiry. The answer to that is that each side—where the Church is paying commissioners, or the Secretary of State—pays its own costs. One could well proceed with the written procedure if in a particular case everybody is agreed that that is how we should proceed. I think it would be right to keep an element of flexibility. Lastly, who advertises the public inquiry? The department will do so very widely. I think that I have answered all the questions. If there are any more, I am sure they can be raised in correspondence or at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Kennet

There is absolutely no point in looking ahead to matters that might go wrong in a new situation which is profoundly welcome. That being so, I ask leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

Amendment No. 224A has been wrongly marshalled. It should come after Clause 29 and therefore should be called later. The next amendment I call therefore is Amendment No. 225.

Clause 36 [Listed buildings and conservation areas]:

Baroness Hooper

moved Amendment No. 225: Page 80, line 21, at end insert— (" ( ) defence to proceedings under section 53;"). The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 222. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendments Nos. 226 to 228:

Page 80, line 26, leave out ("consent") and insert ("enforcement notice").

Page 80, line 32, leave out ("and").

Page 80, line 33, at end insert—("; and ( ) the application to planning authorities of provisions relating to listed buildings.").

The noble Baroness said: These are all technical amendments. Amendment No. 226 corrects a printing error. Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 insert a cross-reference to paragraph 10 of Part II of Schedule 7, which was inserted as a government amendment in the Commons. I beg to move en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Listed buildings and conservation areas]:

10.15 p.m.

Lord Footmoved Amendment No. 229A:

Page 134, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to listed buildings and building preservation notices "curtilage" means such land not exceeding 1 hectare in extent as is or at any time since the erection of the listed building has been or is intended to be, and such other buildings as are or at any time since the erection of the listed building have been or are intended to be, used in connection with the listed building due regard being had to the physical relationship to the listed building, the past and present ownership and the past and present use or function of that land or other buildings. ( ) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to a listed building which has after the coming into force of section 28 and Schedule 7 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 been included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section "listed building" shall not be as defined pursuant to sub-section (9) hereof but shall mean and be limited to the building included in the list (which shall be described and the boundaries thereof defined on a plan) together with

1. (a) any object or structure fixed to the building; and
2. (b) any other object or structure adjoining the building referred to in the description and identified on the plan.").

The noble Lord said: In view of the hour, I shall do my best to keep this as brief as I can. I think that will be a fairly simple operation.

The amendment relates to paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 7. That paragraph changes the definition of "listed building" within Section 54(9) of the 1971 Act. Up to now the Act described a listed building as follows. It said: for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to listed buildings and building preservation notices, any object or structure fixed to a building, or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of a building, shall be treated as part of the building".

The amendment which is effected by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 7 amends the provision so that it will now read: for the purposes of and the provisions of this Act relating to listed buildings and building preservation notices, the following shall be treated as part of the building:

1. (a) any object or structure fixed to the building;
2. (b) any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948".

The net result of that amendment, as I understand it, is this: it excludes from the definition of "listed building" any free-standing object or structure within the curtilage of the building if it had not been there prior to 1st July 1948.

I do not criticise the amendment so much as to think that it is unsatisfactory. It leaves two matters in the air which seem to me to be in need of precise definition. First, it introduces this new concept that a freestanding object within the curtilage of the building shall not be part of the listed building unless it was in existence before 1948.

I understand of course the reason for the reference to 1948 because that is of historic importance in the whole of the town and country planning legislation. However, from the point of view of defining what is and what is not a listed building, it appears to be a purely arbitrary date and one which we can well do without.

The second reason why I suggest that the new definition is as unattractive perhaps as the earlier definition, is that there is no definition anywhere of the meaning of the words "forms part of the land"—that is, the structure forms part of the land.

There is also no adequate definition of the meaning of the word "curtilage"—the curtilage of the building. Therefore what I am proposing in these amendments is that we should first of all have a precise definition of the meaning of the word "curtilage". So far as I know there is nowhere in the 1971 Act where the word curtilage is defined or attempted to be defined.

My amendments propose that we should adopt for this purpose a definition of curtilage which has been used in another context, but which appears to be entirely satisfactory—that is to say, it should consist of two elements. First, the curtilage should be land not exceeding one hectare in extent. Secondly, it should be land which is: used in connection with the listed building, due regard being had to the physical relationship to the listed building, the past and present ownership and the past and present use or function of that land or other buildings".

The other part of my amendment is quite simple, and that is to eliminate the reference to 1948. What I propose in the second sub-paragraph of the amendment is that, For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to a listed building,

after the coming into force of this Act—that is, the Housing and Planning Act 1986—the definition of "a listed building" should be different. What should happen from then onwards is that when the Secretary of State is producing a new listing of buildings he should designate on a plan first of all the area of the curtilage attaching to the building. He should also designate in the listing: any object or structure fixed to the building; and (b) any other object or structure adjoining the building referred to in the description and identified on the plan".

The result of that would be that from the coming into effect of this Act onwards whenever a building was listed it would be necessary for the Secretary of State, or whoever was doing the listing, to designate precisely on a map the extent of the curtilage which would become part of the listed building and also any structure within the curtilage, and that should be identified on the plan. I hope that that is sufficiently clear, and I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

We are aware that the question of what is the curtilage of a listed building can, on occasion, cause difficulties and that many people should like a statutory definition. However, in the first part of the amendment, which is confined to buildings already listed, I do not think that the mathematical formula is the right answer. In some cases it would not include land and buildings that clearly are within the curtilage, using the normal sense of the word. Also the amendment does not say from which point the measurements should be taken, and by whom. There would be complete confusion as to the extent of the curtilage.

As the noble Lord pointed out, the second part of the amendment is concerned only with buildings listed after this Bill is enacted. As he explained, its effect would be to require a plan showing the extent of the listing in every case. The department already issues plans showing the location of all listed buildings. These are sent to local authorities and are also available to owners and members of the public should they wish to clarify the status of a particular building. In practice this procedure works satisfactorily. If, however, in future we had to identify every object or structure adjoining the building by reference to a plan, we would need to move to a much larger scale of map, with consequent effects on the cost and speed of the resurvey. Walls and outhouses, for example, would have to be individually identified on the plan.

We also spotlist some 800 buildings a year which are in imminent danger. Naturally action has to be taken fast if these are to be protected by listing. However, the preparation and drawing of a detailed plan would inevitably cause delay and so put buildings of this sort at risk. While we understand the reasons for this amendment we would be loath to agree these measures, and I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I should briefly like to say that the Commission is conscious of the fact that the definition in Section 54 may occasionally, if rarely, lead to difficulties. I have been made aware of the Calderdale case, of which the noble Lord is probably aware too, and how much of a jungle the lawyers find this piece of law.

I am not at all persuaded that the praiseworthy attempt to clarify matters represented by this amendment will do anything more than produce a yet denser jungle. I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the significant improvements in listing practices which have been made in the light of the Calderdale case. The practice of the department now and of my officers who advise the department is to consider individually all the structures and buildings on a site which can be construed as separate buildings and to list those, and only those, which qualify. The new lists therefore will leave little room for doubt whether a building is listed or not, and I cannot see that there is a need for the changes proposed.

Furthermore, as has just been said by my noble friend, the proposed requirement that the lists should include plans would have serious and substantial implications for English Heritage. The necessary mapping and recording systems would cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds. At a time when the commission is short of resources I do not feel that that is the best way that money can be spent.

Lord Foot

I attach much importance to what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, says because it is very much in his province. He has probably had more experience of these matters than anybody else in the Committee. I give due weight to what he has said to us today. But I am still left in this doubt. Is it desirable that when a building is listed, obligations and duties are then imposed upon the person who owns the listed building? Is it right and proper that that person should be left, as often he must be left, in considerable doubt about what his obligations and his duties are?

He is merely told that his listed building and the curtilage of it are covered and any objects within the curtilage are covered; he may not know what the curtilage is. As I understand the noble Baroness, there is no definition when a building is listed as to what is the extent and the area of the curtilage. I should have thought that it was highly undesirable that an owner should be left in that unhapy position and if a contest arises concerning whether the listing is being properly observed that there should be difficulty for any tribunal that has to decide on the matter when the definition of "curtilage" is virtually non-existent.

Having said that and at this hour of the night I shall not pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper

moved Amendment No. 229: Page 135, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert— (".—(1) In section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings), for subsection (6) (exception for certain urgent works) substitute— (6) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove the following matters—

1. (a) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building,
2. (b) that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter,
3. (c) that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary, and
4. (d) that notice in writing justifying in detail the carrying out of the works was given to the local planning authority as soon as reasonably practicable.".

(2) In section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (appeal against listed building enforcement notice), in subsection (1) (grounds of appeal), for paragraph (d) substitute— (d) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building, that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter, and that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary;"."). The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 222. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 230 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Hooper

moved Amendment No. 231: Page 136, line 19, at end insert—

("Dangerous structure orders in respect of listed buildings

.—(1) In the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, after the section inserted by paragraph 4 above insert— Dangerous structure orders in respect of listed buildings. 56C.—(1) Before taking any steps with a view to the making of a dangerous structure order in respect of a listed building, a local planning authority shall consider whether they should instead exercise their powers buildings. under—

1. (a) section 101 of this Act (power to carry out urgent works for preservation of building), or
627
2. (b) sections 114 and 115 of this Act (power to acquire building in need of repair).

(2) In this section "dangerous structure order" means an order or notice under section 77(1)(a) or 79(1) of the Building Act 1984 or section 62(2), 65 or 69(1) of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.". (2) In sections 77 and 79 of the Building Act 1984 and in sections 62, 65 and 69 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 insert as the final subsection— ( ) This section has effect subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 relating to listed buildings, buildings subject to building preservation orders and buildings in conservation areas.".").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment was also spoken to with Amendment No. 222.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Baroness David

moved Amendment No. 232: Page 138 line 9 at end insert— ("( ).—After section 115 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 insert— ("Works for the preservation of building. 115A.—(1) Where it appears to a council or Secretary of State that works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of a listed building or a building in respect of which a direction under section 101(1) of this Act has been made, they or he may, subject to section 115 of this Act and the following provisions of this section, execute the works. (2) Any person aggrieved by a notice under section 115 which specifies that the council or Secretary of State proposes to use the powers under this section may within 28 days of the giving of the notice appeal to the county court within the jurisdiction of which the building is situated, on the grounds that—

1. (a) the works specified are not reasonably necessary for the preservation of the building; or
2. (b) the works cannot be carried out at reasonable expense;

and no action shall be taken by the council or the Secretary of State to execute the works in relation to which an appeal is brought, before the appeal has been finally determined. (3) The council or the Secretary of State may, after completion of the works, give the owner of the building notice requiring him to pay the expenses of any works executed under this section, and if such notice is given the amount specified in the notice shall be recoverable from the owner, subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6) below. (4) Within 28 days of the giving of the notice under subsection (3) above, the owner may represent to the Secretary of State that the amount specified in the notice is unreasonable. (5) The Secretary of State shall determine the extent, if any, to which representations under subsection (4) are justified and shall give notice to the local authority and the owner of any determination under subsection (4) and of the reasons for it, and of the amount (if any) which is to be recoverable from him, and no sum shall be recoverable unless it is so notified. (6) Any sums recoverable under the provisions of this section shall be a charge on the building until recovered and the provisions of section 291 of the Public Health Act 1936 shall apply to the recovery thereof as if they had been incurred under that Act.")"). The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 232 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 233. These two amendments have been promoted by Save Britain's Heritage. I should just say before I start that in the seventh line of Amendment No. 232 there are the words "section 101".

This amendment concerns repairs to listed buildings and it may help the Committee if I recapitulate the various provisions under which repair of listed buildings can be brought about. Section 101 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—and a new version of it is substituted for the old by this Bill—can be used to cause an owner to do works that are urgently necessary for the preservation of an unoccupied or partially occupied listed building or to an unlisted building in a conservation area.

If the owner fails to do the urgent works notified, then the local authority, or Secretary of State (or the HBMC for him in England), can enter, do the works and, subject to proper safeguards, recover the cost—this aspect being covered by a new section, Section 101A, being inserted by the Bill and to be found on page 137.

So, urgent works to unoccupied and partially occupied buildings are covered, apparently quite effectively, but of course subject to the local authority, or the Secretary of State, having the will to use the legislation. It is to the point also that similar works to occupied buildings are not covered here.

Another procedure exists however under Section 115 in the 1971 Act where a "repairs notice" procedure is set out. It may be used with respect to any listed building, occupied or not. The procedure covers works that are "reasonably necessary for the preservation of the building". However, there is no provision to enter and do the work, let alone recover the cost with due safeguards, if the owner does not set to and do the works specified in the notice. Instead, the "sanction" is that the local authority, or Secretary of State, may acquire the property by compulsory purchase under Section 114, to which Section 115 is an essential preliminary. One good aspect of this legislation is that if the property has been deliberately neglected for the purpose of justifying its demolition and redevelopment it may be acquired for minimum compensation.

However, few local authorities are prepared—or able—to finance compulsory purchases nowadays and owners know that, so that an owner can ignore a Section 115 repairs notice without much risk of losing his property by compulsory purchase. Further, there are many circumstances—aged owners and tenants who should not be dispossessed, for example—which would deter any local authority from compulsory purchase. In short, Section 115 repair notices are seldom used and the procedure cannot be said to be effective. However, it is the only power available with respect to occupied buildings.

That the position is unsatisfactory has been recognised for some time, and various Ministers have spoken to that effect: the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on 13th October 1980, on an amendment from my noble friend Lady Birk to the Local Government Planning and Land Bill 1980; Mr. Giles Shaw on 15th May 1981 in the other House on the local Government and Planning (Amendment) Bill 1981; Lord Avon in your Lordships' House in April 1982; Lord Vaizey's Private Member's Bill and Neil Macfarlane in Standing Committee F on the National Heritage Bill 1983. There have been apprehensions on the giving of access for building works to occupied premises and on recovery of costs; but that there is a problem has been recognised.

However, the Government's own extension of Section 101 powers in respect of partly-occupied buildings seems to indicate that those apprehensions have been stilled in part at least and here it is to be remembered that there are numerous statutory precedents for entering occupied premises to do necessary works and for recovering their costs, with due safeguards. They are: Sections 189 to 202 of the Housing Act 1985 regarding houses unfit for human occupation or in disrepair and in need of substantial repairs; Sections 93 to 95 of the Public Health Act 1936 regarding nuisances; and Section 27 of the Public Health Act 1961 regarding buildings seriously detrimental to an area by reason of ruinous or dilapidated condition.

All these precedents allow entry to do works and recover the costs with due safeguards. Why not, in this context, allow the same for works that are reasonably necessary for the preservation of a listed building? Indeed, in many eyes such works are at least equal in importance to those covered in the Acts mentioned. There has been a lot of consultation, the need to amend the legislation is self-evident, the present financial restraints make sanctions of compulsory purchase even more hollow than they were before. The amendments present the Government with an opportunity to advance these matters constructively and to fill all the gaps in the legislation. I am sure that in accepting the amendments, the Government will have all-party support—they will certainly have that of the HBMC and the joint committee as well as that of Save Britain's Heritage who deserve credit for bringing these amendments forward. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

I readily accept that at first sight the amendment has its attractions. I note that the proposed new Section 11A (and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her correction) would apply only to unoccupied or partly occupied property and would thus avoid the worst problems of carrying out works to occupied buildings—perhaps someone's home—against the wishes of the owner. Nevertheless, there are still objections to giving authorities the powers sought.

The effect of the clauses will be to impose a potential liability on owners, not only of listed buildings but of the vast number of unlisted buildings in conservation areas, to carry out works for the preservation of their buildings if the authority so require. Many owners take pride and pleasure in caring for their buildings, but as the number of listed buildings increases and the types of building included becomes even more diverse we have to be careful not to impose onerous liabilities on owners; otherwise people will think it is a penalty rather than a privilege to own a building of interest.

My colleague and I in the department have to walk a tightrope, for we need to have powers to deal with the worst cases where the architectural heritage is being put in jeopardy but equally the rights of property and privacy must be properly safeguarded. The amendments would require a new right of entry which this Government are extremely reluctant to permit.

The present powers of Section 115 enable a notice to be served specifying repairs which are reasonably necessary to secure the proper preservation of the building but they do not enable the authority to carry out the work and send the bill to the owner. If they were fired with an excess of zeal (and the noble Baroness knows all about that) for repair work including the restoration of features of interest, their demands could be unreasonable. It is true that the clause provides for an appeal to the county court but this places the burden on the owner, not on those seeking to do the works. There is no provision for the owner to have a reasonable time to do the work himself.

If an authority are convinced that a building is being so neglected that the contribution which it makes to the national heritage is being put in danger, then if all else has failed they should serve a repairs notice under Section 115 and follow it up with a compulsory purchase order. The statutory procedures that that involves would enable the case for acquiring the building and the objections to that course to be fully examined by the Secretary of State.

I am of course aware of what my predecessors, both in another place and in this Chamber, have said on this matter. I have considered very carefully all that has been said, and with regret I have come to the conclusion, which I have just announced to the Committee, that it cannot be done. Even if I did not have objections of principle, there are substantial problems in fitting the procedure proposed into the system of listed building control. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness David

It does seem a bit odd that the Minister says that going in to do repairs is excessive interference with private property rights when there is in fact the right of compulsory purchase. If listed buildings are not to be kept in repair, what is the purpose of listing them in the first place and then prosecuting for bulldozing such buildings without consent? It seems to me that the arguments are not very strong, but at this time of night I do not think that I can go through all the Minister's objections. 1 shall read them with care and come back, if need be, at the next stage—which is going to need a good many days, I should think, considering the number of things to which we will have to come back.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 234: Page 138, line 20, leave out ("56B") and insert ("56C"). The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 235: Page 138, line 29, at end insert— ("section 255 (contributions by local authorities and statutory undertakers"). The noble Lord said: This, again, is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 236: Page 138, line 30, after ("266(1)(b) insert (", (4) and (5)"). The noble Lord said: Again, this amendment is technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness David

moved Amendment No. 237: Page 139, leave out lines 10 to 36. The noble Baroness said: Under the current arrangement for notification of listed building consent applications to the Secretary of State under Schedule 11, paragraph 5(2) to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 the Secretary of State has to decide what to do with the application within 28 days. If he needs more time, he has to tell the local planning authority not to determine the proposal and state how much longer he needs. Schedule 7, paragraph 8 of the Bill deletes this requirement and, in fact, gives the Secretary of State unlimited time to deal with the application for listed building consent.

At a time when local authorities are being chastised by the Government for taking too long in dealing with planning applications this provision would seem to be both illogical and hypocritical. In addition, many of the delays in determining planning applications attributed by Government to local authorities are, in fact, due to Ministers and their departments taking too long to respond to statutory consultations. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

I wish that I could be as speedy as the noble Baroness on this occasion. It might seem strange that at a time when the department is putting so much emphasis on speeding up planning procedures, this amendment should be introduced, but the present wording of the paragraphs in Schedule 11 is causing problems and unnecessary aggravation for applicants, authorities and the department. All referred applications are dealt with as quickly as possible. Action is completed on about 90 per cent. of cases within the 28-day period, and with the help of English Heritage, who advise us, we hope to improve our performance.

But in some cases we cannot meet the deadline. The problem is that at the time we have to seek an extension it is difficult to estimate just how much longer we will need. We do not know when the missing documents will be sent to us, when the inspector will be able to visit, or when the commission's formal advice will arrive. The present wording of the paragraph means that the period can be extended once only to a set date. This means that the application either has to be called in by then or the power to take the decision automatically reverts to the authority.

There is a tendency to give a margin of safety by setting a date some time ahead, and this often causes dismay because it is interpreted as a target date instead of the maximum time available in most cases. The decision whether or not to call in is taken long before it expires. We would not regard the amendment in the Bill as a licence to take as long as we like—we have performance targets and monitoring arrangements in all our regional offices to stop that sort of thing—but it would be more administratively efficient to have the more flexible procedure provided for in the Bill and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness David

We shall have to see whether what happens is as good as the intentions apparently are. We shall have to wait and see. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 238: Page 139, line 44, at end insert ("and after that sub-paragraph insert— ("(1A) Before giving a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in respect of any description of application for consent to the demolition of a building in England, the Secretary of State shall consult the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England." "). The noble Lord said: This amendment fulfills a promise given to English Heritage that there would be a statutory requirement to consult them before any direction is made enabling local planning authorities to decide applications for listed building consent involving demolition without reference to the department. English Heritage have already been involved in discussions on how we intend to use the new power to make directions if the necessary statutory authority is obtained. We are grateful for their response to our consultation paper. I beg to move.

Baroness White

Can the noble Lord enlighten me? What happens in Wales, please? This refers only to England.

Lord Skelmersdale

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the situation remains as it is in Wales. If I am wrong, perhaps I may be allowed to write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness White

If it is to be amended in England, why should it not be amended in Wales? Perhaps that point could be included in the letter.

Lord Skelmersdale

I must confess that the noble Baroness has bowled me rather a fast ball which I am totally unable to answer. I will, if I may, write to her.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

Perhaps I may be allowed to help the noble Lord. There is no equivalent commission in Wales to English Heritage in England, and all the matters dealing with the heritage are still in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 239: Page 139, line 47, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)"). The noble Lord said: This amendment is a consequential renumbering as a result of the insertion of the amendment requiring consultation with the Historic Buildings and Monuments, Commission to which I have just referred. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

moved Amendment No. 240: Page 140, line 8, at end insert— ("B) Where a direction is in force under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in respect of applications for consent for the demolition of a building paragraph 5 or (as the case may be) paragraph 6 of this Schedule shall nevertheless apply where a formal notice of objection to such applications falling within subparagraph (1C) of this paragraph has been notified to the local planning authority at any time before such applications have been disposed of by the authority by their granting or refusing consent. (1C) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1B) of this paragraph formal objections may be notified by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, the relevant County Council or by the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings, the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society, the Ancient Monuments Society, the Council for British Archaeology, or other similar body designated under this subparagraph by the Secretary of State. (1D) Provision may be made by regulation under this Act with respect to the form and manner in which a formal notice of objection is to be notified to local planning authorities for the purpose of sub-paragraph (1B) of this paragraph."). The noble Lord said: It is proposed in Schedule 7(2) of the Bill that the Secretary of State's existing powers to delegate by direction certain categories of listed building consent cases to local authorities for decision should be extended to applications involving partial or total demolition of listed buildings. English Heritage is at one with the Government on the need to reduce the number of listed building consent cases which local authorities are required to refer to the Secretary of State, if they are minded to agree with them. There were in fact some 3,300 such referrals last year and on receipt of these applications the Secretary of State, in his turn, seeks the advice of English Heritage, and so they give rise to a double administrative burden at the centre.

The great majority of referred cases are minor and uncontroversial, involving perhaps the demolition of a chimney stack or the removal of a bathroom. Last year some 2,000 involved the demolition of grade II buildings in whole or part or structures in their curtilages. Of this large number the Secretary of State decided to call in for his own decision only 35 cases, although the system threw up about 150 more cases where English Heritage was sufficiently worried to seek modifications or improvements to the applications.

But if far more of these cases are to be delegated to local authorities, it is essential to do it in such a way that the minority of important and controversial cases continue to be seen by the Secretary of State and by his specialist adviser, English Heritage. Therefore the amendment is concerned with the choice of an effective means of achieving this. My intention is to build on the strength of the present system while remedying its unsatisfactory features.

Before explaining my amendment, I must make it clear that in our view all listed building consent applications involving grade I or grade II style buildings should continue to be referred to the Secretary of State. Our understanding is that it is not his present intention to use the proposed new power to delegate such cases. I hope that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will confirm this.

As regards demolitions affecting grade II buildings, the Department of the Environment has proposed in a consultation paper to distinguish cases which local authorities may determine from those which they must refer to the Secretary of State by a set of objective criteria; that is to say, whether a building predates 1700 or is a wing. There is also a reserve power to which I shall refer in a moment. We beleive that a sieve comprised of objective criteria would be too complicated and too coarse. We have examined how the department's proposals would have worked last year and found that of the 35 grade II cases called in by the Secretary of State, just over half of them would not have been referred under the new system. In addition, few if any of the 150 worrying cases would have been referred.

We have maintained in our discussions with the department since 1984 that the trigger for referring a case to the Secretary of State should not be, for example, whether a building dates from 31st December 1699 or 1st January 1700, but better still whether English Heritage, the county council or one of the major amenity bodies which would be designated by the Secretary of State raises a formal objection to the listed building consent application. In the event of a formal application the local authority which is minded to give consent would have to refer the case to the Secretary of State who would have 28 days in which to decide whether to call it in. This procedure has the full support of all the national amenity societies. It would give primacy to value judgments rather than rules and would provide a much better sieve than a set of inevitably arbitrary criteria.

I appreciate that the Government have tabled an amendment which will bind the Secretary of State to consult English Heritage before issuing a direction delegating demolition cases. I am grateful to him for that. But I also know that it is not his personal intention to propose a direction on the lines that we favour. Indeed, it is his department's view that our preferred procedure could not be incorporated in a direction unless its main features were included in the present legislation.

I also recognise that Schedule 7 gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to call in cases. What we doubt is the efficacy of that, because so much would depend on the Secretary of State getting to hear about individual problem cases. Therefore the difference between me and my noble friend on the Front Bench is not about objectives. We agree on the need for greater delegation on listed building consent applications to local authorities and on a reduction in the administrative burdens on both our organisations. It is my conviction that my amendment will ensure this is done in a way that provides the maximum safeguards against unwise or ill-considered demolitions. Therefore I urge my noble friend to consider my amendment very carefully indeed. I beg to move.

Baroness David

As Amendment No. 240A is grouped with Amendment No. 240, it would seem sensible that I should now speak briefly to the amendment in my name.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, addresses a very important aspect of listed building control and it is clear that unless the procedures are right there could be continuing delay for numerous uncontroversial applications and much waste of effort on them for lack of a satisfactory sorting system. Given that the department institutes an impractical and ineffective system—an administrative sieve—important cases are going to slip through and receive consents that never should have been given.

I tabled my amendment to show that there is another and perhaps even better way of providing a system to sort out the important cases that would otherwise slip through: indeed, it is a system that was evolved by the HBMC, is supported by the joint committee and still finds favour in many places. The new procedure instituted under paragraph 7A, to be inserted in Schedule 11 to the 1971 Act, has the advantage of referring cases direct to the HBMC, so that time and administrative effort should be saved. I hope there will be no shutting of minds just because a new procedure has been proposed.

Further, because the department is not involved there will be no question of any bar being placed on the HBMC in negotiating improvements in proposals, as is now the case both before the HBMC tenders its advice to the DoE and thereafter while the Secretary of State decides what to do—this on the basis that because he is involved, confidentiality must descend on everything and effectively prevent negotiations and, therefore, the HBMC from doing its job properly.

It is appreciated that the amendment is long. It had to be to explain the intent. Doubtless the department's lawyers could make it much better. Indeed, it may well be that very little will need to be spelt out in the Bill to allow the procedure to be instituted by direction. All the detail could be spelt out in a way that will allow later adjustment, if needed, without primary legislation.

This is an important area; so much so that I hope no precipitate decision will be taken on the basis of previously formed attitudes. It is a subject deserving the Minister's close attention when he considers what should be done after this debate; and perhaps reconsideration of any hasty rejection that may even now be intended. I am aware of local authorities' objection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and presumably to mine, too. I want to emphasise that this is a probing amendment to enable the fears of the amenities societies to be aired and the matter to be fully discussed.

Lord Skelmersdale

Before I respond to the two amendments, perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Montagu for his answer to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady White, on the previous amendment. He was of course right, so I do not think that a letter will be required. However, I shall cogitate on whether a similar procedure in Wales would be appropriate. On that score, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.

My noble friend spoke then, as he always does, with great authority on listed buildings, and so it rather embarrasses me to have to tell him that there is a fundamental objection to the amendment in that it would enable non-elected bodies such as the commission, one of the national amenity societies or the county council which is not the authority named by the Local Government Act 1972 to take decisions on listed building consent applications to stop an authority taking a decision which it has been expressly authorised to do by the Secretary of State.

There is a provision in the powers sought in the Bill for the direction to be withdrawn by the Secretary of State in an individual case if the circumstances appear to warrant this. In that case the application would have to be referred to him, as now, to see whether he wishes to call it in for a decision. The national amenity societies are notified by the authority of applications to demolish and if needs be they can alert the department to sensitive cases and ask for the direction to be withdrawn. This is the proper way to handle the situation which those supporting the amendment envisage.

The whole purpose of seeking the enabling power is to speed up decisions and reduce administrative costs. We do not want to superimpose a new interventionist piece of machinery on top of the procedures now in the Act and the Bill.

I hope I have shown that it is not I who has a closed mind today, and where I have it is certainly not a hasty decision. We shall certainly consider suggestions for amendment of the consultation document proposals, which I think is an answer to my noble friend Lord Montagu.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David, has all the objections to Amendment No. 240 and more. The procedure envisaged could add up to 10 weeks to the time taken to reach a decision from the time the authority decided that it wanted to give consent. This makes nonsense of our wish to speed up the consideration of applications. Applicants would get an answer more quickly under the existing procedures. I understand that this is exactly at what the noble Baroness is aiming. In view of what I have said, I urge my noble friend to withdraw this amendment and the noble Baroness not to move hers.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

It is late and I do not wish to carry on this discussion for too long. Naturally I am disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. It would appear that we shall have to rely on the reserve powers of the Secretary of State for call-in cases, and I think that means that we and the amenity societies will have to be all the more vigilant and make quite sure that important buildings do not slip through the net. I think that that is something that we shall have to do, but I hope that the noble Lord will bear my remarks in mind because some very important buildings could be lost unless we are careful. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 240A to 242 not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 243: Page 141, line 21, at end insert—

("Defence to proceedings under section 53

(1) In section 53 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings), for subsection (6) (exception for certain urgent works) substitute— (6) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove the following matters—

1. (a) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building,
637
2. (b) that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter,
3. (c) that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary, and
4. (d) that notice in writing justifying in detail the carrying out of the works was given to the planning authority as soon as reasonably practicable.".

(2) In section 93 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (appeal against listed building enforcement notice), in subsection (1)(grounds of appeal), for paragraph (c) substitute— (c) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building, that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter, and that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary;".")

The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 222. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendments Nos. 244 and 245; Page 144, line 23, at end insert— ("section 242" ") Page 144, line 24, after ("insert" ") insert (",(4) and (5) ") The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 246: After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:

("Termination of grants for development etc.

—(1) No payment of grant under—

1. (a) sections 237 to 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972,
2. (b) section 14 of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act 1957, and
3. (c) section 9 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 shall be made for the financial year 1986–87 or for any subsequent financial year.

(2) No claim for grant under the enactments mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above in respect of financial years prior to 1986–87 shall be entertained by the Secretary of State unless—

1. (a) it is received by him before this Act is passed; and
2. (b) any information reasonably required by him in relation to any such claim is received by him before the expiry of the period of two months after this Act is passed.")

The noble Earl said: This clause provides for the termination of planning redevelopment, town development and open space grants in Scotland under existing commitments. Provision or the cessation of payments of new grants under these schemes with effect from 1st April 1986 was made in the Local Authority (Grants Termination) (Scotland) Order 1986. This repealed the appropriate statutory provisions and revoked the statutory instruments containing the detailed arrangements for the schemes.

The decision to terminate these schemes is the result of the review of specific grants undertaken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Arrangements for winding up these schemes have been generally agreed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. A local authority expenditure for these purposes will be eligible expenditure for rate support grant purposes and will be assisted in that way. The Scottish Development Department informed local authorities of that change in a circular of 28th February last. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

11 p.m.

Lord Foot moved Amendment No. 247: After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:

("Discrimination: Planning.

( ) After Section 24 of the Race Relations Act 1976 there shall be inserted the following section:

"Discrimination: Planning.

24A—(1) It is unlawful for a local planning authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to discriminate against a person in the exercise of any of its functions under that Act. (2) Section 41 shall not apply in respect of an act of discrimination which is rendered unlawful by virtue of this section and which is done after the day appointed for the coming into force of Part VI of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. (3) No regard shall be had to the enactment, or provisions of this section in interpreting the scope of any other section in Parts II and III of this Act".")

The noble Lord said: This is an important but simple amendment. The purport of the amendment is contained in subsection (1): It is unlawful for a local planning authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to discriminate against a person in the exercise of any of its functions under that Act.

It may strike the Committee as a little odd that it is necessary to introduce such a proposal at this time of day, but the matter is not covered by the Race Relations Act 1976. An amendment along these lines is necessary because of the terms in which Section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976 is framed. It provides: It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services.

This matter needs attention because of the decisions made by the courts as to the effect of the words: the provision of goods, facilities or services".

A case came before a county court in 1983 in which it was alleged that there had been discrimination against the applicant for planning permission on the grounds of race. The court considered whether the function of a planning authority in giving or refusing permission was a function which dealt with the provision of services or facilities. The county court judge came to the conclusion that it was and that therefore any discrimination by the planning authority was unlawful.

Subsequently, a case came before this place in its judicial capacity. An immigration officer was alleged to have discriminated against a would-be immigrant by refusing a special voucher to enable him to remain in this country. That case did not arise under the Race Relations Act but under the Sex Discrimination Act.

The observations of this place are pertinent because the terms of the section in the Sex Discrimination Act, which deals with this matter, are the same as the terms of Section 20 of the Race Relations Act which I have quoted.

This place considered the meaning of the words, providing a facility or service and came to the conclusion that they did not include an immigration officer deciding whether to grant a special voucher. The majority of their Lordships made it clear in their judgment that they were of the opinion that had they been dealing with the matter as a planning application they would have come to the same conclusion: that when a planning authority is dealing with an application for permission to develop it is not providing a facility or a service, and that it is therefore not unlawful for that authority to discriminate against someone under the Race Relations Act, 1976.

It will be evident, I hope, to everyone that this gap in the law must be remedied. It is, of course, a matter of enormous importance to the Commission for Racial Equality that this gap should be filled. That is the simple purpose of the amendment. I shall not worry the Committee at this time of night with the effect of subsections (2) and (3) which are highly technical and which do not affect in any way the effect of the general principle of the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

I can perhaps begin by welcoming the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on his first, and very competent appearance at the Dispatch Box. I wish him well. At this time of night there is very little that I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said. We support the amendment fully, regretting that it should be necessary at this time in our lives to have to come back to this sort of legislation. The amendment is, however, necessary. We support it and hope that the Government will take the correct view.

Lord Skelmersdale

At present, if a planning authority discriminates racially in reaching a decision on a planning application, that decision is likely to be quashed if taken to the courts. The racial or ethnic origin of the applicant cannot be a material land use planning consideration, but—the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is quite right—there is at present no specific remedy in law available to someone who may be discriminated against in the administrative process in the handling of a planning application, for example, if the consideration of his application is deliberately delayed.

It was, I believe, Parliament's understanding in 1976 that the definition of local authority "services" in the Race Relations Act embraced their planning responsibilities. The courts have found otherwise; so an amendment to the statute is needed. I and my colleagues in the Home Office, who have responsibility for the Race Relations Act, therefore welcome this amendment in principle. However, we have doubts about the amendment as drafted: for example, it would not apply to Scotland. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it on the undertaking that the Government will table at Report stage a revised amendment which would achieve the objective he seeks of making unlawful racial discrimination in planning.

Lord Foot

Of course, I readily accept what the noble Lord has said. I am most obliged to the noble Lord for the consideration that has been given to the matter. I assure him that his remarks will be very much welcomed by the people on behalf of whom I moved the amendment. We are very much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 247A: After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—

("Forestry.

In section 22(2)(e) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, after the words "forestry (including afforestation)" insert the following words— other than forestry of a type specified by the Secretary of State by Order".")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like, with the leave of the Committee, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 247C and 247D. These three amendments refer to England and Wales. Their effect would be to bring under planning control three activities that have a major impact on our beleaguered countryside. The effects of afforestation have been discussed many times in your Lordships' House, most recently during the passage of the Agriculture Bill this year when the noble Lord, Lord Moran, moved an amendment rather similar to that before us, Amendment No. 247A. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was satisfied at that time that there was no problem.

However, since then we have seen the Nature Conservancy Council report, Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Britain, issued in April this year, and we have had the interim report to the Department of the Environment, Acidity in United Kingdom Freshwaters. Each of those reports highlights an area of concern directly affected by afforestation, wildlife habitat and the fishery status of fresh water. Those reports add to the accumulated evidence on the impact of new forestry, and are very significant. We must remember that agricultural practices are changing, and there is likely to be a dramatic increase in the availability of land for forestry. With so much new afforestation being carried out by private companies heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, it seems logical that planning authorities should have some say in proposals which will affect the environment and which could be damaging.

We welcome an increase in forestry, but it should not be unplanned or uncontrolled. Although we have figures which point to the imbalance in our imports of forestry, in our production of forestry, it is questionable whether the kind of development in forestry that is taking place will do very much towards rectifying that imbalance.

Under the impetus of tax relief, areas of hillside are being planted which produce scarcely a crop at all and which, at the end of 10 years, can be felled and can be a reward to those who have enjoyed a very considerable tax relief to begin with and can make a killing on the whole exercise. The only thing of benefit that is left to the country at the end of that time is a destroyed piece of natural habitat which can never be replaced.

Coming to the land drainage amendment, this would remove the category of permitted development from certain sorts of drainage and would make them subject to controls. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which supports all three amendments, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have frequently expressed concern at the impact of wetland drainage. The operations of water authorities, farmers and internal drainage boards have a dramatic effect on the countryside, and the farming and wildlife advisory group estimates that an area the size of the Isle of Wight is being drained every five years, with effects on flora and fauna and on water quality because the concentration of chemicals in water is affected.

The control of farm buildings is a subject also often mentioned in this Chamber, and concern about it will not go away. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which again is supporting the amendment, reminds us of the anxieties suffered by individuals and amenity groups as a result of the lack of control. It points out that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wishes to improve the quality of farm buildings, and it has created an architectural section for this purpose. The CPRE goes on to say that a further advantage would be the creation of a simplified procedure with easier enforcement. The need for planning permission would at one stroke streamline procedures and would remove uncertainties and difficulties of interpretation arising in both the existing GDO and the revised new proposals.

Many administrative and other uncertainties would be eliminated by the existence of overall planning control. In our overcrowded country, we cannot much longer absorb the effects of uncontrolled activities on the scale of those covered by these amendments. Even if they are not accepted now, they cannot be long delayed. I could go on much longer on all three subjects, but I am sure that at this hour of the night that would not be very welcome.

Baroness White

I support my noble friend certainly on two of the three amendments she has moved; namely, Amendments Nos. 247A and 247C. Both these amendments are really insurance policies; in other words, they would enable the Secretary of State to specify by order either certain types of forestry or certain types of land drainage which might cause damage to the countryside in one form or another. It seems to me that it is extremely important that this type of amendment should be accepted by the Government. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, is with us.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Gibson-Watt

I came to hear the speech of the noble Baroness.

Baroness White

I am indeed touched. If everyone were as knowledgeable and conscientious as the noble Lord about tree planting and forestry we should have no apprehensions whatever. Unfortunately not everyone is. We are very much concerned, particularly in the Principality of Wales, that we should not go the same way as parts of Scotland, where there is excessive afforestation in certain areas for the reasons briefly touched upon by my noble friend.

We discussed this matter last June in this Chamber. At that time I was gently chided by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, who is also highly experienced in the matter of forestry. He said that by mentioning the situation in Wales we were discussing part of the country which had not so far been affected to the same extent as parts of Scotland. I pointed out to the noble Lord Dulverton that he was perfectly correct at the moment that we are more apprehensive of the future than dissatisfied with the current situation. But we are very much apprehensive of the future because the whole pattern of agricultural activity in the uplands and the less favoured areas of Wales is likely to change dramatically, as my noble friend has said, over the next few years.

Only last week I heard one noble Lord, who farms in the Home Counties, asking one of his noble friends to advise him on sheep rearing because he was proposing to turn some of his land over to sheep which he had never done before. I suggested that one of the effects of this ultimately would be to lessen the prosperity of our sheep farmers in the uplands of Wales, because people like himself in the lowlands were likely to take over. If one listens to Mr. Jopling, the Minister of Agriculture, he seems to regard planting trees as the main method of substitution of land use in the areas in Wales about which some of us are deeply concerned.

I therefore hope very much indeed that this amendment and the land drainage amendment can be accepted by the Government. They are insurance policies. If our apprehensions are ill-founded there would be no need for a Secretary of State to take action. If, on the other hand, we are correct in these apprehensions at least there will be something on the statute book which will enable the Secretary of State to take any necessary steps.

As far as forestry is concerned, the only reason that the Government may say that this provision is not necessary is if they are proposing to bring forward a forestry Bill of their own. We had a peculiar situation before the recess, as some Members of the Committee will know, when there was a Bill before the House which, when it was returned to the other place, was drastically altered in relation to the regional advisory committees. The Government may think that such a matter is suitable for legislation and may wish to bring such a provision in there, although I think that it is more appropriate in this Bill.

I agree that the agricultural buildings amendment, Amendment No. 247D, is in a different category. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, it raises very much wider considerations. On the other hand, as I have mentioned in this Chamber before, one particularly dramatic situation has arisen in South Wales where the construction of agricultural buildings which were just small enough to escape planning control was a precursor of applications for planning consent for domestic dwellings.

I have only recently returned from the United States, and I am not entirely up to date on that situation. However, it looked to us very much as though the agricultural buildings had been put in first to provide them with an excuse for obtaining planning consent for dwelling-houses which would otherwise never be contemplated in the particular situation to which I am referring. However, I accept that Amendment No. 247D is in a slightly different position from the other two amendments which I very much hope the Government may feel disposed to accept.

Lord Gibson-Watt

Perhaps I may make a short comment. I am rather disturbed that the two Baronesses opposite have taken a rather strong line on planning control of forestry. I say to them only this. As the noble Baroness has intimated, I am in the industry and have been all my life. I do not think planning control is the right answer. The present situation, run as it is by regional advisory committees, may not be perfect. It certainly does not suit everybody. However, I would point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that we must remember that we have a very small industry. It is not just the planting which counts; it is employment in the sawmills and other ancillary parts of the industry.

I hope and feel quite certain that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not go along with these siren suggestions because there was an attempt made in another place as the noble Baroness, Lady White, quite rightly said, in a Private Member's Bill, with the support of the Government, to enlarge and increase the regional advisory committees which deal, on the whole highly competently, with all the controversial problems of this nature. Unfortunately, there were influences in the other place which made it impossible because it was a Private Member's Bill for the Member of Parliament concerned to carry on with that part of the Bill. That was a great pity because it showed the extent to which certain elements of the country are opposed to forestry as an industry.

It is nearly half-past eleven so I shall keep the Committee no longer. However, I thought it important that the other side of the picture should be considered.

Lord Skelmersdale

The amendments of the noble Baroness bear a striking resemblance to those tabled in another place. While I entirely share the laudable underlying objective of the amendments—of conserving the countryside and the landscape—I (rather like my noble friend who has just spoken) am not convinced that extending planning control is the best way to do so. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to remind the Committee that the section is, of course, that of a planning Bill.

Planning is about keeping the balance; not imposing additional controls on developers, including farmers, without good reasons; and yet ensuring that where additional controls are needed, they are effective. This means workable and enforceable: we do not intend to impose an unwieldy bureacracy on local authorities or on developers.

The first new clause, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady White, would change the very definition of "development" in Section 22(2)(e) of the 1971 Act. At present use of land for agriculture and forestry (including afforestation) is excluded from the definition of "development", so that it is not within the scope of the planning system at all. The amendment of the noble Baroness would change this by imposing a new tier of controls over types of forestry, specified by order, which would now for the first time constitute development.

I gather that it is Labour Party policy as defined in the party's environmental statement to its conference the other day to consider that some kinds of forestry, or forestry on a certain scale are environmentally objectionable and that they need to be subjected to full planning controls. It may interest the noble Baroness to know that the Government did in fact consider the question of planning controls over afforestation in the context of the Countryside Commission's report A Better Future for the Uplands published in 1984. As the Committee will remember, the commission recommended that afforestation of more than 50 hectares (124 acres) should be subject to planning control. We considered then that an adequate case had not been made for such an extension.

The Forestry Commission's planting policies have sometimes been criticised as being insensitive, but they have well established consultation procedures on planting and felling proposals which enable account to be taken of land use, agriculture, amenity and nature conservation considerations before decisions are reached on grant aid for planting and on permission for felling. Furthermore, I understand also that the Forestry Commission are currently reviewing the operation of their regional advisory committees, who play a key part in their consultation procedures. I am not satisfied that the extension of planning controls would be preferable to these procedures.

In practice, the change proposed by the amendment would mean that some afforestation schemes became subject to the full rigours of planning control while others remained exempt. Foresters would have to work under two different regimes and local authorities would become involved in applications on matters in which they have no expertise. It would be a major departure to change the basis of the planning system to that extent, and I do not think that this amendment is appropriate.

The next new clause, again supported by the noble Baroness, Lady White, would amend the GDO so that land drainage works of a description specified by order would be excluded from it and would thus require specific planning permission. I see three objections to this. It is undesirable, because it would, or could, remove from drainage authorities some of the necessary flexibility of carrying out day-to-day operations and restrict the rights of farmers to carry out engineering works on their land for drainage purposes.

It is unwieldy, because local authorities and developers would have to look at several sets of legislation—the amended Act, the new order specifying what sort of land drainage works were specified as being outside the scope of the GDO, and the GDO itself which gave permitted development rights for others. And it is unnecessary, because the GDO as it stands already enables the classes of permitted development to be restricted or extended simply by amending the order itself and also provides for those rights to be taken away by Article 4 directions when appropriate in individual cases.

I recognise that there have been problems over drainage works, particularly in East Anglia. But the Broads Marshes conservation scheme has helped considerably; and the formal designation of the Broads as an environmentally sensitive area will encourage farmers to continue traditional farming practices. But I am most reluctant to impose additional new controls of the rigidity suggested in the new clause, Amendment No. 247C.

Finally, I do not think I have to declare an interest any longer, but nonetheless I have looked at the proposed new clause on agricultural buildings very carefully indeed. This clause proposes that all agricultural buildings without any exceptions for size or type shall be excluded from the GDO. The effect of this would be that every new cowshed, glasshouse and storage barn in the country, however tiny, would need a planning application. This would represent a severe new burden on farmers and on hard-pressed planning authorities.

Of course I recognise that agricultural buildings of some kinds can give rise to criticism, but farmers need flexibility and freedom to carry out minor kinds of development just as much as do industrialists in regard to other kinds. The answer in the Government's view is not to take away all such rights from them by imposing blanket controls but to consider whether there are particular kinds of development over which selective controls are needed, as we have done by making a new order to give local planning authorities discretionary control over the siting, design and external appearance of farm and forestry buildings and roads in the 10 national parks in England and Wales.

We are also considering proposals for further controls on livestock units near residential property, and I hope we may be able to announce our conclusions on that matter quite soon. We are well aware of the need to deliver effective controls here, but the proposals need careful consideration to ensure that we get the balance right on each and every occasion.

All these new clauses would increase the complexity of the planning system. Our general policy is to reduce that complexity and to streamline the system. I am convinced that these amendments are neither desirable nor necessary, and I hope that the noble Baroness will see her way to withdraw them.

Lord Kennet

That is a bit of typical Whitehall fluff. I should just like to say in passing that the Alliance policy is to subject farm buildings to planning control to about the same degree as other buildings and with the same sorts of exemptions.

Lord Skelmersdale

In that case I can only say, "horrors".

11.30 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

I think I have had the answers I expected, more or less. If I may mention the last one first, I do not see why farm buildings and farmers should not have to conform to a general standard as everyone else does. Within other activities, very small developments have to meet the local planning criteria. It seems quite unfair that farming interests do not. In the past, they have caused a great deal of heartache among local residents. However, I do not propose to pursue that.

The land drainage answer is very disappointing. There has been a great deal of destruction to wetlands, and I find it a little worrying that every time one makes a defence of some part of the environment the Government come back to specified areas: ESAs, areas of natural beauty, national parks and so on. Those are very fine in their way, but most of the countryside is outside those areas. Are we going to reach a stage where only small museum-type areas of interest remain?

Lord Skelmersdale

I think it is a bit late at night to start an argument with the noble Baroness, but it is my recollection that most land drainage areas are in what are proposed to be environmentally sensitive areas or other areas covered by conservation controls of one sort of another.

Baroness Nicol

I do not think we want to get into that argument, but I can find some that are not. We shall continue the discussion on another occasion.

Planning control over forestry does not mean elimination of forestry. It may not even mean reducing forestry. It merely means that a sensible approach has to be made to where it is put and what kind of forestry it is. I do not think that is asking too much. I look forward to the day when we can do it. However, at this hour of the night I shall withdraw my Amendment No. 247A.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 247B: After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:

("Traffic regulation.

Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 shall be amended by the addition after subsection (1)(b) of the words (c) for regulating the routes that specified categories of vehicle may or may not take when travelling to or from the development site.".").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is slightly different from the others. I shall be as quick as I can. I spent a good deal of time this afternoon reducing what I was going to say on it. As a longstanding member of a traffic committee, I am aware that traffic is one of the great problems for most people these days. In particular, traffic associated with new developments causes more concern than any other aspect of new developments.

At the moment, it is largely beyond the powers of planning authorities to control. This amendment would give planning authorities control over the routes that vehicles may take to or from development sites. It is aimed at the effects of specific developments and not at general road problems. General traffic would still be outside the scope of it. For example, it could help with quarries, waste disposal sites and major construction sites. Local objections to some developments could sometimes be met by the use of this power, which could well be beneficial to developers because very often if the worries about the control of heavy traffic during a development can be satisfied people will accept the other parts of the development without argument.

The CPRE supports this amendment and makes some useful points. I shall quote, very briefly, one that I think is worthy of consideration. It says: The greatest benefits would be at waste disposal sites and others where the vehicles using the site come from a large number of different companies. Smaller companies and owner-drivers, whose activities can be particularly difficult to control at present, would become subject to the same requirements as those companies with established reputations to maintain. The amendment would, therefore, bring the standards of the worst up to the standards of the best.

It is a fact that in nine cases out of 10 a responsible contractor will meet conservation requirements and planning requirements without too much bother and will behave imaginatively about the effect his transport is having on the community. It is all the others, the smaller firms and the less responsible contractors, who would be caught by this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

Again at this late hour, I have been doing a wee bit of editing of my own and I have two comments to make on this amendment. First, it is undesirable in planning terms because it relates to matters that will frequently be outside the control of the beneficiary of the planning permission. While he can request suppliers of goods and materials and contractors to approach and leave the development site by a specified route, he cannot require them to do so. Such a condition would therefore be unreasonable. It would also be unenforceable by local authorities acting under their planning powers. Enforcement of rights of passage over public highways is a matter for the police and for the local authority acting under highway and traffic regulation powers.

Secondly, existing planning powers can be used to influence the routes taken by traffic leaving and entering a development site. Such conditions might require the formation of a new access to the site or the improvement of an existing one. Planning conditions can also require developers to post a notice at the site exit requesting drivers to use or avoid particular routes. Conditions may also prevent the implementation of a planning permission until completion of a specific road improvement or traffic management measure which would have the effect of reducing or removing an objection to the development on traffic grounds. Where this requires the consent or authorisation of a third party—such as the relevant highway authority—the local planning authority must satisfy themselves that there are at least reasonable prospects of the action in question being performed. Detailed matters such as keeping highways free of mud during construction can be imposed through conditions under building contracts.

This amendment would therefore be unreasonable for developers, unenforceable by planning authorities and would to a certain extent overlap with the powers available to local highway authorities under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I must therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

Baroness Nicol

I think that the reply is unnecessarily defeatist. As I said earlier, I have spent a considerable amount of time on traffic committees and there are ways, given even limited powers, of seeing that the sort of restriction that I am after could be carried out. However, I see no point in pursuing this amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 247C and 247D not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

In calling Amendment No. 224A, I would point out that this is the amendment that was wrongly marshalled and appears on page 18.

Lord Foot moved Amendment No. 224A: After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:

("Development of Land./

In section 52(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, (regulating the development or use of land) add in subsection (3)" (c) as prohibiting or limiting any right to develop in accordance with a planning permission granted after the date of such agreement and relating to or affecting land the development or use of which is restricted or regulated by such agreement".")

The noble Lord said: This amendment touches on a matter which I do not think has been discussed at all. It is a minor one and I hope to be able to deal with it in about three sentences. It proposes an amendment to Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That Section 52 deals with what are called planning agreements. One of the subsidiary ways of exercising planning control is by way of an agreement between the planning authority and the individual over the use of and development of certain land. It sometimes happens that when such an agreement has been negotiated, subsequently a planning permission is granted which either overtakes or supersedes the agreement or, alternatively, is inconsistent with the agreement.

I am advised that in those circumstances at present the only two ways in which the individual can be released from the terms of the agreement and the restrictions of the agreement is either by negotiating a new agreement with the planning authority or alternatively, strangely enough, making an application to the Lands Tribunal under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

All that my amendment proposes is that where you get a planning permission subsequent to a planning agreement which is inconsistent with it or overtakes the covenants of the agreement, that should automatically release the parties from the restrictions of the agreement. That is all that my amendment proposes to do, and I should not have moved it at this time of night except that I understand the noble Lord the Minister has prepared some reply and I should like to hear it.

Baroness Hooper

I am sorry that it cannot be a more positive reply. We have no evidence of any need for the making of special provision for Section 52 agreements on the lines proposed in this amendment. If circumstances change and, as the noble Lord himself has said, the terms of an agreement become inappropriate, they may be varied or the agreement may be cancelled with the consent of the parties to the agreement. Failing that, the matter can be taken to the Lands Tribunal. We believe that adequate means already exist to vary or cancel Section 52 agreements where the circumstances justify such action. On that basis I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Foot

As may have been foreseen, I indeed withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8 [Local plans and unitary development plans]:

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 248: Page 146, leave out lines 23 to 29 and insert— ("(5) A local planning authority may prepare a local plan for a part of their area (an "action area") which they have selected for the commencement during a prescribed period of comprehensive treatment, by development, redevelopment or improvement of the whole or part of the area selected, or partly by one method and partly by another; and a local plan prepared for such an action area shall indicate the nature of the treatment selected for the area.") The noble Lord said: Just by way of change, this is not a drafting amendment but a redrafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Nicol

moved Amendment No. 249: Page 146, leave out from line 41 to line 30 on page 147.

The noble Baroness said: The AMA and the ADC both strongly support this amendment. It proposes the deletion of what would become Section 11A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This would require the making of county-wide local plans (formerly development plan schemes) by the county council, without inclusion in which a district council would not be authorised to prepare a local plan. Now that structure plans exist and districts have to work within them, there seems little need for the extra layer of planning scrutiny which reduces flexibility and slows down the processes. Districts should be able to respond to perceived needs without having to go through this exercise. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

I rather suspect that this amendment arises from a misunderstanding of provisions in the Bill. In new Section 11A the Bill seeks to reproduce the 1971 Act's existing provisions for development plan schemes with some updating and clarification. The main change is that proposals (except those affecting land in a national park) to alter, repeal or replace a local plan are now to be included in the local plan scheme as well as those for making a local plan, and local planning authorities may prepare such proposals only where authorised to do so by the scheme. This change has been introduced to keep local plan schemes in step with the times: proposals to alter or replace local plans form a more important part of local planning authority work, now that many initial plans have been prepared.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness's amendment reflects the concern expressed by the representatives of the districts about the concept of a statutory local plan scheme. I should like to reassure the Committee about the part which the districts will play in the preparation of such schemes. Incidentally, before I go on may I ask whether it reflects the concern of those bodies.

Baroness Nicol

Yes, it does.

Lord Skelmersdale

I thank the noble Baroness. In that case I shall continue. New Section 11(3) provides that district planning authorities shall keep under review the need for, and adequacy of, local plans for their area and may make recommendations to the county planning authority for incorporation into the local plan scheme. The county planning authority are to make and amend the local plan scheme in the light of those recommendations and in consultation with the district authorities. Under the new provisions, as with the current ones, the Secretary of State may amend a local plan scheme in response to representations from a district who are dissatisfied with it. I think these provisions safeguard the interests of both districts and counties while presenting the public with a clear programme of the local plans to be prepared in each county.

As I have explained, schemes for local plans have an important function to fulfil, and the system should be retained and updated. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Nicol

Obviously, I shall need to read with care what I have just been told by the Minister. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.45 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 250: Page 153, line 22, leave out (", repeal"). The noble Lord said: This amendment is technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 251: Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause:

("Recovery of Minister's costs in connection with inquiries.

—(1) The following provisions of this section apply where a Minister is authorised under or by virtue of any of the following statutory provisions to recover costs incurred by him in relation to an inquiry— section 250(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (general provision as to costs of inquiries), section 96(5) of the Land Drainage Act 1976 (costs of inquiry under that Act), section 129(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (costs of inquiry under that Act), paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 22 to the Housing Act 1985 (costs of inquiry in connection with acquisition of land for clearance), any other statutory provision to which this section is applied by order of the Minister. (2) What may be recovered by the Minister is the entire administrative cost of the inquiry, so that, in particular—

1. (a) there shall be treated as costs incurred in relation to the inquiry such reasonable sum as the Minister may determine in respect of the general staff costs and overheads of his department, and
2. (b) there shall be treated as costs incurred by the Minister holding the inquiry any costs incurred in relation to the inquiry by any other Minister or government department 651 and, where appropriate, such reasonable sum as that Minister or department may determine in respect of general staff costs and overheads.

(3) The cost of an inquiry which does not take place may be recovered by the Minister from any person who would have been a party to the inquiry to the same extent, and in the same way, as the cost of an inquiry which does take place. (4) The Minister may by regulations prescribe for any description of inquiry a standard daily amount and where an inquiry of that description does take place what may be recovered is—

1. (a) the prescribed standard amount in respect of each day (or an appropriate proportion of that amount in respect of a part of a day) on which the inquiry sits or the person appointed to hold the inquiry is otherwise engaged on work connected with the inquiry,
2. (b) costs actually incurred in connection with the inquiry on travelling or subsistence allowances or the provision of accommodation or other facilities for the inquiry,
3. (c) any costs attributable to the appointment of an assessor to assist the person appointed to hold the inquiry, and
4. (d) any legal costs or disbursements incurred or made by or on behalf of the Minister in connection with the inquiry.

(5) An order or regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (6) An order applying this section to a statutory provision may provide for the consequential repeal of so much of that provision, or any other provision, as restricts the sum recoverable by the Minister in respect of the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry or is otherwise inconsistent with the application of the provisions of this section.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 251, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 279, 280, 281, 282, 297, 309A and 342. As the Committee will know, I intend to oppose the Question whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill, since this new clause is designed to replace Clause 30. It does not alter the general intention of that clause but it incorporates quite a few detailed changes. I do not know whether the noble Baronesses want me to detail those changes. If they do, I shall be only too happy to oblige. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

I had just one or two comments to make on Amendment No. 251, and perhaps the Minister's details will answer them. I have condensed my comments to a very small amount. The Association of District Councils have expressed a worry about the propriety of slipping into a Bill about housing and planning a clause which makes certain changes to the financial provisions affecting a wide range of public inquiries on other subjects. They are also worried and ask questions about whether the representatives of the myriad interests affected by this change have been consulted or are even aware of it. Finally, they are clearly still worried that the intention of the exercise is to transfer more costs to local authorities.

Lord Skelmersdale

I rather anticipate that most of those questions are covered in the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 251A. Would it be convenient if I spoke very quickly to that now? The purpose of that amendment appears to be to ensure that Ministers do not seek to recover costs from people who are legitimate third party objectors at planning inquiries. There is no proposal so to do. It is not the intention to recover costs from third parties. Indeed, in the case of abortive inquiries it would not, in any case, be possible to recover such costs from anyone who is not statutorily entitled to take part in the inquiry. That is commonly the position of local amenity societies, for example. Such non-statutory objectors do not legally become parties to the inquiry until they are given leave to do so by the inspector, so that if the inspector has not operated they cannot be involved. That, in very speedy language, is the answer to the noble Baroness.

More generally, Ministers hold many different kinds of inquiry, some of them pursuant to their own functions, in which we are not interested here, and some as a service to other bodies. In those circumstances, where an inquiry is, for example, operated, it seems only fair that Ministers should be allowed to recoup the expenses that they have had which were not incurred by them and were incurred as a result of an inquiry held by somebody else.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 30 [Recovery of costs of local inquiry]:

[Amendment No. 251A not moved.]

Clause 30 negatived.

Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 252: After clause 32, insert the following new clause:

("Control of advertisements: experimental areas.

In section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (control of advertisements), for subsection (3) (power to make different provision for different areas) substitute— (3) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may make different provision with respect to different areas, and in particular may make special provision—

1. (a) with respect to conservation areas,
2. (b) with respect to areas defined for the purposes of the regulations as experimental areas, and
3. (c) with respect to areas defined for the purposes of the regulations as areas of special control.

(3A) An area may be defined as an experimental area for a prescribed period for the purpose of assessing the effect on amenity or public safety of advertisements of a prescribed description. (3B) An area may be defined as an area of special control if it is—

1. (a) a rural area, or
2. (b) an area which appears to the Secretary of State to require special protection on grounds of amenity;

and, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), the regulations may prohibit the display in an area of special control of all advertisements except advertisements of such classes (if any) as may be prescribed.".")

The noble Lord said: This new clause is intended to enable the Government to fulfil an undertaking in Building Businesses not Barriers. Paragraph 5(11) of the White Paper announced that my department proposed to undertake an experiment to test some revised proposals for what is called deemed consent in the control of advertising regulations for England and Wales for the display of directional advertising signs for certain types of tourist facilities and attractions. However, before the proposed experiment can be undertaken it is necessary to add to the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers which are now in the amended Section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for this purpose.

I should draw the Committee's specific attention to subsection (3)(a) of the new clause which enables an experimental area to be defined for a prescribed period for the purpose of assessing the effect on amenity or public safety of advertisements of a prescribed description. These details will be specified in regulations which my right honourable friend would present to Parliament for scrutiny and on which he would expect to consult local authority representatives and other organisations with an interest in outdoor advertising. With that explanation, I trust that the Committee will be able to approve the new clause.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Land adversely affecting amenity of neighbourhood]:

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 253: Page 79, line 5, leave out from ("to") to ("that") in line 6 and insert ("the local planning authority") The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 previously. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 254: Page 79, line 18, at end insert— ("(4) in non-metropolitan counties the functions of the local planning authority under this section are exercisable by the district planning authorities.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 254A: After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—

("Areas which may be designated urban development areas.

In section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (power to designate urban development areas), omit subsection (2) (which restricts the power to land in metropolitan districts and certain land in or adjacent to inner London).")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 254A and to speak also to Amendment No. 342A, which is consequential. The occasion for the amendments is the Government's decision to seek to set up four further urban development corporations, including one on Teesside. This cannot be done under the legislation as it now stands because this provides that an urban development corporation in England may be set up only in a metropolitan county or in inner London. Teesside lies within the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland. The amendments would remove this restriction so that an urban development corporation could in theory be set up anywhere in England. This would give us equality with the Scots and the Welsh, since it is already the case that an urban development corporation can in theory be set up anywhere in that country or Principality. This is a logical and happy step to take, and I beg to move.

Baroness David

We were of course expecting this after the Statement last week, but I shall have to speak on this amendment for a minute or two even though it is so late. If we go back to the passing of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, we find some interesting history. Initially the Government intended that the power for the Secretary of State to designate areas for UDCs should be open-ended, subject to parliamentary approval. However, Members of the Opposition in another place hinted at the possibility of designations being made in suburban and rural locations should they return to power, and there was obvious unease among Government supporters and the Government. The Government then incorporated an amendment into the Bill which restricted the designation to metropolitan areas. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, moved that amendment in this Chamber on 14th October, 1980. The amendment, Amendment No. 256A, at page 102, line 23, read as follows: An area of land in England may only be so designated [as a UDC] if:

1. (a) it is in a metropolitan district; or
2. (b) if it is in an inner London borough or partly in an inner London borough and partly in an outer London borough which has a boundary in common with that inner London borough".

Now the Government are choosing to designate further zones, none having been declared since the Liverpool and London docklands, and they do not have the power to do so in Teesside; so they are having to go hack on themselves. They are proposing to remove their 1980 amendment to allow designation anywhere in England and Wales. Again, one is left wondering whether this leaves open the possibility of further designations by another government who would take powers out of the hands of democratically elected bodies and transfer them to appointees. At present the proposed zones are all in areas which almost invariably elect councils of a political persuasion different from that of the present Government.

The Government have already removed democratic powers from the metropolitan counties, all of them Labour controlled. Now they are again seeking to achieve what they cannot manage with the ballot box—the transfer of power to their nominees. No wonder their own Back-Benchers were worried that another government might see the potential of this weapon and use it in areas which traditionally return Conservative local administrations.

It is also ironic that the Government have yet again recognised the fact that public investment is crucial if we are to tackle the problems of the inner cities. They have long recognised this in Northern Ireland, where money is thrown at problems in large amounts. In the London and Liverpool UDCs, vast sums of public money have been and will be spent on infrastructure such as the London Docklands Light Railway, for without it private capital will not come in.

The problem has never been that councils are holding back investment. Private capital is cautious and very conservative. Risk-taking is something done on the Stock Exchange, not on the derelict sites of our inner cities. Developers have needed clear evidence that profitable investment was possible and that site problems such as contamination, dumping, obsolete buildings and equipment and so on had been or were being removed.

All the areas where the new UDCs are proposed have seen massive cutbacks in their rate support grant allocations at a time when economic problems have worsened dramatically. As I said when the Statement was made last Thursday,£270 million has been lost in real terms by Trafford-Salford since 1981, and the figures for the other three areas are also large. The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, said in reply to a question that £100 million to £160 million would be spent on all four areas in the next six or seven years. That is chickenfeed compared with what the authorities have lost in rate support grant.

The councils in those areas cannot tackle the many problems that exist as well as they might because they have had their financial hands tied behind their back by the Government. They have tried. Consider the environment at Teesside, which is massively better than it was a decade ago, even though the county of Cleveland which covers it has the highest unemployment rate of any English county. If the county and boroughs of the area could do as much as they have done with so few resources, what might they have done if they had not had their RSGs cut back and with the sort of money that they might now get from the UDCs? Is this to be new money?

When the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was moving the amendment on this part of the Local Government Bill, he said: As with the new towns, once the task of achieving effective development in the areas has been concluded, the UDCs will be wound up, their assets disposed of and the powers restored to the local authorities."—[Official Report, 14/10/80; col. 1215.] Now we are not at all sure, after the amendments moved last week, that the new towns are going to dispose of their assets to local authorities. We are not at all clear on what is to happen to housing. The noble Lord went on to say that there are healthy precedents in the new towns where partnerships established between development corporations and local authorities exist. Let us hope that that is going to be the case with these new UDCs. I hope that the Minister can answer one or two of my questions.

Lord Skelmersdale

As regards the opening remarks of the noble Baroness on the amendment which she felt my noble friend Lord Bellwin was bullied into making on an earlier occasion, I remind her that there is a proverb on the west coast of Scotland which goes, "We think better later." That is exactly what the Government have done. As the noble Baroness knows full well, we expect to spend £100 million to £160 million over six or seven years on each of the new development corporations.

When the noble Baroness talks about local authorities losing grant, I listen to her with a stony heart. She knows perfectly well that if local authorities had spent in line with the best of the others in their group they would not have lost rate support grant except—and I freely admit this—so far as the overall level of rate support grant has gone. The authorities of which the noble Baroness is so fond and speaks so often in this Chamber are not being super-penalised through any other action but their own.

So far as resources go, I can give a firm assurance that any expenditure on new urban development corporations in 1987–88 will be additional to the resources already planned for inner city programmes. I think that probably answers the questions that the noble Baroness has put to me.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.

Clause 38 [Minor and consequential amendments; repeals]:

12 midnight

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 255: Page 82, line 39, at end insert— ("( ) National Scenic Areas;").

The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment to add a reference to the paragraph in Part 2 of Schedule 9, concerning national scenic areas, to the paving clause for that schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 256: After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:

("Effect of modification or termination of enterprise zone scheme.

(1) In Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (enterprise zones), for paragraphs 21 and 22 (effect of modification or termination of scheme on planning permission) substitute—

"Effect on planning permission of modification or termination of scheme

21. Modifications to a scheme do not affect planning permission under the scheme in any case where the development authorised by it has been begun before the modifications take effect. 22.—(1) Upon an area ceasing to be an enterprise zone planning permission under the scheme shall cease to have effect except in a case where the development authorised by it has been begun. (2) The following provisions (which provide for the termination of planning permission if the completion of development is unreasonably delayed) apply to planning permission under the scheme where development has been begun but not completed by the time the area ceases to be an enterprise zone—

1. (a) in England and Wales, subsections (2) to (6) of section 44 of the 1971 Act;
2. (b) in Scotland, subsections (2) to (6) of section 41 of the 1972 Act.".

(2) In paragraph 26 of that Schedule (interpretation of Part III of the Schedule), after sub-paragraph (1) insert— (1A) The following provisions apply in determining for the purposes of this Schedule when development shall be taken to be begun—

1. (a) in England and Wales, subsections (1) to (3) of section 43 of the 1971 Act;
2. (b) in Scotland, subsections (1) to (3) of section 40 of the 1972 Act.".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 256 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 310 and 318. The Committee will recall that we have already dealt with the Government amendment concerning what will happen once the special planning zone scheme expires if developments are started but not completed. The purpose of the amendments now before the Committee is to make similar arrangements for enterprise zones when those planning schemes expire. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

I must raise the same objection that we made earlier this evening, which is that the effect of this new clause will be that enterprise zones now will last for a minimum period of 11 years and could possibly last indefinitely. Our objection is for the same reason as we gave earlier; namely, that completion notices on which the local authority will have to rely where a development has been begun take a long time to become effective. They only come into effect at least 12 months from the date the notice is issued. They are subject to appeal and are dependent on the Secretary of State's confirmation. The net effect is that if the Secretary of State is not sympathetic to ending the development which has begun—and the beginning can be very small—the area can be left with an outstanding planning permission which would make a nonsense of future plans for it. I feel that this is a most unwise provision that the Government have included. I regretted seeing it go in earlier and I regret it even more now.

Lord Skelmersdale

Since the noble Baroness, as she admits, makes the same point that she made earlier, it will not surprise her to get exactly the same answer. This abrupt cut-off is a deterrent to developers wishing to invest in an enterprise zone toward the end of the zone's life. There would be uncertainty as to the planning position of developments begun but incomplete when the area ceases to have enterprise zone status. As I said in introducing this amendment, we are doing nothing more nor less than your Lordships' Committee has already approved in our addition to the Bill for SPZs.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Planning: minor and consequential amendments]:

[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 258: Page 156, line 31, at end insert— ("(4) This section does not apply where the application is made after the previous planning permission has become time-expired, that is to say, the previous permission having been granted subject to a condition as to the time within which the development to which it related was to be begun, that time has expired without the development having been begun.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 258 and to speak also to Amendment No. 276. Both amendments are purely technical.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendments Nos. 259 and 260: Page 158, line 48, leave out ("before him") Page 159, leave out from ("proceedings") in line 1 to end of line 19 and insert ("under this Act where the Secretary of State is required, before reaching a decision, to afford any person an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 259 and 260 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 283 and 285. These amendments are purely clarificatory. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 261 to 267: Page 159, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 40 and insert ("proceedings under this Act where he is required, before reaching a decision, to afford any person an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him and which are")

Page 160, line 2, leave out ("an appeal") and insert ("any matter")

Page 160, line 3 leave out ("appeal is") and insert ("proceedings are")

Page 160, line 4, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("matter")

Page 160, line 14, leave out from ("which") to ("must") in line 16 and insert ("any party to the proceedings")

Page 160, line 20, leave out ("application or appeal") and insert ("proceedings")

Page 160, line 34, leave out ("application or appeal") and insert ("case")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 261 to 267 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292 and 293. The aim of the regulations to be made under the powers of paragraph 9 is to facilitate target setting and discourage late representations which slow the process of written appeals.

Before any regulations are made we shall consult interested parties such as the Council on Tribunals, the Law Societies and the local authority associations. I am looking at the wrong amendment. I apologise to the Committee.

The amendments that I sought to move are all technical amendments.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 267A: Page 160, line 35, at end insert— (" (4) The Secretary of State shall consult interested parties before making regulations.")

The noble Baroness said: We have the greatest sympathy with the Minister. The same third parties to whom we referred earlier in the matter of inquiries are concerned that there should be time for them to make written representations. They agree that it is entirely reasonable that such details as time limits on written representation cases should be dealt with by regulation, but they are anxious that there should be some consultation on the amount of time that would be required. I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic answer to this. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

As I began to say on the last amendment before I interrupted myself, before regulations are made we shall consult interested parties such as the Council on Tribunals, the Law Societies and the local authority associations. However, we do not think it desirable for there to be a requirement to consult. I can think of circumstances where that would lead to a waste of time and resources where only a technical amendment was needed. The requirement to consult might delay the introduction of a universally accepted change. For those reasons I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Nicol

Is the Minister saying that where it is not a simple matter, there might be an approach to third parties? I am not sure what his intention is.

Lord Skelmersdale

I tried to give the assurance that we shall consult on any occasions where there are people to be consulted. But there are a couple of occasions, which I instanced, when it would not be appropriate to consult and therefore we shall not consult.

Baroness Nicol

I accept the spirit of what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 268: Page 161, leave out lines 16 to 21 and insert— ("(1A) Where a person appointed under this Schedule to determine an appeal—

1. (a) holds a hearing by virtue of paragraph 2(2)(b) of this Schedule, or
2. (b) holds an inquiry by virtue of this paragraph,

an assessor may be appointed by the Secretary of State to sit with the appointed person at the hearing or inquiry to advise him on any matters arising notwithstanding that the appointed person is to determine the appeal.") The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 294. The purpose of Amendment No. 268 is to remove doubts that exist about powers to appoint assessors to assist inspectors at local inquiries or hearings into appeals to be determined by an inspector. The amendment sets out more precisely the proceedings to which power to appoint an assessor applies. It is also less restrictive as to the matters upon which the assessor may assist the inspector. Amendment No. 294 makes similar provision for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 269: Page 161, leave out lines 43 and 44. The noble Lord said: I think that I have already spoken to this amendment but I cannot find where. I was tempted to say, "I beg to move" and find out what the noble Baroness thought of that. The amendment deletes from the Bill the provision to increase the penalty for the daily offence in Section 108(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1981. It is needed because Section 108 was rewritten by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 and the daily penalty was omitted from that provision. The 1981 Act provision was brought into force by order earlier this year and the entry in Schedule 9, which was still needed when the Bill was introduced in another place, is therefore no longer apt. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 270: Page 162, line 30, at end insert— (". In section 182(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 (functions exercisable in National Park concurrently by county planning authority and district planning authority), for the words "(waste land)", which describe the subject-matter of section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, substitute "(power to require proper maintenance of land)."). The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 253. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 271: Page 162, line 31, leave out from beginning to "paragraphs" in line 33 and insert— ("21.—(1) Part I of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (functions under and modification of Town and Country Planning Act 1971) is amended as follows. (2) For"). The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 271 and 273 are technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 272: Page 162, line 45, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("section 12(5) or 12A(3)"). The noble Lord said: This, again, is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 273: Page 163, line 27, at end insert— ("(3) In paragraph 19(2) (planning applications subject to duty to consult county planning authority)—

1. (a) in sub-paragraph (vi), for the words from "section 12" to the end substitute "section 12 or 12A (publicity and consultation regarding local plans)", and
2. (b) in sub-paragraph (vii), for the words from "the said section 12" to the end substitute "section 12 or 12A (publicity and consultation regarding local plans)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 274: Page 163, line 27, at end insert— (". In section 8(3) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (application of general provisions of Town and Country Planning Act 1971 relating to local inquiries and service of notices) for "to 284" substitute "283 and 284"."). The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 274 and 300 are drafting amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 275: Page 164, line 24, at end insert— (". In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1985 (unitary development plans), in paragraph 12 (joint plans), for sub-paragraph (7) substitute— (7) In relation to any proposals made jointly under paragraph 10 above, the references—

1. (a) in sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph to paragraphs 2 to 9 above, and
2. (b) in paragraph 10A(1) above to paragraph 3(1) above, shall include a reference to sub-paragraph (2) above.

(7A) In relation to such joint proposals the references in paragraph 10A above to the local planning authority shall be construed as references to the authorities acting jointly, except that—

1. (a) each of the authorities shall have the duty under subparagraph (2) of making copies of the relevant documents available for inspection, and
2. (b) representations or objections may be made to any of the authorities, and the statement required by sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph shall state that objections may be so made.").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor, technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 276: Page 166, line 18, at end insert— ("(4) This section does not apply where the application is made after the previous planning permission has become time-expired, that is to say, the previous permission having been granted subject to a condition as to the time within which the development to which it related was to be begun, that time has expired without the development having been begun."). The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 258. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 277: Page 166, line 41, at end insert—

("Appeals against notices under section 63A

—(1) After subsection (6) of section 63A insert— (7) Subject to section 279 of this Act, Schedule 7 to this Act applies to appeals under this section. (2) After subparagraph (1)(a) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 (determination of appeals by person appointed by Secretary of State) to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, insert— (aa) in relation to appeals under section 63A, subsections (4) and (6);" ").

The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects an error in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. It restores power for appeals against waste land notices to be delegated for determination by persons appointed by the Secretary of State. When provisions concerning appeals against waste land notices were modified by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 reference to delegation was inadvertently omitted. This amendment seeks to restore the position and I commend it to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 278: Page 168, line 37, leave out second ("such") and insert ("the Countryside Commission for Scotland and such other").

The noble Lord said: This amendment inserts into Clause 262C(1) of the Bill a specific reference to the Countryside Commission for Scotland. It will provide for the recognition of the key role of the commission in the recommendation of areas for national scenic area designation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 279 to 282: Page 169, leave out lines 26 to 42 and insert— ("(7A) What may be recovered by the Minister is the entire administrative expense of the inquiry, so that, in particular—

1. (a) there shall be treated as expenses incurred in relation to the inquiry such reasonable sum as the Minister may determine in respect of the general staff expenses and overheads of his department, and
2. (b) there shall be treated as expenses incurred by the Minister holding the inquiry any expenses incurred in relation to the inquiry by any other Minister or Government department and, where appropriate, such reasonable sum as that Minister or department may determine in respect of general staff expenses and overheads.

(7B) The Minister may by regulations prescribe for any description of inquiry a standard daily amount and where an inquiry of that description does take place what may be recovered is—

1. (a) the prescribed standard amount in respect of each day (or an appropriate proportion of that amount in respect of a part of a day) on which the inquiry sits or the person appointed to hold the inquiry is otherwise engaged on work connected with the inquiry.
2. (b) expenses actually incurred in connection with the inquiry on travelling or subsistence allowances or the provision of accommodation or other facilities for the inquiry, and
3. (c) any expenses attributable to the appointment of an assessor to assist the person appointed to hold the inquiry, and
4. (d) any legal expenses or disbursements incurred or made by or on behalf of the Minister in connection with the inquiry.").

Page 170, leave out lines 9 to 41 and insert—

("Recovery of expenses of local inquiry.

210A.—(1) The following provisions of this section apply where a Minister is authorised under or by virtue of any of the following statutory provisions to recover expenses incurred by him in relation to an inquiry— section 129(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (expenses of inquiry under that Act), any other statutory provision to which this section is applied by order of the Minister.") (2) What may be recovered by the Minister is the entire administrative expense of the inquiry, so that, in particular—

1. (a) there shall be treated as expenses incurred in relation to the inquiry by any other Minister or Government department and, where appropriate, such reasonable sum as that Minister department, and
2. (b) there shall be treated as expenses incurred by the Minister holding the inquiry any expenses incurred in relation to the inquiry by any other Minister or Government department and, where appropriate, such reasonable sum as that Minister or department may determine in respect of general staff expenses and overheads.

(3) The expense of an inquiry which does not take place may be recovered by the Minister from any person who would have been a party to the inquiry to the same extent, and in the same way, as the expense of an inquiry which does take place. (4) The Minister may by regulations prescribe for any description of inquiry a standard daily amount and where an inquiry of that description does take place what may be recovered is—

1. (a) the prescribed standard amount in respect of each day (or an appropriate proportion of that amount in respect of a part of a day) on which the inquiry sits or the person appointed to hold the inquiry is otherwise engaged on work connected with the inquiry,
2. (b) expenses actually incurred in connection with the inquiry on travelling or subsistence allowances or the provision of accommodation or other facilities for the inquiry,
3. (c) any expenses attributable to the appointment of an assessor to assist the person appointed to hold the inquiry, and
4. (d) any legal expenses or disbursements incurred or made by or on behalf of the Minister in connection with the inquiry.").

Page 170, line 42, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(5)").

Page 170, leave out from line 46 to line 3 on page 171 and insert— ("(6) An order applying this section to a statutory provision may provide for the consequential repeal of so much of that provision, or any other provision, as restricts the sum recoverable by the Minister in respect of the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry or is otherwise inconsistent with the application of the provisions of this section.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments on Amendment No. 251.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 283:

Page 171, line 9. leave out ("before him").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 284: Page 171, line 10, leave out ("are disposed of without") and insert ("do not give rise to"). The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 284 and 286 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 285: Page 171, leave out from ("proceedings") in line 12 to end of line 31 and insert ("under this Act where the Secretary of State is required, before reaching a decision, to afford any person an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him."). The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 259. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 286: Page 171, line 42, leave out ("are disposed of without any") and insert ("do not give rise to an").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 284. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 287 to 294: Page 172, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 12 and insert ("proceedings under this Act where he is required, before reaching a decision, to afford any person an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him and which are").

Page 172, line 21, leave out ("an appeal") and insert ("any matter").

Page 172, line 22, leave out ("appeal is") and insert ("proceedings are").

Page 172, line 23, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("matter").

Page 172, line 33, leave out from ("which") to ("must") in line 35 and insert ("any party to the proceedings").

Page 172, line 39, leave out ("application or appeal") and insert ("proceedings").

Page 173, line 3, leave out ("application or appeal") and insert ("case").

Page 173, leave out lines 35 to 41 and insert— ("(1A) Where a person appointed under this Schedule to determine an appeal—

1. (a) holds a hearing by virtue of paragaph 2(2)(b) of this Schedule, or
2. (b) holds an inquiry by virtue of this paragraph.

an assessor may be appointed by the Secretary of State to sit with the appointed person at the hearing or inquiry to advise him on any matters arising notwithstanding that the appointed person is to determine the appeal.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 295: Page 174, line 30, at end insert— (". In section 99 (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, in subsection (3), after "85(2)" insert "to 2D".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects an error in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. When the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 85 concerning appeals against enforcement notices were amended by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, no consequential amendment was made to the reference in Section 99, which concerns appeals agsinst an enforcement notice served when a tree preservation order has not been complied with. Thus the provisions for appeal procedures against tree enforcement notices are incomplete and defective. The amendment seeks to restore the position, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

12.15 a.m.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 296: Page 175, line 14, at end insert— (".— In sub-paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 7 (determination of certain appeals by person appointed by Secretary of State) of the Town and Country (Scotland) Act 1972, for "85(2)" substitute "85(2D)".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to another error in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. Section 85 of the Act concerning enforcement notices was amended by the 1982 legislation and no consequential amendment was made to the reference in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 7 to the 1972 Act, as it should have been. This amendment does just that. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 297: Page 175, line 27, at end insert— (". In Section 267 (Local inquiries) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, in subsection (9), after "section" insert ", except where the context otherwise requires," ").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 251. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 298 and 299:

Page 175, leave out lines 30 to 33.

Page 175, line 34, leave out ("(b)").

The noble Lord said: These amendments remove an unnecessary provision from the Bill. This is a definition of "roads authority" which was to have been added to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. Because of amendments elsewhere in the Bill, this new definition is not now required. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 300: Page 175, line 44, at end insert— (". In subsection 8(4) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (application of general provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to local inquiries and service of notices) for "to 270" substitute "and 268 to 270".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with the Amendment No. 274. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 [Commencement]:

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 301: Page 83, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("such") in line 37 and insert— ("(1) The following provisions of this Act come into force on the day this Act is passed— section 12(1)(g), paragraphs 7 to 9 of Part I of Schedule 3, the repeals specified in the first part of Part I of Schedule 10 and section 12(3) so far as relating to those repeals (miscellaneous corrections); section (Termination of grants for redevelopment, &c.); this Part. (2) The other provisions of this Act come into force on").

The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as it stands, some provisions are to come into force two months after Royal Assent, while most of the remainder are to be brought into force by commencement order. The amendment has the effect that all the provisions of the Bill will be brought into force by commencement order, with the exception of a few provisions such as some corrections to last year's housing consolidation legislation and the Scottish new clause repealing development grant provisions, which will come into force as soon as the Bill is passed. The amendment inserts the provision in common form, enabling different commencement dates to be specified for different purposes.

By providing that most of the Bill will be brought into force by order, we are able to simplify what was becoming a very complex clause. It is our intention to make an order bringing many of the Bill's provisions into effect at an early date. This order will include, for example, Part III, which provides for urban regeneration grants. I also intend that this order should bring into force the new clause on leasehold enfranchisement which my noble friend Lord Coleraine introduced in Amendment No. 94. My noble friend particularly asked about this, and I am glad to be able to give the assurance.

I should mention that Amendments Nos. 302, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333 and 334 are all consequential on what I have just said. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 302. Page 83, line 40, after ("provisions") insert ("or different purposes"). On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 303 not moved.]

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 [Extent]:

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 306A to 309A: Page 84, line 10 leave out from ("except") to ("paragraphs") in line 11 and insert— ("Section (Discount on exercise of right to purchase in Scotland), paragraph 7(3A) of Part 1 of Schedule 3.")

Page 84, line 12, leave out ("2 and 26") and insert ("and 2").

Page 84, line 12, leave out ("Schedule 3") and insert ("that Schedule") Page 84, line 20, leave out ("28 to 35") and insert ("28, 29, (Recovery of Ministers' costs in connection with inquiries), 31, 32, (Control of advertisements: experimental areas), 33, (Areas which may be designated urban development areas), 34 and 35").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 306A to 309A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 310, 314A, 315, 316, 317, 318A and 319.

These are all amendments to Clause 41 which sets out the geographical extent of the various provisions of the Bill. By and large the Bill's housing provisions apply only to England and Wales while the planning provisions are set out twice with Scottish equivalents to clauses which apply to England and Wales. Parts III and V—urban regeneration grants and opencast coal—however, extend to all Great Britain. With one exception, the amendments to Clause 41 are all consequential on earlier amendments which we have already discussed. Most of them are necessary to indicate what the geographical application of new clauses is to be.

I have indicated in each case to which amendment in this clause I was speaking. But the Committee will note that in the latest Marshalled List some amendments appear in altered form. I can assure the Committee that these changes are matters of drafting and that there is nothing of substance that is new. The one amendment to Clause 41 which is not consequential on earlier amendments is Amendment No. 317. This corrects a typographical error in the Scottish subsection. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 310: Page 84, line 20, at end insert ("and (Effect of modification or termination of enterprise zone scheme)"). The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 311 to 314 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 314A to 319:

Page 84, line 25, leave out from ("housing),") to ("paragraphs") in line 26 and insert ("sections (Discount on exercise of right to purchase in Scotland) and (Extension of permitted objects of registered housing associations), paragraphs 7(3A) and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 3,")

Page 84, line 27, leave out ("25 and 26") and insert ("and 25")

Page 84, line 27, leave out ("Schedule 3") and insert ("that Schedule")

Page 84, line 36, leave out ("IV") and insert ("VI")

Page 84, line 36 leave out ("36 to 38") and insert ("36, 37, (Termination of grants for redevelopment etc.), 38 and (Effect of modification or termination of enterprise zone scheme))

Page 84, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) The following provisions of this Act extend to Northern Ireland— section (Agreements with certain housing bodies exempt from Consumer Credit Act 1974) (amendments of Consumer Credit Act 1974), paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 3 (amendment relating to stamp duty), this Part.").

The noble Lord said: I previously spoke to Amendments Nos. 314A, 315, 316, 317, 318A and 319. I beg to move that these amendments be approved en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 318 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Repeals]:

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 320 to 328: Page 176, line 4, at end insert—

("Repeals coming in force on passing of Act

Chapter	Short title	Extent of repeal
1985 c.71.	Housing(Consequential provisions)Act 1985.	In Schedule 2, in paragraph 24(8)— (a) in sub-paragraph (d) the words from "for 'section 60" to "1985" and"; (b) in sub-paragraph (e), the words from "for the" to "Schedule' and"; (c) sub-paragraph (f)

Repeals coming into force on appointed day

Page 176, line 8, at end insert—

("1977 c.42.

Rent Act 1977.

In section 69(1), the words "(to be known as a certificate of fair rent)". In section 70(1), the word "and" before paragraph (b). In Schedule 12, in paragraph 3, the words "unless the dwelling-house is subject to a regulated tenancy".")

Page 176, line 9, column 3, at end insert ("Section 140.")

Page 176, leave out lines 10 to 12

Page 176, line 12, at end insert—

("1981 c.64.

New Towns Act 1981.

Section 43(3) and (4). Section 49(b) and (c)).")

Page 176, line 12, at end insert—

("1980 c.65.	Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.	Section 156(3).
1985 c.51.	Local Government Act 1985.	In Schedule 13, in paragraph 14, subparagraph (d) and the word "and" preceding it. In Schedule 14, paragraph 58(e).")

Page 176, leave out lines 15 to 18.

Page 176, line 31, column 3, at end insert (", 35(3) ")

Page 176, line 31, column 3, at end insert ("44(3),")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 320 to 328 en bloc. They are all consequential on previous amendments.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 329 to 334:

Page 176, line 37, column 3, at end insert ("Section 9(2).")

Page 176, line 42, column 3, at end insert ("Section 48.")

Page 176, line 46, column 3, at end insert ("Section 53(2).")

Page 176, line 51, column 3, at end insert ("Schedule 10.")

Page 177, line 15, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 3, paragraphs 3 and 11.")

Page 177, leave out lines 21 to 28.

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 329 to 334 are also consequential on previous amendments. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved amendments Nos. 335 and 336:

Page 177, line 35, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Geo.5 c.51	Electricity (Supply) Act 1926.	In Schedule 6, the entry relating to section 21 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919.")
Page 177, line 37, at end insert—
("10 &11 Geo.6 c.51	Town and Country Planning Act 1947.	In Schedule 8, the entry relating to section 21 of the Electricity (Supply)Act 1919.
10 & 11 Geo.6 c.54.	Electricity Act 1947.	In Part I of Schedule the entry relating to section 21 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919.")

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 335 and 336 are consequential on the revision made by Clause 32(1) of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 337:

Page 179, line 16, column 3, leave out ("Section 3(2) and (3)")

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 337, 339 and 343 are purely technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 338:

Page 179, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 182(1), the words from "(2A)" to the end.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendments Nos. 339 to 344:

Page 179, line 19, column 3, leave out ("and (3)").

Page 179, line 24, at end insert—

("1974 c.7.	Local Government Act 1974.	In Schedule 6, paragraph 25(4). Section 3(1).
1974 c.32.	Town and Country Amenities Act 1974.	Section 5.")
Page 179, line 24, at end insert—
("1976 c.70.	Land Drainage Act 1976.	In section 96(5), the words from "(including" to "in the inquiry)".")

Page 179, line 28, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 134— (a) in subsection (1), the words "Subject to subsection (2) below,";

(b) subsection (2).")

Page 179, line 29, column 3, leave out ("11") and insert ("8")

Page 179, line 31, at end insert—

("1981 c.67.

Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1, in the entry relating to the Local Government Act 1972, the words "section 125(4) and (7)".")

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 339 to 344 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 341 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 345:

Page 179, line 31, column 3, at end insert— ("In Part I of Schedule 29, in the entry relating to section 65, the word "waste".")

The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 345 with an earlier amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 346: Page 179, line 41, column 3, at beginning insert ("In Schedule 4, paragraph 18.") The noble Lord said: The provision in the National Heritage Act 1983 which this amendment repeals is superseded by paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 7 to the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale

moved Amendment No. 347: Page 180, line 47, after (" "in") insert ("accordance") The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment that I need to move. It is in fact a minor drafting amendment, but I should like to thank all Members of the Committee for the collaboration that they have shown during this long and very exhausting day. We, on these Benches, are extremely grateful to everyone.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 348 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 349: Page 181, line 20, at end insert—

("1974 c. 32.	Town and Country Amenities Act 1974.	Section 5
1980 c. 65.	Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.	In section 134(1) the words" Subject to subsection (2) below". In Part I of Schedule 30, in the entry relating to section 63, the word "waste".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness David

Perhaps I may return the compliment and congratulate the Minister on his stamina because he really has dealt with nearly the whole matter with a little help from the noble Baroness. This Committee stage has been a very heavy burden and I congratulate the Minister for still being on his feet.

Lord Kennet

I should like to associate these Benches with those remarks.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.