Lords Sitting of 21 February 1991

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Airline Slot Allocation Study
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they assess the completed Stage 1 of their own slot allocation consultancy; and whether they have received the draft regulation on slot allocation sent by the Commission to member states.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, in completing Stage 1 of the study, the consultants have achieved some useful work. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked them to proceed to Stage 2 of the study, and to present a further report to him in the summer. We have now received the Commission's proposal for a regulation.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps I am an optimist but I had hoped for more information in detail to be given to the House this afternoon. The Minister has overlooked the first part of the Question. Will he give us his assessment?
Secondly, do the Government feel that progress in their own slot allocation consultancy is working well with that put forward by the European Commission?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we believe that the consultants have done some useful work. The Government see the work of the consultants as a valuable contribution to the discussions about the EC proposals. The consultants will focus initially on two slot allocation methods. One is a modification of the type of system proposed by the EC; the other is a more radical proposal incorporating an element of market forces.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, since slot allocation is so relevant to the negotiations with the United States concerning the renegotiating of Bermuda 2, can the Minister inform the House as to the progress of those negotiations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the negotiations with the United States are proceeding. We hope that there will be further discussions with them before too long. The issue of slot allocation is not wholly relevant to those negotiations. The issue of the traffic distribution rules is much more relevant.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as regards the rights at present allocated to Pan Am, since that company is, to say the least, in a delicate situation—as is TWA —does the Minister agree that slot allocations assume great importance in the discussions with the United States? I repeat my question: is he able to inform the House on the progress of the current negotiations? In particular, does he recognise that it was never
648
intended in the first Bermuda 2 negotiations that there should be any automaticity on the transfer of such rights from one airline to another?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as to the latter part of the noble Lord's question, that is perfectly right. That is why we have our present negotiating position. As I said before, negotiations are proceeding and I hope that we shall be able to make progress before too long.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, did I gather from the Minister's original Answer that the Government allocation consultancy will make three reports to the Minister? If so, is there any chance that we may learn anything about the subject of those reports, although not the content?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not mention that there may be three reports. The consultants have been asked to proceed to the second stage of their study. The Stage 1 report has been published and is available in the Library of the House, as well as having been circulated to interested parties.

RAF in Germany: Low Flying
3.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether restrictions on low flying by the RAF in Germany are being imposed or threatened by the German Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, a general minimum height of 1,000 feet was introduced for military low flying in Germany in September 1990. Short exemptions were agreed for training related to the Gulf crisis but these expired in October last year. The German Government have recently indicated that they are willing to consider further exemptions for aircrew being deployed to the Gulf and for some other training.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government are happy about restrictions of this kind on important low flying training being imposed on people who may well shortly risk their lives in the Gulf? If the German Government can do nothing else to help us, can they at least not hinder us?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it would have been beneficial if the German Government had allowed us to continue our low flying there. Obviously we welcome the recent indications from them that they are prepared to consider a further request for exemption from the limit of 1,000 feet. At the moment we are examining our requirements in that light.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Gulf war has shown the extreme importance of this training? It takes a long time for a pilot to be proficient. In these circumstances, does the Minister regard the German Government's attitude as unsatisfactory and inappropriate to the situation in the Gulf?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have already said, the German Government are reconsidering the request and we are putting new proposals to them. Yes, I completely agree with the noble Lord on the importance of the valour, courage, skill and professionalism that all our RAF pilots exercise in the Gulf.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the restrictions that are applied to our aircraft are also applicable to the aircraft of other nationalities operating in Germany, including German aircraft? Do the German Government apply any other operating restrictions on our aircraft?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are not alone in this. The German Government have indicated that the minimum low flying level is 1,000 feet, which applies to all other nations flying in German territory.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that far more low flying has taken place over Scotland than over Germany? Does he accept that the people of Scotland are glad that they have put up with the noise when they see the results?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. Scotland, as well as the rest of the country, has undergone considerable low flying in the past. However, the benefits from those endeavours are now seen.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us, with notice if necessary, whether German pilots are trained in low flying? If so, where?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, they are trained in low flying, but the German attitude is that a level of 1,000 feet is sufficient.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that since Chancellor Kohl has taken a greater interest in foreign policy and not left everything to Herr Genscher, relations between this country and Germany have markedly improved?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that is another Question for another day.

Unemployment
3.9 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What special measures they intend to introduce to deal with the unemployment consequences of their present economic policies.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, the prime objective of the Government's economic policy is the defeat of inflation on which future prosperity and employment depend. The Government have taken a number of measures to help unemployed people get back to work through the advice and support services of the employment service. In addition to existing counselling and other schemes, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked the chief executive of the
650
employment service to provide up to 100,000 further opportunities in jobclubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme for unemployed people.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, do the Government accept that the time has gone when they could rely almost exclusively on interviews to put people back into work? The last time the Government's economic policies raised unemployment at this rate, there were special measures and 750,000 people were taken off the register. When will the Government move back in that direction?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it would be quite incorrect to say that the Government are now just relying on interviews. There is a whole range of schemes to help people with training. All 16 to 17 year-olds have the right to training, and 88 per cent. of those who complete youth training obtain jobs. One in five of 18 to 19 year-olds are now in higher education compared with only one in eight in 1979. The training and enterprise councils will be able to spend more in 1991–92 than in 1990–91. The training credit scheme will be in force from April of this year.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most effective measures to bring down unemployment would be for employees, and those who influence them to show maximum restraint in wage demands?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is undoubtedly true. No one wants to see a rise in unemployment. However, if we do not tackle inflation now, the cost in terms of unemployment will be far greater later. The extent of unemployment will depend crucially on the level of wage settlements.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I agree with the Government that bringing down inflation is vital in order to bring down unemployment, given our propensity to pay ourselves more than we are able to earn from increased productivity over the years and certainly relative in unit cost terms to our competitors abroad, how do the Government propose to ensure that unemployment comes down but that inflation does not rise again?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that we should try an incomes policy again. Whenever it has been tried in the past it has failed. We certainly need to get the message over to employers that restraint in wage settlements is of the most vital importance. Firms would gain three times as much from cutting their wage settlements by 1 per cent. than from a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Barclays Bank has recently announced that it will cut its workforce by some 20 per cent.; that the other clearing banks are likely to follow suit, that the retail and distributive industries are also facing mass redundancies, and that this is in addition to continuing redundancies in the manufacturing sector? Is this not a much more dangerous situation than that which pertained in the previous recession in the early 1980s? What special steps are the Government taking to deal with it?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not agree that the situation today is much more serious than in the early 1980s. British industry is in far better shape now than it was then. However, the fact remains that the greatest threat is inflation. If we do not tackle inflation now, we shall have far greater problems in the future and greater unemployment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to measures that are already in train. Do the Government have any new measures in mind to alleviate the increasingly adverse effects of unemployment?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I mentioned in my original Answer the new measures which have recently been announced. The range of measures which are in existence are right for the circumstances.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, one of the consequences of ever increasing unemployment is the possibility that craftsmen may have to learn new skills. Has that factor been taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, clearly training is of great importance. The resources for the employment service have increased. The training budget stands at £2.6 billion. That is two-and-a-half times what it was under the previous Labour Government. Employers are spending £20 billion a year on training. Certainly training is important and the funds are there for it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Government to look at the question of the employment of part-time workers to see whether there cannot be some change in the payments that small employers make towards insurance and other contributions? Those contributions are preventing part-time workers from being employed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I shall certainly look into that matter. It goes wide of the Question, but I recognise its importance. The fact remains that the number of part-time jobs has increased quite dramatically in recent years in response to the demand for part-time work.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the construction industry, of which I have some knowledge, predicts that 150,000 jobs will be lost in the next few months due to the tremendous recession in the building industry. Is the Minister aware that that industry is crying out for a cut in interest rates to enable people to buy more houses?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the overriding priority must be to maintain interest rates at the appropriate level to continue the downward pressure on inflation. Interest rates will be further reduced when it is safe to do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it would be helpful to put the TECs in the picture as regards finding new jobs so that people are known by name locally rather than just as numbers? Does my noble friend further agree that that would help greatly in finding jobs for people under the new systems that he has announced?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. The TECs are doing an important job. They will be able to spend more in 1991–92 than in this year. Some 51 TECs are fully operational, and they will all be operational by the end of the year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Lord the Leader of the House see the statement made by a representative of the NatWest Bank which asserted that our membership of the exchange rate mechanism would result in an additional 600,000 unemployed people? Does the Minister agree with that statement and, if so, will he not reconsider all the answers that he has given and accept that extra special measures are needed to deal not only with present unemployment but with the high unemployment that is yet to come?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, entry into the exchange rate mechanism was warmly applauded by industry at the time. It is an important discipline. It will help us to keep the downward pressure on inflation that is vital for the future of jobs in this country.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that the Government relied on training and interviews to tackle unemployment. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Employment said in another place on 6th February that the Government were cutting planned expenditure on training for the long-term unemployed because many of them were already trained? He further stated that those people did not require either training or interviews but jobs.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have already pointed out the resources which are being put into training overall. However, the funding arrangements for employment training were altered because studies showed that a significant proportion of the long-term unemployed already possessed the qualifications to match vacancies in their areas. What they needed was advice and assistance to help them get back into the available jobs. Hence the importance of Restart, jobclubs and the job interview guarantee scheme. I make my following comment with the greatest diffidence. I am sure the noble Lord will take it in good part. I remind the House that the noble Lord was the adviser to the Labour Government on these matters between 1975 and 1977 when disaster hit this country. I can only hope that he can assure the House that the Labour Government accepted none of the advice that he tendered.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not true that far more people were in employment then?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I can inform the Minister that I was not the adviser and that period was not a disaster.

Armed Forces: Strength
3.19 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of Soviet military action in the Baltic states, the record Soviet production of

653
battle tanks, and the Soviet circumvention of the CFE Treaty, they will reconsider any reduction in the strength of United Kingdom armed forces.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in view of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the end of the cold war it remains our intention to move towards the new force structures outlined in Options for Change by the mid 1990s. However, in light of the risks that remain we are planning for cautious and measured change and shall ensure that the United Kingdom maintains a responsible and robust defence capability.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In view of the fact that there exists a great deal of anxiety can he assure the House that, until such time as the Soviets stop building up the strength of all three of their armed forces and start obeying the disarmament terms of the CFE treaty, it would be unwise to reduce our forces or the contribution we make to our NATO allies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right about our anxieties regarding the Soviets' attitude towards the recently signed CFE treaty. The timetable for decisions on and implementation of change will depend upon many factors, including of course the outcome of the Gulf conflict, discussions with NATO allies and developments in the relationship with the Soviet Union. Once again I can reassure my noble friend that we shall continue to maintain a robust and flexible military capability as our insurance against the unexpected.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether any significant progress was made in the recent CFE negotiations? He spoke of a robust defence capability. Can he say whether our estimated defence expenditure is discussed with our NATO allies to ensure that our contribution is a fair one in relation to their expenditure?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, obviously there are discussions with our NATO allies concerning the future, the new balance of forces, costs and the ongoing situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl did not answer the first part of my question concerning CFE negotiations.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, those negotiations are still going on. At the same time we are remonstrating with the Soviet Union about the situation regarding the CFE negotiations.
Lord Pym: My Lords, in view of the uncertainty and instability that is now so widespread throughout the Soviet Union and evident in other countries, and in view of the Gulf War and the international scene generally, can my noble friend on the Front Bench confirm that our armed forces will not be cut—it would be most unwise and imprudent to do so—before a longer and deeper assessment of our future defence needs has been undertaken with our allies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in replying to an earlier question I believe that I have answered my noble friend's question. We shall maintain the defence
654
structure necessary from the United Kingdom's point of view at all times and we shall proceed with great caution.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when considering the future level of our defence expenditure, will the noble Earl bear in mind that when the Government decided on fairly limited reductions in future years the Soviet Union was a unitary state and the Warsaw Pact was in being, whereas the Warsaw Pact is now being formally wound up and the Soviet Union is a mass of different and conflicting authorities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight those circumstances. As I have already said, we shall be proceeding with caution in the future.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that on the last two occasions when our forces have been in action—in the Falklands and in Iraq—the events were not foreseen by anybody? Should we not be ultra cautious? Can my noble friend confirm that there were no contingency plans for the Falkland Islands? Can he also confirm that we had sold all our desert uniforms to the Iraqis, or somebody else, because we had not foreseen that we might have to participate in a desert war? Will my noble friend and the Defence Ministry please bear in mind that it is always the unforeseen that happens and never anything that is foreseen?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the unexpected, as I have just mentioned, when Options for Change was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State back in July of last year provision was made for a situation such as has now arisen in the Gulf.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the unanimity which has prevailed within the Security Council over the past few months, would it not be more constructive to regard the Soviet Union as a potential ally rather than as a perpetual enemy?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course we regard the Soviet Union as an ally, but the situation in relation to the CFE treaty has not developed quite as we had expected. Strong negotiations are now in hand to see that those requirements are fully carried out.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a great deal of anxiety about the proposed reduction of 40 per cent. in the Territorial Army? Does he further agree that medical reservists and other specialists have played a vital role in the Gulf conflict?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must make it quite clear to my noble friend that despite rumours the situation regarding the Territorial Army has not been determined. It will be determined at the same time as the position of the regular Army.
Lord Elton: My Lords, while my noble friend and his right honourable friend are considering that matter will they once again bear in mind the very important social role which the Territorial Army is capable of performing on behalf of its members and their communities as well as its defence role?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords, most certainly. Its role is currently being considered. We shall never forget the superb job that it has done and the role it has played in our history.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in view of the point raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition regarding cost saving, is it not a fact that if we restructure and reposition our forces over the next few years there will not be a cost saving but probably an overall increase in costs?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the dividends to be reaped from a decrease in the size of our armed forces will not be immediate. They will come through to the bottom line in the years that lie ahead.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name On the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Meston be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran deceased.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Crown land development by the Crown
. For Part XIII of the principal Act there is substituted—
"Crown land and development by the Crown.
293. (1) The provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to—

(a) Crown land; and

(b) the development of any land by or on behalf of the Crown or by or on behalf of the Crown jointly with any other persons

subject to regulations made by virtue of this section.
(2) The regulations may in relation to such land or such development—

(a) provide for any of those provisions to apply subject to prescribed exceptions or modifications or not to apply;

(b) make new provision as to any matter dealt with in any of those provisions or statutory instruments thereunder;

(c) make different provision in relation to different classes of land or development or different circumstances or events.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), the
656
regulations may provide—

(a) for appeals in relation to such land or such development to be made to and determined by an independent person or body; and

(b) for the procedure to be followed on such appeals.

(4) In this section—

"Crown land" means land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest;

"Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department;

"Duchy interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 91 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 92 and 224. In these amendments we return to the important matter of the inclusion or otherwise of Crown land in planning law. At Committee stage we had a wide-ranging debate on a rather wide-ranging group of amendments, only one or two of which related directly to the issue of Crown land. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 91 and 224 is to secure a greater degree of planning control over Crown land. The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to secure a greater degree of planning control over the land of statutory undertakers. I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 91 and 224 first.
Noble Lords who are observant in these matters will see that the amendments have the same intention although they are rather different in wording and in length. One is the simple version and the other is the long-winded version. My bitter experience in these matters has shown that the simple versions never work and that the long-winded versions do not always work or sometimes need to be improved in order to be acceptable in legislation. Nevertheless we have produced a simple version as well as the more long-winded version.
Crown lands are defined in Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the consolidation Act, as land in which there is a Crown interest; namely, an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty but for the purpose of a government department.
There has been a continuing process over the years of increasing the degree of planning control over Crown land. The significant regulation in this respect is Regulation 18/84, which provides that for the first time it is possible for government departments and other Crown bodies to apply for planning permission. There are provisions under the 1990 Act now that certain planning powers may be exercised in relation to Crown land. For example, development plans may include proposals relating to the use of Crown land, and a building which is on Crown land can now be listed for the first time.
But the situation is by no means good enough. Many of the planning controls which exist over Crown land are subject to consultation procedures rather

657
than to direct controls; in other words, it is a requirement that the body concerned should consult the local planning authority and seek to reach agreement with it rather than obtain permission in the normal way. In many cases that works perfectly well, certainly for the major government departments and Crown bodies. Local authorities would acknowledge that there has been a great deal of excellent compliance with those procedures.
But government is changing. It has been the tendency in government, particularly in the past few years, for government agencies to achieve greater independence. The Next Steps agencies and many other public bodies are no longer in the same line of command relationship with government departments. They have a good deal more independence and it is much more difficult to secure the degree of control which would ensure that they involve themselves properly in consultation procedures.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that a number of government bodies working on Crown land do not adequately consult their local authorities. I shall restrict my evidence to one particular case; namely, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office radio transmitter station at Orford Ness in Suffolk. That is a development carried out in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There is a high frequency radio transmitter station with 23 separate masts. It was given consent by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1985, despite strong objections from Suffolk County Council and from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. Nobody denied that there was a need for a transmitter, but an alternative location had been proposed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that sometimes—I mean this very seriously —radio transmitters are themselves items of great beauty and can be said to enhance the surroundings?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I do agree, no. Living close to Hampstead Heath, as I do, I have seen some which are less ugly than others; but I do not know that I would agree that they are items of outstanding beauty. Certainly Suffolk County Council, which was the responsible authority in this case, did not think so and had proposed an alternative site which was not in an area of outstanding natural beauty and which was technically acceptable. It was overriden by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment.
For fear of raising other such questions, I shall not continue with other examples; but it is clear that there are occasions, and could be many more, when it is necessary to apply normal controls to Crown land. Perhaps I may give one or two illustrations of the need for controls over the land of statutory undertakers. These are more urban examples, but for all that they are very real in environmental terms. Statutory undertakers are also undergoing change. Historically they have been public bodies, as British Rail and British Waterways Board still are. But they now include privatised bodies and a deliberate decision was
658
taken by the Government to continue, for the benefit of the privatised electricity companies, the same degree of exemption from planning controls that they had when they were under public control. That is despite the fact that these electricity companies now have their prime statutory duty to their shareholders and not to the community and therefore have the duty to maximise their profits almost regardless of environmental issues.
The first example that I want to give to the House is that of the Port of Tyne Authority at Jarrow Slake on the Tyne. The Port of Tyne Authority uses the slake to stockpile coal in heaps of up to 20 metres high, which is very damaging in terms of the dust and the traffic generated as well as an intrusion on an area which includes St. Paul's conservation area and St. Paul's monastery, the home of the Venerable Bede. The local authority would never have given permission for such a use without very stringent controls.
The same is true in Sefton, where the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Company is importing and storing substantial amounts of coke and coal on the banks at the edge of the dock close to residential and business premises. There again, Sefton Borough Council would never have given planning permission for that development.
I suggest to the House that the exemptions both for Crown land and statutory undertakings are now an anomaly. Because of the changes in the way in which the public service now operates on Crown land and because of the fact that statutory undertakings are increasingly being privatised and are no longer under the same form of central control, it is an anomaly that they should be exempt from planning regulations; and it is also an anomaly because of the general trend of planning law, which I believe to be right, that there should be as few exemptions from planning control as possible if the planning laws are to operate effectively.
I am sorry that I have had to give those reasons at some length, but I hope that they will convince the House that these amendments should be agreed to. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, his amendments, Amendments Nos. 91 and 224, necessarily go together, one being very much shorter than the other, as he indicated. For example, Amendment No. 224 would substitute for Part XIII the very brief provision that the 1990 Act should bind the Crown except as provided in the development order.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and picked up his note of pessimism with regard to the shorter of his amendments, but I am still not entirely clear which of the two he prefers. It may be that he would be happy to see either of them accepted. If that is his hope or expectation, I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint him.
The changes that we propose as regards development by local authorities have been carefully thought out after extensive consultation. There is an

659
appreciation that not everyone will be pleased, but what has been sought to be achieved is, as much as possible, a sensible balance.
I reiterate what I said at Committee stage about the present arrangements for the Crown to obtain planning clearance for its development proposals. As the noble Lord and others will be aware, the special procedure is set out in Department of the Environment Circular 18/84. I think that it provides the necessary safeguards while preserving the rights and privileges of the Crown. Crown bodies send local planning authorities a notice of their proposed development; the development proposal is then considered in similar fashion to a planning application —and that is true in relation to a notice of publicity for example. I accept that, as he indicated, the authority does not grant or refuse permission, but rather signifies whether or not it finds the proposal acceptable, including whether it believes that planning conditions are necessary. Indeed, in the example that he gave of the radio mast—I do not enter into any question of the desirability or otherwise of radio masts —it is quite clear that the planning authority was very well aware of what was going on and made its views known in the most open fashion.
Furthermore, if the authority has unresolved objections, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether planning clearance shall be given. He may take his decision after receiving written representations or after holding a meeting between the parties, or indeed there may be a non-statutory public inquiry. In that regard the Crown is very much like any other applicant. If the planning authority is not satisfied, the matter goes to the Secretary of State for resolution.
There will always be planning decisions and planning matters which do not satisfy everyone. However, it is the Government's view that there are few complaints about those arrangements which are considered generally to work well. For that reason we see no need to change them.
Amendment No. 92 provides the opportunity to discuss the role of statutory undertakers within the planning system. The noble Lord makes a reasonable point. The role of some statutory undertakers has changed in recent times. It is not true to say that the role of all statutory undertakers has changed. The noble Lord's proposal is nothing if not ambitious. One short section repeals all 22 sections of Part XI of the 1990 Act and two other sections.
I was interested to hear what he had to say about the actions of some statutory undertakers in the examples that he gave. I am sure that there are grounds for criticising them from time to time. The noble Lord's comments in this debate will be carefully borne in mind when the General Development Order is next reviewed. He will not be surprised if I say that a change of the magnitude he proposes would not be introduced without very wide consultation both within government and outside, not least with the statutory undertakers themselves and bearing in mind, as he rightly pointed out, that in recent times some of them have had a change in function.
660
After this short debate, which followed an earlier debate in Committee, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will forgive me when I say that I find his arguments contradictory. He admits that the cases which I have cited in support of my argument may have some validity, but he did not appear to realise that in the case of Orford Ness the local planning authority, although consulted, did not have the power to deny planning permission for that very damaging development.
The noble and learned Lord admits that the role and structure of government departments, the users of Crown land, is changing. He admits that the status of statutory undertakers—I referred to some, not all, statutory undertakers—is changing. He denies the central proposition behind my amendments, that so far as possible the planning laws should be on the same basis for all land use and that exception should be only in the most exceptional circumstances.
My amendments provide perfectly well for exceptions to be made; for example, for reasons of national security. Such exceptions could be provided for in regulations. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate proposes not that we take the opportunity of a major planning Bill to extend the effectiveness of our planning legislation but to undertake such major changes in future revisions of the General Development Order. He agrees that those changes are wide-ranging and of considerable importance. I disagree. If there are to be such changes, and if they are as important as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I agree that they are, they should be made by Parliament and not by changes to the General Development Order.
The noble and learned Lord called my amendments nothing if not ambitious. However, he did not criticise the wording. I am not convinced that the amendments have been satisfactorily answered and that the case against them has been satisfactorily argued. I believe that it is appropriate that I seek the opinion of the House.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L.

Attlee, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aylestone, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Diamond, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Brightman, L.

Falkland, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Fitt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gibson, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Gladwyn, L.

661

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grimond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hacking, L.

Oram, L.

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Roskill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hunt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ilchester, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kagan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kissin, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Varley, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Walpole, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Mayhew, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Henley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hertford, M.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Astor, V.

Holderness, L.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bessborough, E.

Knollys, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Quinton, L.

Gainford, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Richardson, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rodney, L.

662

Romney, E.

Strathspey, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Sandys, L.

Terrington, L.

Selkirk, E.

Teviot, L.

Shannon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Tryon, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Waddington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.52 p.m.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Demolition
. Schedule 1A to this Act (which provides for the control of demolition) shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 100. We believe that the amendment raises a major issue. That might be the only uncontroversial statement that I shall make this afternoon. As was said by Mr. David Widdicombe when acting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench on 11th January, it is a question of whether:
"demolition constituted development".
He said that it was a ghost that haunted planning law, and continued:
"time has now come for that ghost to be laid to rest".
With your Lordships' support, and if the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, we may help to lay that ghost to rest today.
The issue of whether development and demolition are coterminous raises three questions. First, is demolition development? Secondly, if it is, can it be enforced by planning control? Thirdly, if it can, should that control be exercised? As regards the first question, I am sure that your Lordships will recall the wording of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and note its wide sweep. Section 12(1) states:
"'development' means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change of use".
It appears to be the case that, since demolition falls within the scope of building operations—that is, operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on a building business—or is part of engineering operations, or clearly affects the external appearance of a building, demolition is development. That is what Mr. David Widdicombe ruled.
The second question was: can the control of development be enforced? That is problematic. If an unauthorised development has taken place involving construction—for instance, a second house on back land—the local authority can require it to be pulled down. However, once the property has been demolished there is the minor difficulty of how to reinstate it. I wish to remind the House that in every conservation area in the country demolition falls within the planning framework.
There are 7,000 conservation areas embracing more than 1 million properties. In all those areas demolition

663
requires prior authorisation. I am not aware of any difficulty that has been caused by that control in any conservation area. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that there have been none. To my knowledge there is no problem about treating demolition as development and making that stick in a conservation area. Once people know that they must obtain planning approval they seek it. Therefore, I suggest that the issue of control or of reinstatement is no different in kind within or without the conservation area.
Is there a difference in scale? The Minister might suggest that this is an inappropriate way forward because of the work load involved when one compares the 1 million properties inside conservation areas with the number outside. Noble Lords will know that prior notification of demolition is already required. Therefore, the necessary administrative arrangements for handling the provision are already in place. As the planning system handles the more minor issues of planning development, construction and significant alteration outside conservation areas, I can see no difficulty in bringing the less extensive, less onerous but visually more significant issue of demolition within the planning system. The additional workload will net be onerous. My consultations show that the local authorities and their planning officers confirm that to be the case.
I hope that that matter will become clear when we consider the likely categories of demolition that will be involved were your Lordships minded to accept the amendment. Legal advice suggests that there might be five categories. The first is demolition on the grounds of health and safety; in other words, where property is dilapidated. Such demolitions are already allowed in conservation areas. No problems are associated with complexity or workload. Issues that may arise within conservation areas about dilapidation are now caught by statutory repair notices or building at risk notices. But there are no differences in kind and problem within or outside a conservation area. If a building requires demolition on the grounds of health and safety, that is done within conservation areas and can be done outside such areas.
The second category is the demolition of unwanted small structures within the curtilage. But, again, such minor works are already exempt from the necessity of planning approval within conservation areas if the structures are unlisted. If the requirement does not already apply within a conservation area there can be no need to apply it outside.
The third category is where there is partial demolition as part of an alteration. However, the alteration already requires planning consent within and without the conservation area. Again, there is no problem.
The fourth category is where full demolition is sought prior to authorised development. But, again, where development is authorised there is no problem. Therefore, in the vast majority of situations where demolition will arise there need be no problem; it is already permitted within conservation areas, or the controls will extend.
The problem lies with the fifth category, as the Minister indicated in Committee, which is demolition prior to proposals for speculative development. The amendment seeks to control that category of demolition because, as I have said, the other categories are already within planning or, under the amendment, will remain exempt. The fifth category is the smallest category and it presents the least onerous workload. However, it causes the greatest damage to the streetscape and presents the greatest threat to sensible planning.
Why should that be so? Such demolition without authorisation can have a noticeable effect on the streetscape and character of the area. In Committee I quoted my own experience. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to that again. We were trying to prevent a developer from knocking down a large Victorian house in a suburban street. He was hoping that the resulting bomb site would so disfigure the street that he would obtain permission for his three storey block of flats. That had already happened along the road. By getting the trees around the house listed, we thwarted the scheme. That street is now in a conservation area and when another builder tried a similar scheme in the same area, he was stopped. However, your Lordships will recognise the faint absurdity of listing trees, which are a renewable source, but not protecting from unauthorised demolition Victorian and Edwardian houses which make up the streetscape of our cities.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that such speculative demolition is designed to force a planning authority's hand. A local authority may subsequently choose to give planning consent to development, when it would prefer to refuse it, merely because that is a more acceptable alternative to having a dangerous vacant site covered with rubble which invites the tipping of rubbish and generates rats.
The Minister may issue policy guidance that demolition should not be the presumption in favour of subsequent development. Such guidance would be welcome. However, that will make very little difference. In reality, when faced with a dirty and possibly dangerous bombed-out site, the local authority may well agree that a development is the lesser of two evils, however unacceptable that development would otherwise be.
Even if the local authority remain stalwart and refuse consent for development, the developer can still go to the Secretary of State who may agree that almost any development on that site is better than leaving it as it is—a vacant tip. The Secretary of State may well be right. I remind the Minister that as the development plan is not a primary consideration, the developer can count on that too.
We all agree that there is a problem that is not extensive and does not generate an onerous workload. However, we all agree that where it occurs it can be a significant problem. Policy guidance, welcome though that is, will not remedy that problem.
What can be done? Clearly it is possible to cover the country in conservation areas, but that would debase

665
the language and stretch eligibility for grant too thinly. I suggest that there are two options. The first, along the lines of Mr. Widdicombe's ruling, would be to have demolition regarded as development. The second would be that the special consent already required for demolition in conservation areas should apply to all property outside. I suggest that both of those are practicable ways forward. The workload is modest and there is in place already a system of prior notification. The cost would be modest and the gains immense.
I repeat that this amendment will not ban demolition. It merely requires it to be authorised as happens now with demolition prior to agreed development. Demolition outside conservation areas will be brought within the same planning framework as demolition within those areas. Demolition for speculative development will be treated in the same way as demolition for agreed development. Acceptance of such an amendment would mean the closure of the largest existing loopholes in regard to the protection of our streetscape and villages. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I raised this matter in Committee. In response to my amendment which I still support—I shall certainly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness—the reply from the Government Front Bench was that the control which we sought against all forms of demolition of buildings was too sweeping, too wide and would clog the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has certainly done her stuff. She has made out a much better case than I did. If arguments well put in this House result in votes, then she should succeed. After all, as long ago as 1974 Mr. George Dobry QC, in the report Control of Demolition, recommended that demolition should be brought under planning controls. That was 16 or 17 years ago. Since that time there have been many flagrant breaches.
My Amendment No. 241 restricts the control to demolition of dwelling houses, which I believe concerns many people. I put forward that proposal only as a substitute. I hope that the Government will see some sense in this matter and accept my proposal if they feel that this amendment goes too wide by suggesting overall control. I do not believe that it is. Nevertheless, if the control were restricted to dwelling houses that would be a step in the right direction.
If examples are needed—and there are plenty of them—I draw attention to Tottenham town centre where an Asda supermarket has been developed. The supermarket owners wanted to pull down a terrace of Victorian houses in order to extend the car park. They acquired the houses at fair prices with which the owners were happy but the general public and the planning authority wanted the properties, which were in an attractive Victorian terrace, to be restored. Therefore, the planning application was refused. Immediately a bulldozer pulled down the houses and
666
a fresh application to extend the car park over that area was granted. That sort of action is diabolical and the Government should not permit that to happen.
In Committee I gave examples of properties in north London, particularly in the Harrow area. Government supporters in the other place have been promoting private legislation to try to persuade the Government of the merits of the case. It may be that at present there will be a pause because development is not very popular, but it will return. Certainly the supermarket scenario will continue because there are many under construction at present. It is time to act. The Government should not wait for the appeal against the decision recently made in the courts. This Bill presents a wonderful opportunity to write the provision into legislation. I hope that the Government will at least support the control of demolition of private residential houses.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am not thrilled with this amendment. It will cause delay. Although such cases may arise in the south of England I cannot wait to see the demolition of parts of Hollyhead and Amlwch. I should not like to see any delay which I believe this amendment may cause.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, the noble Baroness eloquently explained the merits of bringing demolition under the planning control provisions, but I do not wish to speak about that. However, she made a comment which greatly disturbs me. If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she made reference to a case where use was made of tree preservation orders in order to prevent some other activities taking place —in that instance, the redevelopment and, perhaps not in the intended way, the demolition of property which it was felt appropriate to keep.
That fills me with horror. That has been one of my anxieties. Local planning authorities are using orders such as tree preservation orders for purposes which are totally outwith the concept of the facility provided by that order-making provision. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and that the Government will make it their business to make sure that in future these provisions will not be misused. I believe that it is an abuse of a statutory power. I hope that I did not misunderstand the noble Baroness because I was concerned to hear confirmation in this House that such a measure is being used in what I consider to be a wholly inappropriate fashion.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I explained our general position on the issue of control over demolition in Committee. We recognise fully that there is anxiety in some areas about what may be called speculative demolition; that is, demolition carried out in the hope of securing permission for more intensive and profitable redevelopment.
We consulted last year on a number of options for tackling the issue. The responses to our consultation paper did not produce evidence of a general and widespread problem, nor did they indicate a consensus on what should be done about it. We believe that much can be done, where a problem does arise, by the inclusion of suitable policies in local plans and unitary

667
development plans. If plans make quite clear what the planning authority's policy will be on the redevelopment of cleared sites, a developer is much less likely to feel that he has something to gain by carrying out demolition in the first place. We intend to give new policy guidance on these matters in an updated planning policy guidance note on housing which will be published shortly.
On the question of legislative change, I said that we are not at this stage convinced that such change is necessary; but if we were to go down that road, I am quite sure that it would have to be on a basis which enabled selective controls over demolition to be imposed in some areas but not in others. The present amendments go some way towards recognising this last point: the draft schedule of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would, as I understand it, permit a selective approach. But I have to say again that we remain to be convinced of the need for legislative change of this kind.
One issue which has to be considered in this context is the precise significance of the existing law. As the noble Baroness pointed out, in January a judgment was given in the High Court which apparently supported the view that certain types of demolition are already subject to planning controls. We have been waiting for the full transcript of that judgment before deciding whether any clarification or reinforcement of the existing law is desirable. I hope that transcript will be available shortly, so that we can take a view on the general implications of that judgment, and on the case for the sort of amendment which the noble Lord is proposing.
The noble Baroness quite rightly set out the scenario of the demolition issue in conservation areas. I agree that it is not a problem in those areas in regard to the mechanisms for exercising control over demolition. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, gave a specific example regarding houses that were demolished and then applications submitted for a car park. It is that kind of case which is the subject of the Widdicombe determination. It is the specific transcript of that case that we wish to examine before considering the matter further.
In regard to the issue of the tendency of planning authorities to give permission rather than be left with what I believe the noble Baroness referred to as "bomb sites" or their equivalent, the argument is predicated on the assumption of a feeble response to the problem by planning authorities. Why should they allow their arms to be twisted by demolition? They are quite free to restrict permission to the replacement of what was knocked down. On rare occasions that does happen. It is not so long ago that somebody had to rebuild something that was knocked down.
The noble Baroness referred also to the risk that the Secretary of State may allow development on appeal. We made it clear that we will normally be guided by the local plan, and that when the new development and structure plans are in place, within the context of strategic guidance, the system will become even more effective.
668
It is important that local planning authorities use the powers already at their disposal. In the meantime I do not think we can usefully take this discussion further forward. However, I will take the noble Lord's proposals away and consider them in detail alongside the transcript of the recent High Court judgment when it is available. I say that without at this stage committing the Government to bringing forward amendments of their own—though no doubt the matter will be raised again when the Bill reaches another place. On the basis of that assurance I hope the amendments will not be pressed.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for his support. I would certainly have been happy to support his amendment as a fall-back position of reduced scope which would have caught the worst cases.
Perhaps I may refer to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that the provision may cause delay. On the contrary, at the moment it seems to us that given the fact that demolition without advanced planning permission for redevelopment is speculative, and is therefore a two-stage process, the existing system generates more delay than would be the case were demolition part of an authorised planning bid. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will accept that the amendment would not add to delay; it would streamline proposals and procedures.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the issue of trees. Perhaps I could respond first by saying that these were very nice trees and there existed a perfectly legitimate ground for their being preserved. However, this was a situation where the developer was trying to beat the declaration of the conservation area timetable. It was with that concern that we were attempting to stop him demolishing a house and leaving us with a bomb site.
I shall turn to the Minister's comments. I welcome her concern. I have to say that, given that she is usually a robust and sturdy defender of the Government position, we did not see in her comments quite the normal robustness and sturdiness that we are customarily led to expect. I could not help but feel that the Minister would be more comfortable on this occasion making our case rather than trying to reject it.
The Minister accepts the problem and recognises that policy guidance is needed to deal with it; she believes that planning authorities should not permit their arms to be twisted, and suggests that local authorities have weapons at their disposal to control it. I say that they do not. At the end of the day once that demolition has taken place and if a developer will not reinstate but prefers to leave the site derelict, there is nothing but nothing a local authority can do. That is the loop-hole; that is the problem; that is where the writ does not run and where they do not have powers at their disposal. It is to meet that situation that we ask

669
the Minister to give local authorities the powers that she wishes they had to deal with the problem she recognises to meet the concerns we all share.
Having said that, I wish I could judge how serious the Minister is—I do not in any sense challenge her good faith or integrity in this House. I wish I could judge how substantially the Minister will be requiring her civil servants to look at the problem. It is of such significance that I would normally seek the view of the House. I shall not do so if there is a realistic possibility that at Third Reading the Minister may be able to give us a way forward; for example, by saying that after a year policy guidance has not produced the required effect and that she will consider legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. With the leave of the House, perhaps I could say that once we have seen the transcript and made a proper interpretation of it, as far as the department is concerned, for this kind of matter we will need to have regard to what it will mean in case law. If it is determined that certain kinds of demolition come into the planning system, then the objective of the noble Baroness will be met.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in the light of that response—having read the transcript we may wish to come back at Third Reading—reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Mines and waste]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 77, line 1, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 94 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 240. A provision is required to apply the Bill's provisions to the Isles of Scilly. In the process of drafting it became evident that it would be desirable to replace the existing rather complex provisions of the 1990 Act applying particular clauses to the Isles with a general section enabling the Secretary of State to make the necessary provision by order. Amendment No. 240, to which Amendment No. 94 is a consequential, is in a form which is now more or less standard for this purpose, including the requirement for the council of the Isles to be consulted before an order is made. We have consulted the council and understand that the amendment will be welcomed. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my only concern with regard to Amendment No. 240, as the noble Viscount said, is that the Council of the Isles of Scilly will be consulted. In subparagraph (2) it says,
"An order under this section may in particular provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of any functions exercisable by a local planning authority or mineral planning authority".
Surely the amendment should say that an order,
"shall provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of some specified functions exercisable by a local planning authority";
670
otherwise the amendment provides that the Council of the Isles of Scilly has no mineral planning authority powers at all.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the amendment proposes the deletion of paragraph 12 and is conditional on Amendment No. 240 being accepted. It enables the Secretary of State to modify and adapt the principal Act in its application to the Isles of Scilly. Paragraph 12 of the schedule sought to amend only subparagraph (1) of Section 319, which applies—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Viscount proceeds further, I must say that his answer so far has been totally wide of the mark. I was not criticising the paving amendment but the substantive amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in practice the council has functions and will have the power to make its own planning decisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 95:

Page 77, line 3, at end insert:
(" . In section 324(8) (rights of entry) after "minerals" there shall be added "or waste".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. This is a probing amendment simply to see whether planning officers have the necessary power to go on to land to check for the presence of waste materials that may have been buried in it. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Amendment No. 95 concerns the right of any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State or by a local planning authority to enter any land for the purpose of surveying it in connection with the preparation of a plan, an application for the permission for the use of the land or for serving an order. The current right confers a power to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals in it. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to give the right to the local planning authority to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of waste in land.
It is an interesting proposal. However, it is important to bear in mind the duties and powers of the proposed waste regulation authorities to inspect land to ascertain the presence and nature of waste that may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. This duty is formulated in Section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Furthermore, Article 18 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 requires local planning authorities to consult the relevant waste disposal authority before granting planning permission for development within 250 metres of land which is or has been within the previous 30 years used for the deposit of refuse or waste.
In those circumstances it seems that existing powers might be adequate. However, the proposed amendment raises issues concerning the relationship between local planning authorities and the proposed waste

671
regulation authorities. I should like the opportunity of considering this matter further. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, that is a generous response which has clarified the situation very well. I hope that the consideration that is now to be given to it will take place. If it is not clear at the moment whether planning officers should discuss the issue with the other authorities, then guidance will be given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 77, line 27, after ("(2)") insert ("(3)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 97, 101 and 102. These are all necessary drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 77, line 28, leave out ("both places") and insert ("each place")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 80, line 25, at end insert:

("18.—(1) This paragraph applies to permissions for mineral extraction continued in effect by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 and Schedule 24 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 so far as continued in effect by that paragraph in so far as it relates to those provisions ("the relevant provisions").

(2) The relevant provisions are hereby repealed and, subject to subsection (2) any permission in force thereunder shall cease to have effect at the end of 12 months beginning from the passing of this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State shall within the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, after consulting with bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of the mineral extraction industry and of mineral planning authorities, by order grant permission for such classes of development permitted under the relevant provisions as he considers expedient, subject to such conditions as he considers expedient.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), to the extent that any development falling within sub-paragraph (1) is not granted permission by order under sub-paragraph (3) or is so granted subject to conditions more stringent than those attached to the original permission, the occupier of the land affected by that permission shall be deemed to have applied to the mineral planning authority under Part III of the principal Act for unconditional permission to carry out such development.

(5) An application under sub-paragraph (4) of this section shall only be deemed to have been lodged with the mineral planning authority if and when the occupier of such land serves on the mineral planning authority a copy of the original permission which was continued in force under the relevant provisions, not being later than the end of the period of 12 months from the date of the passing of this Act".).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 99. The purpose of these amendments is to bring consents for mineral working granted in the 1940s—that is, the interim development orders—into the control of mineral planning authorities. In Committee the House considered a number of amendments designed to strengthen control over mineral working. Two related to consents granted under IDOs. These orders were a form of planning control which immediately preceded
672

the introduction of the modern planning system in 1948. Between 1943 and 1948 a large number of these consents were granted by the then local authorities.
These consents have been automatically continued in force by successive planning Acts. There are two difficulties. First, the authorities were not in a position to impose the sorts of conditions which would be normal today governing the programme of working, access to the sites, restoration and aftercare. Some of these consents are very vague, giving a general right to work minerals, unspecified over several hundred acres. Secondly, local planning authorities often cannot even assess the size of the problem because there is no requirement to register the IDOs. Due to local government reorganisation the records of many authorities no longer exist.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, was helpful and sympathetic. In replying to Amendment No. 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, the noble Baroness went rather further and gave an undertaking last Tuesday to bring forward amendments that would go some way to improve the situation. We are grateful for that. I want to move Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 in order to explore the situation a little further.
There is general agreement that the first priority is to create a register and require all the owners of these old consents to come forward and produce them to the planning authority on pain of losing the benefit of the consents. However, a register will not of itself solve the problem and the noble Baroness recognised that. I refer to Hansard of 19th February at col. 541. It will merely provide information on the extent of the problem and the location of the land subject to IDOs. A chance should not be lost to incorporate into the present Bill a framework within which that solution can be identified and implemented without recourse to further primary legislation.
Ideally, from an environmental point of view, one would want to wipe out all these old consents, enabling planning authorities to start afresh, granting permission or imposing conditions that are entirely acceptable and in accordance with today's environmental standards. Of course, the conservation bodies feel strongly on this matter knowing of the damage that has been done to sites of special scientific interest. The Unstarred Question introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on 9th May 1990 on peat resources went into the damage that modern methods of extracting peat can cause.
The minerals industry is understandably concerned at these proposals. Since consideration of the amendments during Committee, the British Aggregate Construction Minerals Industries (BACMI) has made the following points in defence of IDOs. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, spoke about this on Tuesday. He accepted BACMI's arguments rather more readily than we do. I wish to put the points that it makes and our responses to them.
First, BACMI's IDOs are valid planning permissions granted under the final stages of a developing planning system which evolved into the Town and

673
Country Planning Act 1947. That is true as far as it goes. However, it ignores the fact that, unlike planning applications submitted under the 1947 Act, there was no requirement to register the IDOs. Secondly, it states that IDOs usually have rudimentary planning conditions. These are often no more rudimentary than any planning permission granted in the 1950s. For this reason the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 gave local planning authorities power to modify and update planning conditions or suspend or prohibit further working, subject to the payment of compensation. Limited powers are also available to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose planning conditions on an operator's entire quarry where a new planning permission is granted to extend that quarry. That is BACMI's point.
However, this argument ignores the fact that all the conditions imposed on IDOs were very rudimentary. They were even more rudimentary than the condition imposed on applications in the 1950s. BACMI also ignores the fact that while the 1981 Act gave mineral planning authorities power to review minerals workings and, where environmentally damaging, to revoke the permissions, there was a requirement to pay compensation which means that no local planning authorities can afford to implement this part of the Act. This power, therefore, is not an effective power.
The second problem with BACMI's argument is that, while an extension to an existing quarry will enable a local planning authority to impose conditions to ameliorate any problems which are associated with any part of the quarry, this does not apply when there is no requirement for the quarry to obtain planning permission for development. In these cases, quarries may continue to operate even though they cause severe environmental problems. One particular case is the problem of inappropriate access arrangements whereby quarries with the benefit of IDO permissions use an access, lined by houses, which is unsuitable for the lorry movements generated. There is nothing a local planning authority can do in these circumstances to force a determined minerals operator to improve the access arrangements. In addition, the existence of IDOs prevent local authorities from limiting the depths to which a quarry or other mineral undertaking may be worked.
Thirdly, BACMI argues that quarries subject to IDOs have to operate to modern environmental standards as they are subject to control over noise, dust, smoke, fumes, blast, vibration, restoration, aftercare, traffic, and so on. In response to that we say that local planning authorities do not argue that all quarries subject to IDOs cause environmental problems. The vast majority operate satisfactorily. However, the case still stands that much land granted permissions under IDOs is still not developed. BACMI also ignores the fact that if quarry operators are willing to talk to other regulatory bodies over environmental standards why are they so reluctant to talk to planning departments about reviews of their planning positions?
Fourthly, BACMI argues that some very large quarries are fully reliant on IDOs. Such investment may be put at risk by the proposal that all IDOs should expire and require reapplication for permission. In other cases, BACMI argues that IDO sites not currently worked are viewed by quarry companies as a reserve. Our response here is that the aim of this amendment is not to put quarries out of business but to subject them to greater environmental control. The argument in relation to reserve sites is fallacious. The analogy should be that between mineral operators and house builders. Land with planning permission for housing that remains undeveloped after five years loses its planning permission. Why should mineral operators be in a different position?
At Committee stage, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, Amendment No. 107, tried to introduce this five-year stop point, but that was not accepted. Much land subject to minerals permission under the IDOs remains undeveloped since the 1940s. Development of this land for minerals extraction should be subject to planning permission to ensure that any developments undertaken on the land are subject to updated environmental conditions. It should be borne in mind that when IDO permissions were given quarrying was basically undertaken to supply local needs. In the past 40 years conditions have changed markedly with the construction of motorways and with the extension of market areas so that quarries are now larger and are more environmentally disruptive.
Fifthly, BACMI argues that any reduction in the area of land subject to IDOs will require an equal tonnage of new quarrying permissions to be granted elsewhere to ensure that government policies on maintenance of land banks are fulfilled. In this statement BACMI ignores the fact that large areas of IDO permissions are unrecorded and unknown so that they do not figure in any assessment of reserves. It also assumes that local planning authorities will turn down planning permission for developments on all lands subject to IDOs. This is not so. What local authorities would do is to impose conditions which are suitable for the environmental standards of the 1990s. That will result in some additional costs to operators.
It may be unrealistic to expect these competing arguments to be resolved within the timescale of the passage of the Bill, but the Bill should empower the Secretary of State to arrive at such a resolution after giving both sides a proper hearing. The amendment accordingly inserts a new paragraph at the end of Schedule 1. All consents would cease to have effect six months after Royal Assent unless by then the original consent had been produced to the mineral planning authority which would compile a register. I understand that the Minister has agreed to do that.
The Secretary of State would then have a further 18 months in which to consult the industry and the authorities to decide how far to continue those consents in force, subject to what conditions and how far they should be allowed to lapse. He will do that by order. At the end of that period any consents which

675
had not been continued would lapse and the provisions which kept them alive would be finally repealed.
In moving this amendment I should like to say that the conservation bodies—the NCC, the CPRE and the RSPB—as well as the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are all anxious that something should be done. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I indicated to your Lordships on the first day of Report, the Government intend to bring forward amendments during the passage of the Bill to provide that holders of IDO permissions must apply to the appropriate mineral planning authority for the permission to be registered, or lose their consents. We shall be consulting on the details of that and on the proposal that applications for registration of IDO permissions should be accompanied by schemes of operating, restoration and, where appropriate, aftercare conditions for the approval of the mineral planning authority.
My honourable friend in another place is today answering a Question on this very matter. I rather hope that copies of the consultation paper will have been placed in the Library of another place and by now, I hope, in the Library of this House. We take the view that it would be sensible to use the opportunity of registration to apply conditions, and we believe that responsible operators share that view. Provision to appeal to the Secretary of State would be necessary, both against refusal or the imposition of unreasonable conditions by the authority, and to resolve disputes about the validity and extension of permissions. Our consultation paper will also cover the impact of the proposals on the compensation rights of operators and we will consider the responses before we take a firm decision.
Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would both require the Secretary of State to grant permitted development rights for such IDO permissions and subject to such conditions as, after consultation, he thought fit. While I appreciate the good intention behind the amendments, I do not think it would be a sensible way to proceed. The problems of individual sites should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the authorities primarily responsible. It would not be right to derogate from mineral planning authorities' responsibilities in this way. We have considered carefully whether it would be right to take statutory measures now to deal with the problems of unworked land and IDO permission boundaries. While we fully appreciate the strength of feelings on this issue and the legitimate concerns expressed, we are not convinced that it would be right to expropriate legitimate mineral working rights without a detailed examination of all the implications and full and considered consultation on any proposed changes.
We shall therefore look at these issues very closely in our comprehensive review of the existing powers available to mineral planning authorities for dealing with inadequate permissions. We shall be considering also whether we can reach conclusions on the compensation aspects in advance of the general findings of the review. In the meantime, we intend to
676
invite the industry, in the context of agreeing a scheme of operating and restoration conditions with the mineral planning authority, to discuss an adjustment to the boundaries of its rights where appropriate.
These proposals are subject to consultation with representatives of the local authorities—a point that I know was made very well by the noble Baroness—environmental groups, the industry and landowners. They aim to provide the right balance between the needs of the country for a secure and effective supply of minerals, together with information about where these sites are worked, and ensuring that the minerals are extracted in an environmentally sensitive way. It would be wrong to deny the right of those likely to be affected by any changes the opportunity to express their views and have them taken into account before any final decisions are made.
The time for consultation will, of necessity, be short, but I am sure that interested parties will have been following our debates closely. As the House is aware, there is a review in train at the moment, but the urgency of the situation was flagged-up in Committee. We said that we wanted to act quickly and positively before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses.
I shall pick up two further points made by the noble Baroness. I believe that she called the group of people to whom she was referring as BACMI. It referred to the permissions as not having the weight of planning permissions granted since the 1947 Act. However crude the conditions that went with those permissions, and however cursory the discussion before those permissions were granted, they are, nevertheless, valid planning permissions and must be seen as such. It would be wrong not to have consultations if there were to be any interference with or modification of those permissions. There was of course no requirement to register, and that is the problem we have today. The registration requirements did not then exist. It is therefore important that we establish registration as the first step. It is precisely because of some of the problems so well set out by the noble Baroness that we believe we need to act quickly. In the light of that explanation, I hope that Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I put this to her. I hope that she recognises that, with the best intentions in the world she has put us, the House and, I suspect, herself, in some difficulty. She said that her honourable friend in another place has answered a Question and published a consultation document which she hopes will be available in the Library of another place and in our Library. As she had good notice that the amendments were to be tabled, surely she could have seen to it that we had copies of the consultation document before the amendment was moved. It would have facilitated the proper conduct of the business of the House and would have made my noble friend's case and the Minister's answer much easier to develop.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that the Question was answered only a short time ago. It has

677

been on the Order Paper in another place, but the consultation paper was not published until the Question had been answered in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe that that is good enough. Business managers in another place should have seen to it that the Question and the consultation document were made available in time for consideration on Report in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that the noble Lord welcomes this positive move which I believe meets most of the objectives of the amendment. There will be a period of consultation. We hope that those invited to make representations will do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, as my noble friend said, we are left in a difficult position because we do not know what is in the consultation paper. We have had a fairly positive response from the Minister. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment, await developments and read the consultation paper. Is there any hope that the amendments which have been promised will be put down for Third Reading, or will they not appear until the Bill moves to another place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I cannot be precise about that point. I can assure the noble Baroness that the moment the amendments are ready they will be tabled. It is more likely that they will be tabled in another place. If they are ready for Third Reading, they will be tabled then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Mines and Waste—Scotland]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments No. 101 and 102:
Page 119, line 29, after ("(2)") insert ("(3)").
Page 119, line 29, leave out ("both places") and insert ("each place").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Trees]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("desirable") and insert ("expedient").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104–112, 113–117, 120–123, 243 and 247. Clause 19 makes various changes for trees reflecting, as far as practicable, the changes made in respect of planning enforcement elsewhere in the Bill. The amendments are technical, aimed at achieving a more precise match with the corresponding provisions in Clause 11 or, as in the case of Amendment No. 108, clarifying the existing drafting. Amendments Nos. 243 and 247 are consequential on Clause 19. Amendments Nos.
678
113–117 and 120–123 make similar changes, as appropriate, to the equivalent Scottish provisions. I beg to move Amendment No. 103.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 104–110:

Page 28, line 22, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question").
Page 28, line 27, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for that purpose").
Page 28, leave out lines 28 to 31.
Page 28, line 45, at end insert:
("(6A) The Secretary of State shall not authorise any person as mentioned in subsections (2) and (6) without consulting the local planning authority.").
Page 29, line 1, leave out from ("Admission") to ("unless") in line 3 and insert ("shall not be demanded as of right—

(a) by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) to any building used as a dwellinghouse; or

(b) by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) to any land which is occupied,").

Page 29, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 31 and insert ("Any power conferred under or by virtue of section 214B or 214C to enter land (referred to in this section as "a right of entry")").
Page 29, line 34, leave out from ("land") to end of line 36 and insert ("in the exercise of a right of entry").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 111–112:
Page 30, line 4, leave out ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 30, line 4, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Trees]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 113–117:
Page 51, line 41, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question").
Page 51, line 46, at end insert ("if there are reasonable grounds for entering for that purpose").
Page 52, leave out lines 1 to 4.
Page 52, line 18, at end insert:

("(6A) The Secretary of State shall not authorise any person as mentioned in subsections (2) and (6) without consulting the planning authority.").

Page 52, line 19, leave out from ("Admission") to ("unless") in line 21 and insert ("shall not be demanded as of right—

(a) by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) to any building used as a dwellinghouse; or

(b) by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) to any land which is occupied,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 120–123:
Page 52, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 48 and insert ("Any power conferred under or by virtue of section 99A or 99B to enter land (referred to in this section as "a right of entry")").
Page 53, line 3, leave out from ("land") to end of line 5 and insert ("in the exercise of a right of entry").

679
Page 53, line 20, leave out ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 53, line 20, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 80, line 41, leave out paragraph 2 and insert:
("2. For section 38(5) and (6) of that Act (withdrawal of notices) there is substituted—

"(5) The local planning authority may—

(a) withdraw a listed building enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another); or

(b) waive or relax any requirement of such a notice and, in particular, may extend the period specified in accordance with section 38(3),

and the powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised whether or not the notice has taken effect.

(6) The local planning authority shall, immediately after exercising the powers conferred by subsection (5), give notice of the exercise to every person who has been served with a copy of the listed building enforcement notice or would, if the notice were re-issued, be served with a copy of it".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125–129, 131–150, 152–156 and 159–165. Amendments Nos. 124–129 and 131–150 are all amendments to Schedule 2 in respect of listed buildings and hazardous substances enforcement provisions. They amend further the changes made by the schedule to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. For the most part, the amendments reflect the amendments tabled to the planning enforcement provisions in Part I of the Bill and will ensure consistency with those provisions. They also include some minor drafting amendments and consequential amendments.
Amendments Nos. 152–156 and 159–165 make corresponding changes to Schedule 8 to the Bill in respect of the listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous substances enforcement provisions applying to Scotland. I am happy to answer questions about the amendments in more detail if noble Lords wish. In the meantime, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 125–129:
Page 81, line 30, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("subsection (2)").
Page 81, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert:

("(3) In subsection (3) after "shall" there is inserted "subject to any order under section 65(3A)".").

Page 82, line 15, leave out ("compliance period") and insert ("period for compliance with the notice").
Page 83, line 9, leave out ("they think") and insert ("the court thinks").
Page 83, line 20, leave out ("be of no effect, or shall have such effect") and insert ("have effect, or have effect to such extent").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 130:
680
Page 83, line 28, at end insert:
("8A. After section 76 of that Act there is inserted—
"Alteration and extension in conservation areas.
76A—(1) No person shall, notwithstanding any provision of a General Development Order, without authorisation execute or cause to be executed any works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building in any manner which would materially affect the external character or appearance of the building itself, or the character or appearance of the area as a whole as an area of special architectural or historical interest.
(2) Works for the alteration or extension of a building within a conservation area which is not a listed building are authorised if—

(a) planning permission has been granted by the local planning authority; and

(b) they are executed in accordance with the terms of the permission and of any conditions attached to it.

(3) The provisions of Part 1 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 shall apply to any alteration or extension of a building falling within this section." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. Amendment No. 130 refers to conservation areas and the alterations within them. We were cheered by the degree of support that the principle of the amendment received in Committee and in some of the letters we have received subsequently. For help I am looking to the Minister, who I know shares the concern of the House on this point. It is a serious, growing and countrywide problem.
Individual buildings of high quality—in other words, listed buildings—are protected from demolition and alteration. Our villages of character and our historic quarters of towns—in other words, our 7,000 conservation areas—are protected front demolition, as noble Lords will gather from previous discussions. But they are not protected from the do-it-yourself alterations and defacements which are rapidly eroding the quality of the very areas that we are seeking to conserve and enhance.
Every one of your Lordships must have horror stories to relate of concrete roofs replacing stone slates and of plate glass windows replacing Victorian sash windows. On Sunday I noticed in one of my own conservation areas in Norwich a substantial late Victorian brick terraced house being clad in fake York stone. The neighbours complained to me and I said that we could do nothing, so they asked what a conservation area was for if it did not conserve.
At Committee stage we hoped that the Minister would agree to extend to unlisted buildings in conservation areas the same protection against significant or material external alterations as apply to all alterations of a listed building. The Minister argued then that that would generate an onerous workload. We do not share that view. We are not talking here about quite minor items of work, as the Minister suggested, but precisely about those aspects of houses which local authorities believe determine the character and the quality of an area.
The Minister made it clear at Committee stage that she prefers the route of Article 4 directions, which empower the Secretary of State to remove permitted

681
development rights of a general development order. I have to say to your Lordships, despite the persuasiveness of the Minister, that the track record of Article 4s is not encouraging. I have just had recent figures for the South-East; they are not compiled nationally. In 1987–88, the number of Article 4 directions brought forward by local authorities was 37, and the Secretary of State agreed 65 per cent. of them. But in 1988–89, when 43 Article 4 requests were brought forward by local authorities, the Secretary of State could find himself minded to grant only 19 of them, or 44 per cent. In other words, many, if not most, local authority applications for Article 4 directions are rejected by the Secretary of State and many more which should be, and would be, sought by local authorities are not, because of the climate of the DoE.
The presumption is against them. Local authorities have to show a real or potential threat to their area and by that time they are too late. Article 4 directions are partial, limited, grudging, cumbersome and belated. Your Lordships will understand why we do not think that they are particularly satisfactory.
This amendment instead offers a different route. It will not catch all alterations. It does not seek to do so, and we do not wish it to do so. It does not seek to catch even minor alterations, but only those material and significant alterations to property, such as roofs, windows and the like, which significantly affect the character of our conservation areas. It will not affect internal alterations, but only external ones, and it should perhaps be operated within a framework of guidance from the Secretary of State if the Minister is concerned that such a policy might be onerous.
But such an amendment, if accepted, would allow all of us to pass on to the next generation our villages and our towns relatively unspoiled. If we do not follow this path there will be less and less to pass on. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have reservations about this amendment. Who will decide what is material and what is not material? What is small to me may be big to the noble Baroness. I see that the amendment will not affect windows, but I think that the noble Baroness said that it would affect windows. What sort of windows? I think that this amendment will be difficult to operate in practice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley makes an interesting point and goes to the heart of some of the difficulties that we have in accepting the amendment. Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put down a very similar amendment and I agreed to give it careful consideration with my ministerial colleagues and report back at Report stage. I have also noted the noble Baroness's concluding remarks at Committee stage, when she emphasised that the amendment was intended to affect only "material" changes.
My colleagues and I have considered both the previous amendment and the present one and the

682
points made at Committee stage. There appears to be a misunderstanding of my reluctance to accept the original amendment and I may not have explained my reason clearly at Committee stage.
The noble Baroness has stressed that her amendment is intended to catch only material changes to the exterior of a building. But it is only works that materially affect the external appearance of a building which require planning permission, whether the permission is granted specifically or under the permitted development rights in Article 3 of the general development order. Permitted development covers the more common and generally acceptable alterations and extensions up to certain sizes or percentages of the original building. They may in many instances be minor, but they will always be material changes.
Obviously some changes will be more significant than others and the noble Baroness invites us to require specific planning permission for development which,
"materially and significantly affected the external character and appearance of a building or its area".
The difficulty with this approach is in defining particular types of development as "material and significant" in a way which could be applied to all conservation areas, with all their regional variations and differences in character and appearance.
I understand the great concern felt by the noble Baroness, but I must return to the unacceptable burden that local planning authorities would face if the Government accepted this amendment. We still believe, despite the scepticism of the noble Baroness, that the Article 4 direction procedure can give a reasonable level of protection to unlisted buildings in conservation areas without overloading the planning system.

Although there was a difference between the two sets of figures that the noble Baroness gave, I still believe that 44 per cent. in one case and 65 per cent. in another is a fair degree of protection in conservation areas. However, I must say that we are still considering proposals from English Heritage with a view to issuing further guidance to local planning authorities on Article 4 directions and clarification of the Secretary of State's criteria for approving them. This is the road down which we wish to go, and we believe that what is proposed in the amendment is a rather more draconian measure.
But in terms of the objectives, there is no difference of opinion between the Government and the noble Baroness. We want to achieve what she wants to achieve, but we believe that, in co-operation with English Heritage, she will advise us on how to draft the guidance, and that the Article 4 direction is the route to achieve this objective.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. If noble Lords will allow me, I shall comment on the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, about what counts as "material". I recognise that there appears to be a difficulty here, but in practice I suspect that none of us would have any

683
problems about identifying changes which materially affect the character of an area. I hoped that I had given some examples. We are talking about windows, roofs, the blocking up of windows, the blocking up of doors and moving them along to a different part of the frontage, and about cladding. It is that sort of activity that we are seeking to control.
I shall be very happy to see that defined by a code of guidance from the Secretary of State following consultation with local authorities. That would seem to meet the Minister's point of wanting, on the one hand, equity across the country, while, on the other hand, allowing local flexibility, local discretion and response to local and regional variety. That seems to me to be the way forward.
This amendment as drafted, backed up by the Secretary of State's code of guidance, would seem to meet e very problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the Minister. As at Committee stage, the Minister is putting her faith in Article 4 directions. I do not have an interest as such, but as a commissioner for English Heritage I have a very real concern about the drafting. I hope that the Minister's expectations are rig it, but I have to say that the track record shows that local authorities are discouraged from seeking Article 4 directions, and seek them only as an item of last resort. When they do, nearly 60 per cent. are rejected by the Secretary of State, which does not indicate a very positive response by the Secretary of State to the problems perceived by local authorities.
If the Minister is able, if I may use the phrase, to change that culture and turn it around in conjunction with English Heritage, that would be very welcome. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking to review the effectiveness of Article 4 directions a year or so after the proposed new PPG comes into operation to see whether they meet the needs, as the noble Baroness thinks they will. I remain entirely sceptical about them. I have not yet found a single district planning officer who favours the route of Article 4 direction. It may not be quite such a rare species as I believe it to be, but I have not yet found one of them. If the Minister insists that this is the only way forward, I can do no other than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 131 to 150 inclusive:
Page 83, leave out line 29 and insert:

("9.—(1) In section 88 of that Act (rights of entry)—

(a) in subsection (1) after "on it" there is inserted "or any other land",

(b) in subsection (2)(a) after "surveying it" there is inserted "or any other land",

(c) in subsection (2)(b) after "complied with" there is inserted "in relation to the land or any other land",

(d) in subsection (2)(c) after "on the land" there is inserted "or any other land",

(e) in subsection (2)(d) for "such building" there is substituted "building on the land or any other land",

(f) in subsection (3)(a) after "section 59" there is inserted "in relation to the land or any other land", and

684

(g) in subsection (3)(b) and (c) after "the land" there is inserted "or any other land".

(2) For subsection (7)").

Page 84, line 42, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 84, line 43, after ("entry") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 85, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 34 and insert ("The hazardous substances authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise").
Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("it") to end of line 44.
Page 85, line 45, leave out ("For") and insert ("In").
Page 85, line 45, leave out from ("appeal)") to end of line 5 on page 86 and insert ("after "shall" there is inserted "subject to regulations under this section".").
Page 86, line 14, leave out ("they think") and insert ("the court thinks").
Page 87, line 32, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 87, line 33, after ("entry") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 88, line 7, after ("44A") insert ("88").
Page 88, line 7, at end insert:
("Housing Act 1988 (c. 50.)
16A. In section 67(3A) of the Housing Act 1988 for "25 and 36" there is substituted "26AA, 36 and 36A".")
Page 88, line 10, at end insert:

("( ) in subsection (2) "within such period as may be so specified" is omitted").

Page 88, line 12, after ("notice") insert ("—(a)").
Page 88, line 14, after ("date") insert ("and

(b) shall specify the period within which any steps are required to be taken and may specify different periods for different steps,

and, where different periods apply to different steps, references in this Part to the period for compliance with a listed building enforcement notice, in relation to any step, are to the period within which the step is required to be taken".").
Page 88, line 16, at end insert:
("17A. In section 39(7) of that Act "in writing" is omitted.
17B. In section 42 of that Act—

(a) in subsection (1) for "compliance period" there is substituted "period for compliance with the notice", and

(b) subsection (7) is omitted.").

Page 88, line 17, at end insert:
("18A. In section 46(4) of that Act for "sections 42 and 43" there is substituted "section 42" and for "those sections" there is substituted "that section".").
Page 88, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("for "subsection (7)" there is substituted "section 88B(8)" and").
Page 88, line 26, at end insert:
("23A. In Schedule 3 to that Act, in paragraph 2(1)(b), after "section 41(1), (2)" there is inserted "(2A)".").
Page 88, line 36, at end insert:
("26A. In section 36(5) of that Act "Subject to subsection (6)" is omitted.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 151:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
Compulsory purchase
(". The Secretary of State or the Minister shall not confirm an order for the compulsory purchase of any land or rights over land unless he is satisfied that the owner in question of the land or rights in, on or over land in question is unwilling or unable to enter into an agreement to sell the land or the rights voluntarily.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I have to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, is not able to be in his place this afternoon. Secondly, I have to apologise for an error which has crept into the wording. The intention was that this should be placed in the Bill after Clause 48 and not after Clause 44. The mistake arose because it was the original Clause 44. I am advised that, should the House be minded to approve this amendment, it could be placed in the correct position by a simple amendment.
The arguments in favour of this amendment are three. First, voluntary negotiation before the compulsory purchase procedure is invoked can substantially reduce the resentment, bitterness and alienation which is felt by someone who is having land taken away unwillingly, which is of course the case in a compulsory purchase order. The second advantage is that the procedure is likely to be quicker, easier and involve lower legal and administrative costs. The third consideration is a practical one. Quite small concessions made at the time of negotiation can be used to speed up the negotiation and to reach a quick, agreed settlement.
I have had experience of land being taken by statutory undertakers who have compulsory purchase powers. It is the practice of many statutory undertakers and of private undertakers who have statutory powers to have voluntary negotiations before making use of their statutory power. We have a very nice man who negotiates on behalf of the Electricity Board. He comes along and says "We have to get this through", and I say "It is going to be difficult, because we want the irrigation to …" and then he says "Oh dear: well, what can we do about it?" and we work at it together. One day I said to him, "Mr. So and So, I am not going to agree to this voluntarily, but of course I know you have statutory powers". His reply was, "Oh no, Lord Northbourne, I would not do that to you." And of course in the end you melt and you agree.
We have the same experience with the council roads man. He is such a nice man and he listens to everything you have to say. I can only say to the noble Baroness that this practice really does work. Therefore I believe that, in its modified form, this amendment is simply designed to bring the procedures used by all local authorities up to the standard of that used by the best. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, in bringing forward this amendment the noble Lord argues once more for prohibition on the use of compulsory purchase powers until it has been established that the owner of the land concerned is not prepared to sell it voluntarily.
In preparing for this debate, I looked again at what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said in Committee when moving a similar amendment. I have of course also listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said this evening, but I am afraid that I cannot see what useful purpose this amendment would serve. As he has said, acquiring authorities in
686
many cases seek to negotiate a voluntary sale of land before exercising their powers of compulsory purchase.
The Government would certainly not wish to discourage them from proceeding in this way wherever it makes sense to do so. But I do not believe that there would be any advantage in introducing a statutory requirement that voluntary negotiations must have taken place before a compulsory purchase order can be confirmed. As I said in Committee, it does not seem to me that such a requirement would ultimately make any difference to the respective positions of the vendor and the authority. Each side would be well aware that compulsory purchase powers were available in the event of agreement not being reached.
Therefore I cannot believe that the requirement would in practice cause either party to adopt a fundamentally different attitude from that which they would otherwise have had. Of course it would not be realistic to expect the acquiring authority to offer more for the land than the market price they would have to pay at the stage of compulsory purchase.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has argued that his provision would have the effect of speeding up procedures because owners would be more willing to negotiate without the immediate threat of compulsory purchase. I remain very doubtful about that. Where an owner is prepared to sell his land voluntarily there is nothing under present procedures to prevent the transaction taking place on the basis of an agreement. As we are both agreed, that is precisely what often happens in practice. But where an owner does not want to sell, the fact that the authority may not immediately be able to acquire by compulsion would not, in my judgment, prompt him to change his attitude. The likelihood is that in such a case the authority would surely ultimately still have to resort to compulsory purchase, and all that would have been achieved would be an unnecessary period of delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is also a very nice man and very persuasive, but he has not been quite persuasive enough. I very much hope he will accept that what he proposes will in practice have no material effect on the process of acquiring land for public development, other than to slow it down. We note the people the noble Lord comes across and the persuasive powers they use, together with the disarming and charming way in which they use them, and we hope that such a practice will prevail. However, to insist upon the voluntary element being compulsory before compulsory purchase powers are applied, is, I am afraid, not possible for us to accept. In view of what I have said, I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, if I were negotiating with the noble Baroness I would perhaps ask her to issue guidelines or a code of practice to the relevant authorities in this context, urging them to use negotiation wherever possible. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Hazardous Substances—Scotland]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 inclusive:
Page 123, line 23, after ("notice)") insert:

("(a) paragraph (1) (c) is omitted; and

(b)").

Page 123, line 25, after ("notice") insert ("(a)").
Page 123, line 27, at end insert ("and

(b) shall specify the period within which any steps are required to be taken and may specify different periods for different steps,

and, where different periods apply to different steps, references in this Part of this Act to the period for compliance with a listed building enforcement notice, in relation to any step, are to the period within which the step is required to be taken".").
Page 123, line 28, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
("5. For section 92(5) of that Act (withdrawal of notices) there is substituted—

"(5) The planning authority may—

(a) withdraw a listed building enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another); or

(b) waive or relax any requirement of such a notice and, in particular, may extend the period specified in accordance with section 93(4) of this Act,

and the powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised whether or not the notice has taken effect.

(5A) The planning authority shall, immediately after exercising the powers conferred by subsection (5), give notice of the exercise to every person who has been served with a copy of the listed building enforcement not ice or would, if the notice were re-issued, be served with a copy of it".").

Page 124, line 45, leave out ("compliance period") and insert ("period for compliance with the notice").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 inclusive have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 not moved]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 126, line 37, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 160 to 165:
Page 126, line 38, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 127, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 26 and insert ("The planning authority shall, immediately after exercising those powers, give notice of the exercise").
Page 127, line 29, leave out from ("it") to end of line 36.
Page 128, line 27, leave out second ("person") and insert ("authority").
Page 128, line 28, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").
Page 128, line 51, at end insert:
("11A. In section 265 (rights of entry)—

(a) in subsection (2), for "thereon" there is substituted "on that or any other land"; and

(b) in subsection (3), for "the land" there is substituted "on that or any other land".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Consideration of provisions of development plan
. For section 70(2) of the principal Act there is substituted—
"(2) In dealing with such an application the authority shall first consider the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and shall then have regard to any other material considerations." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that this amendment has considerable support outside the House from local authority associations and conservation groups. Its intention is to strengthen the whole basis of the new planning system established by the Bill. At present, the Bill does not strengthen the status of structure and local plans. That is why at Committee stage I tabled an amendment making the development plan the primary consideration when dealing with planning applications and appeals.
Unfortunately, the amendment was not acceptable to the Government on the grounds that it would make the development plan override everything else and that all the changes needed to strengthen the plans had already been made in the new planning policy guidance notes. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for discussing the amendment with me last week. I hope that the Government can now accept my new wording. I understand that there is a refined legal debate over the use of the word "primary" so I have simplified matters. The new amendment merely requires the development plan to be the first consideration when dealing with applications and appeals. What objection can there be to that? It is exactly what the Government have been telling us for the past few months.
The amendment does not mean that every development will have to stick rigidly to the plan; merely that greater weight should be attached to it when deciding on planning applications. In simple terms, I am trying to achieve a situation where, for example, if a local plan states that 2,000 houses are required within the next five years, we do not find five years later that 3,000 houses have been built because the plan has been ignored. This is exactly what is happening in too many cases.
I hope that the amendment can be accepted and supported with a change to planning policy guidance. I fear that we have not yet altered all our guidance to confirm the importance of the development plan, despite what the Government said at Committee stage. Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, or PPG1, as it is known, sets out the principle of the planning system, stating that there is a presumption in favour of development. It has not been altered since it was published in January 1988.
Yet, by contrast, it was reported in The Times on 17th November last year that the then Minister responsible for Housing, Michael Spicer, had announced at the press conference launching the Bill that there was "a presumption against" planning applications that conflicted with structure and local

689
plans. I should be grateful if my noble friend would take the opportunity in her reply to confirm that the statement is correct and that the Government will amend Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 accordingly as soon as possible. I cannot overstress the simplicity of the amendment or its beneficial effects and urge noble Lords to support the amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we support this amendment, as we did its predecessor at Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, we have drawn back from the situation where the development plan would be the primary consideration to making it the first consideration. This seems a simple and straightforward way of ensuring that sufficient weight is given to development plans.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England supports the amendment and is emphatic that it is not intended to mean that every development should stick rigidly to the development plan. It would only be the first consideration, so far as it is material to planning applications. Surely it is important to provide that developers and conservationists should enjoy a degree of certainty about the future development of the area covered by the plan. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I say to my noble friend that the Government have taken much trouble in Schedule 3, which contains 16 pages, in order to rationalise and strengthen the procedure for making development plans. Therefore, presumably they consider that the development plans are important and in each local authority planning area they should be the foundation of the local policy in the granting or refusing of applications for planning permission and in deciding how development should be distributed in that area.
We do not ask for the development plan to be the overriding or final consideration, but that it should at least be the first consideration so that what is done fits into this greatly improved system of development plans. It seems to me that this, or an amendment to the same effect, is a necessary, natural sequence to what the Government have done in Schedule 12. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will give it serious consideration. I can see no reason why she should not accept it this evening, but, if not, I hope that she will not lose sight of it and if necessary will ensure that action is taken on it in another place.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, in considering*** planning applications, a local planning authority is required by Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as it is material to the application, and to any other material consideration. To that extent the development plan is just one—but an important one—of the material considerations that an authority must take into account in determining an application.
Amendment No. 167, moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie, seeks to alter that balance by requiring
690
an authority first to consider the provisions of the development plan and then to have regard to any other material considerations. Consideration of the development plan first has, to my mind, a strong temporal connotation; or perhaps I should say time sequence. If this is the intended purpose of the amendment, I suggest that little would be gained by it. Alternatively, "first" could involve a degree of weighting, so that the development plan automatically became the priority consideration, to be accorded greater weight than any other material consideration in decision-making. I believe, from what my noble friend has said, that this is, in fact, the underlying aim of his amendment. If so, I am afraid the same objections arise as we raised in Committee to the notion of the development plan as the "primary" consideration. In our view, to take that step and say that there is a presumption in favour of what is in accordance with the plan, and a presumption against what is not in accordance with the plan, is to go too far in the direction of rigidity.
We do not wish to give overriding priority to the provisions of the development plan over all other material considerations in determining planning applications. Section 70(2) already singles out the development plan by name and to that extent gives it a certain standing among the other, unnamed, material considerations. The Government have already stated as a matter of planning policy guidance (in PPG Note 12 issued in 1988) that where there is an up-to-date local plan which is consistent with national and regional policies, and with the relevant provisions of the structure plan, it will carry considerable weight. Where there is such a plan, together with properly substantiated reasons for the local authority's decision, the Secretary of State and his inspectors will be guided by it in dealing with planning applications. It is our intention to incorporate and expand this message about the status of the development plan in a revision of PPG Note 1.
We are reluctant to alter the current statutory position with regard to the status of the development plan, as we wish to maintain the desirable flexibility inherent in the present provision. Our planning system achieves a very difficult balance between the application of consistent general policies on the one hand, and full regard for the merits of individual proposals on the other. That is a balance which is not always achieved by planning systems based on zoning mechanisms. We consider that this amendment would move the system too far in the latter direction, and would weaken the discipline on planning authorities to give full, clear and precise reasons for every refusal of permission. That said, I can confirm it is our intention to continue to stress in policy guidance the importance we attach to the role of the development plan in development control matters. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope she will consider the following point. I have been trying very hard to follow my noble friend, but she speaks faster than my mind registers,

691
unfortunately. It would seem to follow from what she has said that, as there is to be no prime consideration of the development plan, the development plan could, in a few cases, be completely ignored and overruled without any reason having been given. Could that situation follow from what my noble friend has said, and if so, is she content with that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a situation which is wholly unacceptable to the Government. There will be occasions when either the development plan is not sufficiently comprehensive, or it is at the tail end of its life and therefore is not so directly relevant to the issues that are involved in the application under consideration. In policy guidance having regard to the plan will be absolutely essential.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her lengthy reply. We shall have to study Hansard carefully to see exactly what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Development Plans]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 89, line 4, at end insert:
("1A. At the beginning of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted—
"Regional Planning Guidance.
9A.—(1) Local planning authorities may combine into regional groupings, or the Secretary of State may specify regional combinations of local planning authorities, to prepare Regional Planning Guidance for approval by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the form and content of Regional Planning Guidance and the procedure to be followed in connection with its preparation, withdrawal, adoption, submission, making, alteration, repeal and replacement.
(3) Any regulations made under subsection (2) shall include provision for publicity to be given to—

(a) matters to be included or excluded in Regional Planning Guidance.

(b) the procedures to be followed as mentioned in subsection (2)." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 168, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184. These amendments are concerned with the issue of regional planning guidance. Regional planning guidance is a development which, in my view, has not been very thoroughly planned. It has, rather like Topsy, just growed. As local planning authorities have recognised the desirability of putting their planning policies into the context of their regions, it has been increasingly recognised that there is something between local planning and national planning which is properly the preserve of the Secretary of State and of national government.
Oddly enough, as regional plans and regional planning guidance have grown up, they have done so without any statutory basis, or any proper way of determining how they should be prepared in the first place, or how the public should be involved in their preparation or given an opportunity to comment on the plans after they have been prepared. The
692
Government have recognised that this is a problem. I understand that there is to be a one-day conference in March to discuss the forthcoming review of regional planning guidance for the South East. That is obviously a good thing and we welcome it.
I am sure that Labour local authorities will wish to participate in that conference. However, that is a far cry from the kind of provision which we believe to be necessary to put regional planning guidance into legislation. We are still talking about that as a possibility rather than as a requirement. We suggest in Amendment No. 168 that,
"Local planning authorities may combine … or the Secretary of State may specify regional combinations".
Clearly, if neither the local planning authorities nor the Secretary of State feel that regional planning guidance is desirable, there is no point in imposing it on local planning authorities in a region.
Perhaps the more important aspect of Amendment No. 168 is that it provides for regulations on the form and content of regional planning guidance so that it can be established on a comparable basis throughout the country. The amendment also makes provision for publicity to be given to the regional planning guidance.
Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 have been proposed by the Association of County Councils. The amendments attempt to build on the desirable statutory status for regional planning guidance by restricting the power of the Secretary of State to comment on and alter structure plans except in cases where they conflict with regional planning guidance.
The requirement that the Secretary of State will have to approve structure plans is an unsatisfactory requirement as it stands. First, that is a slow process. It is common for longer delays to arise in waiting for the Secretary of State's approval for structure plans than in the preparation of the structure plans themselves. That cannot be a good thing. Secondly, the powers that the Secretary of State has to disapprove structure plans are very wide. The Secretary of State can in effect do what he likes with them. If he considers them to be unsatisfactory, that is sufficient as a criterion.
We believe we should have a better established network of regional planning guidance. That latter guidance should constitute the regional control of local planning authority structure plans. The locus of the Secretary of State should be confined to those cases where individual structure plans conflict with the regional planning guidance. In that way the Secretary of State is doing what central government should be doing, which is asserting the national interest rather than attempting to double-guess what is properly a regional impact.
I shall not discuss Labour Party policy for the establishment of regional government. That would be inappropriate at this time. Clearly, however, the thinking is on the same lines. We are not talking about the thinking of a single political party, but of many people in local and national government. It is recognised that we are moving in that direction. It

693
seems right to us that the movements that have been made in that direction should now be codified, rationalised and brought more formally into the cascade of decision making on planning matters. I beg to move.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I support the amendment. As a member of the late lamented East Anglia Economic Planning Council I was involved in the original regional plan for East Anglia. That gave rise to the county structure plans within the region, and later the area plans. This Government, in their wisdom, abolished the planning councils. I, together with two Members of your Lordships' House on adjacent Benches to the Benches I sit on, had a very happy time on the East Anglia planning council. However, the Government abolished that body.
I have not kept too closely in touch with planning, but I am kept fairly well informed of the current position. There seem to be in the regions ad hoc bodies of planners which advise the Minister who then tells them what they have advised him to do. I am slightly confused about this situation. There is no public consultation over what those bodies advise the Minister to advise them. I wish to hear the Minister's comments on this matter more than anything else.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I can help the noble Lord, although not as regards agreeing with him about the amendment. I was a member of the East Anglia Consultative Committee which was the successor body to the body that the noble Lord mentioned. I was also a fairly longstanding member of the Standing Conference of East Anglia Local Authorities. That body has done sterling work in this sphere. At this moment that body is advising the Secretary of State on what I believe will become the regional guidance document which will form the background of the structure plan. Therefore, I believe that the situation in East Anglia is pretty healthy at the moment.
Amendment No. 168 would have the effect of making regional groups of local planning authorities responsible for preparing regional planning guidance for approval by the Secretary of State. That would replace the present system where guidance is issued by the Secretary of State on the advice of such groups.
The main purpose of regional planning guidance is to provide a framework for the preparation of development plans. It should cover matters which need to be considered on a wider geographical basis than that of individual county structure plans. It is the government of the day which carries responsibility for policies which apply above the county level. Regional planning guidance represents advice from the Secretary of State for the Environment to local planning authorities on the application of government policy at the regional level.
The existing system works well. It is not a uniform system but it is evolving to meet the different needs of different parts of the country. Regional guidance is in place in south-east England and the Secretary of State
694
is currently considering advice provided by SERPLAN before producing new guidance. As I said, in respect of East Anglia, the Secretary of State will shortly produce his final guidance in response to advice from SCEALA—another local authority grouping. Groups of local authorities are now taking at least the initial steps towards producing advice in all regions.
In drawing up his guidance, the Secretary of State will listen to advice from regional groups of authorities. However, it is no more than advice, and clearly he will give greater weight to advice that has the widest possible backing in the regions. The Secretary of State will also publish his guidance in draft form and consult as widely as possible before issuing guidance in its final form. The existing system allows for the fullest possible consultation before the Government give their guidance. We would not wish to see the system replaced by a third tier of bureaucracy between the counties and the Government.
The Bill makes the status of regional planning guidance absolutely clear. Counties must have regard to it when drawing up their development plans. I see no need to give regional guidance further statutory force or to provide formal statutory machinery. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 is to restrict the Secretary of State's power to direct modification of a structure plan or to call it in for his own approval. The amendments would provide that he could take such action only if a plan was not in conformity with regional planning guidance or with current national policies. We made it clear that the Secretary of State will be particularly concerned to ensure that structure plans are in conformity with national and regional policies; and it is in that context that he is most likely to use his powers of intervention. However, it would be undesirable to confine his powers wholly to that particular context. There may be occasions—rare but not inconceivable—when intervention by the Secretary of State would be desirable for other reasons.
For example, one of the main functions of the county structure plan is to allocate housing provision for the plan period on a district-by-district basis, so that there is a clear framework for local plan preparation at the district level. One can conceive of a situation in which there is unresolved disagreement between districts and county as to the appropriate distribution of housing provision; a situation, perhaps, in which several districts regard the county's structure plan provision as quite simply wrongheaded. Suppose the county persists with its proposals despite the objections of the districts. That is not a matter of national or regional policy; it is a matter of policy at county/district level. Are noble Lords opposite really saying that the Secretary of State should be debarred from intervening and seeking to resolve such a disagreement by the use of his reserve powers? That would not be sensible.
A further objection to the amendments is that they would be bound to give rise to argument as to whether

695
a particular issue was a national or regional issue and therefore one in which the Secretary of State could properly intervene. I appreciate that the intention of the amendments is to circumscribe the Secretary of State's powers, but do we want to do so in a way which is likely to give rise to legal argument and possibly legal challenge on issues which can only be a matter of judgment?
I can assure the House that my right honourable friend has no intention of using his reserve powers in a reckless or meddlesome way. The whole aim of our proposals is to enable him to draw back from day-to-day involvement in the approval of structure plans. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that flexible powers, capable of dealing with a range of situations which we may not be able to foresee in every detail, are essential. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to conceal the fact that I am very disappointed by that response. The Minister appears to have failed to recognise how unsatisfactory the present situation is in relation to structure plans. She made no attempt to answer the point that it very often takes longer for the Secretary of State to consider structure plans for approval than it takes to draw up the plans themselves, despite the fact that the drawing up of structure plans is a slow process because of the amount of consultation that is required, whereas the Secretary of State is not bound to consult anyone when he is considering whether or not to approve structure plans.
The Government are being very heavy handed. Having provided the possibility, rather than a requirement, for the creation of regional organisations such as SCEALA or SERPLAN, they have failed to give the statutory backing that might be required. It would not be imposed on anybody; it would only apply if it was wanted. The Government are failing to ensure that there is adequate consultation on their proposals.
I am not suggesting that either SCEALA or SERPLAN have failed to consult on their proposals. The point is that in every other aspect of planning law and in every response that the Government have given to amendments to the Bill the importance of public consultation has been emphasised. I agree with that. Why should it not apply to this part of the planning legislation?
I also believe that it is wrong for the Government to say that what is proposed here is a new tier of planning authority. What is proposed is a sensible devolution from the present provision that the Secretary of State can intervene on any aspect of a county structure plan which he considers unsatisfactory; and in that context it is the Secretary of State who defines what is unsatisfactory rather than anyone else.
I accept, as a drafting point in relation to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184, that it would be advisable to have an additional provision that the Secretary of State can intervene when there is serious dispute between the districts and the county about the county structure plan. On that basis alone I would not
696
wish to press those amendments. However, it is only with the greatest reluctance that I feel that it would not be appropriate to press Amendment No. 168. I still feel that the Government have not recognised the force of the case that is being made. I hope that we shall find other ways of persuading them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 89, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("Regulations") in line 9, and insert ("for the words from "other" to the end there is substituted "use of land in their area.

(3A) The policies shall, subject to subsection (3B), include policies in respect of—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;

(b) the improvement of the physical environment; and

(c) the management of traffic.

(3B)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 170 was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 89, line 35, after ("may") insert ("in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 171 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. There was considerable discussion of urban development corporations at Committee stage and I do not want to go over that ground again. Certainly I shall not bore the House by repeating my strong reservations about some of the activities of urban development corporations.
However, in responding to those amendments the Minister was quite helpful. She said that it would be exceptional for urban development corporations to be excluded from the preparation of plans and that that would occur when the urban development corporation had not completed substantial public consultation or demonstrated that its proposals were acceptable to local people.
With these amendments, and in particular with Amendment No. 172, on the face of the Bill we are fleshing out the indications given by the Minister concerning the ways in which the power to exclude urban development corporations from local plans would be used in practice.
Ideally, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendments as they stand. If not, I hope that she will recognise that they are in line with what she stated in Committee. I hope that she will indicate fairly clearly that they are in line with government policy, and that such provision is the basis on which the Government will consider allowing the exclusion of UDCs from local plans. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, new Section 12A of the principal Act, to which these amendments refer, empowers the Secretary of State to direct, in a particular case, that a UDP shall not apply to the area

697
of an urban development corporation. Amendment No. 172 specifies just two circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be able to exercise this power.
Noble Lords will recall that at the Committee stage of the Bill I explained that the power given to the Secretary of State in Section 12A was a precautionary measure, to be used in exceptional circumstances only. I gave two illustrations of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might want to use the power—illustrations which clearly form the basis of this amendment.
But the Secretary of State will need to respond to situations as they arise. It is important that the power should be flexible. Embodying in the legislation definitions of the circumstances in which the reserve power may be used could unwittingly restrict his ability to react to situations which cannot necessarily be foreseen. The two instances the noble Lord has quoted in his amendment (where the urban development corporation has recently completed extensive public consultation on its own development proposals for the area, and where there is conflict between the urban development corporation and the local planning authority) are good examples of when the power might be used, but they may well not be the only examples.
Let me try to give another example. One could have a situation in which consultations by the UDC on its proposals for its area were proceeding more or less in parallel with the planning authority's consultations on a draft local plan, but were not complete by the time that local plan was due to go on deposit. The planning authority and the corporation might be in full agreement that it would be better for the UDC's proposals to be taken forward separately, rather than spliced prematurely into the local plan. Under the noble Lord's proposals, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to respond to that situation by excluding the UDC area from the local plan. I cannot believe that that is sensible if both authorities concerned were agreed that it is the right solution.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the provision as it stands in Section 12A is necessary if the Secretary of State is to be able to respond to such circumstances, and to others which we may not be able to foresee. I can assure the House again that in the normal case we shall expect a UDC area to be included in a local plan or unitary development plan; exclusion will be very much the exception. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State's power should not be unduly circumscribed. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have thought that we could have made more progress. Examples given by the noble Viscount were referred to when the matter was discussed at Committee. I find his further example singularly unconvincing. If there is agreement between the local planning authority and the urban development corporation, and it is simply a matter of the timing of the preparation of plans, I cannot understand why the exclusion should be insisted on by the Secretary of State. He would be
698
intervening between an urban development corporation and a local planning authority which are in agreement about what should be done.
Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 172 provides that the Secretary of State can exclude a UDC area where there is substantial disagreement between the corporation and local planning authorities. That exclusion encompasses not only the additional example that the noble Viscount has given but any other example. It is difficult to see where other flexibility would be desirable when overriding importance must be given to securing that local plans and unitary development plans are as comprehensive and effective as possible.
I remind the House that urban development corporations are not meant to be permanent organisations; they are called short-term bodies. They are supposed to be dissolved when their task has been fulfilled. However, what is likely to happen if the Government persist in that attitude is that the urban development corporations will have disappeared. They will have dissolved themselves. But their memory will linger on in the form of a gaping hole in the unitary development plan. That is a quite unsatisfactory situation. I cannot believe that on mature reflection it is what even this Government would wish to do.
I suppose that it is not appropriate to divide the House on this matter. However, it is an issue on which I am deeply dissatisfied. I may have to reconsider the position at Third Reading. With great reluctance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 90, line 11, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 174 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 180, 193, 197 to 202 and 204. Those are generally technical amendments of a drafting or consequential nature. If individual amendments are of particular interest to noble Lords, I shall be glad to explain their purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 90, line 14, at end insert ("except such representations or parts thereof as relate to those provisions of the unitary development plan which are substantially the same as those contained in any local plan which is in force in respect of the area in question at the time when the unitary development plan is prepared.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I speak also to Amendment No. 176. We have talked about public consultation. I believe we are agreed that in principle we are in favour of public consultation. However, the amendments seek to assume that public consultation is not repetitive, time-consuming and expensive, and that it does not delay the proper progress in preparation of unitary development plans.
Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act, local planning authorities are required to include any local plans which are in force in the area at the time when the unitary development plan is being prepared in Part 2 of the unitary development plan. It is also required that they should indicate which, if any, parts of the local plans have been altered in the preparation of the unitary development plan.
However, because of the public consultation procedures in the unitary development plan, there is the distinct possibility that those who have objected to the local plan have another opportunity, without any change in the circumstances, to object to the incorporation of the local plan in the unitary development plan.
We are in danger of having the same ground dragged over a second time. That cannot be desirable for the effective and speedy implementation of unitary development plans. It does not add to public protection. I hope that noble Lords will feel that this minor restriction on repetitive public consultation is justified. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 175 would be to remove the need for the local planning authority to consider representations to a unitary development plan where the objection relates to policies which have been incorporated without substantial alteration from an existing local plan in force in the area. Amendment No. 176 would remove the existing requirement for incorporating existing local plans into unitary development plans.
This is an aspect of the transition from local plans to unitary development plans that we have considered in some detail, and I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 205, which I believe answers his concern.
Our provision allows policies that have already been adopted or approved as part of a local plan to be incorporated into the unitary development plan for the area without affording objectors an automatic right to be heard by the inspector; but only if the policies have not been substantially altered and the inspector is satisfied that there has been no significant change in the circumstances. This preserves the right to have the objections to any policies in the new plan considered. It will ensure that unitary development plan inquiries do not become unduly overburdened by the objections which have been heard at previous local plan inquiries.

Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that these amendments are unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I shall do so, but Amendment No. 205 is two and a half pages long and comes in a group which is described as transitional provisions. So it is not surprising that I did not study every line, comma, and syllable of that amendment in order to discover what is quite a significant point.
It occurs to me that if Amendment No. 205 answers my arguments, the Government should have suggested that that amendment be taken with my
700
amendments, Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 in the grouping. On the whole that would have helped to avoid wasting the time of the House.
I hope that the noble Lord is right. If he is not I shall certainly return to this matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I must tell the House that if Amendment No. 178 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 179.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 92, line 29, leave out from ("area") to end of line 30 and insert:
("(2A) The policies shall, subject to subsection (3), include policies in respect of—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;

(b) the improvement of the physical environment; and

(c) the management of traffic.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 94, line 9, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 96, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert:
("35B.—(1) At any time during the intervening period the local planning authority shall cause an examination in public to be held of any matter affecting the proposals unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis, I should like to move Amendment No. 185 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 185A and 185B tabled by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon—not to the exclusion of him speaking to the amendments, but I know that they are to be considered together.
We return to the issue of examinations in public of structure plans, which was debated in Committee. The problem that we found with the Bill as originally drafted was that examinations in public were too discretionary. There is too much opportunity for them not to be held unless the Secretary of State directs that an examination in public should be held.
Amendment No. 185 provides basically that an examination in public should be held unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State. In other words, in trade union terms, it is contracting out rather than contracting in to examinations in public.
We were encouraged by the support given to the increased use of examinations in public and by the comments that the Minister made. Although the comments were supportive and there was a good

701
reception to the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lady Hollis, we believe that the objections that could be made to examinations in public are fairly trivial. Examinations in public ensure that planning has to come up to the highest quality. They give the planning procedures the authority and legitimacy that they deserve. The power of the Secretary of State to direct otherwise provides that in cases in which such examinations are not necessary the procedures can be streamlined.
It seems to us that this amendment strikes very much the right balance between a discretion to avoid unnecessary examinations in public and the normal presumption that examinations in public should be held. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 185A, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I shall not be terribly alarmed if my amendment, Amendment No. 185A, is not called because I do not intend to press it. I seek information more than anything else. I had hoped to speak on this matter when it was raised at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Unfortunately, I was out of London at the time and did not return until the debate had finished. I wrote to the Minister outlining the position and included in my letter a fairly lengthy statement of the situation as I saw it on this part of Schedule 3.
I am happy to say that I received two very courteous letters from the Minister, one of which was lengthy and very detailed. Unfortunately, neither of the letters dealt with this part of the schedule. They related to another part of the schedule. Nevertheless I found them acceptable and interesting. I therefore proceeded to table the amendments.
It will be seen that Amendment No. 185A is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 185. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and myself seek much the same thing; namely, that the examination in public must be held rather than may be held. At the back of my attitude is the recollection that some time ago, when he was Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley announced that the south east of England was in need of upwards of half a million dwellings to meet the housing need. I forget the precise figure; it was perhaps 600,000. Much of the shortfall could be made up by means of infill in London and other towns and conurbations in the area but by no means all of it. Something of the order of half those 500,000 or 600,000 dwellings would have to be built somewhere in the counties of south east England, outside the green belt. That meant that the counties would be required to contribute in some way by providing land to ease the shortfall in housing.
The problem is that this part of the Bill, which changes the older law, up to a point makes the counties more or less judge and jury in their own case. In some respects the Bill is a Nimby's charter and the councils can say, "Not in my back yard"—or, as is sometimes said, "Not in my term of office". At all
702
events, as it stands the counties will have the whip hand in deciding whether or not land can be provided to meet housing need.
I do not believe that that is right or sensible. Let us look back to earlier days. I live in Hampstead Garden Suburb which was built about 90 years ago on a greenfield site in what was then the County of Middlesex. It is by no means certain that that land would have been available for housing under this Bill as it stands. The same could be said of Letchworth or Welwyn Garden City in the County of Hertfordshire. It is not at all certain that those developments could have gone ahead had the provisions of this part of the Bill been in operation.
I am not trying to express a generalised distrust of the county councils. I am merely suggesting that they are likely to put their own needs first and those of others second. In support of that belief I wish to quote part of a statement that I have received from the House Builders Federation. It is possible that the Minister has read the statement which states:
"Perhaps the Federation's concern about 'local choice' can best be illustrated by the position emerging in Hampshire where the structure plan review proposes a future housing requirement of 58,000 dwellings in the period 1991–2001. This is some 8,500 dwellings or 13% less than the current requirement for Hampshire set out in DOE Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 9".
The statement continues:
"Here, the County are exercising their 'local choice' to the extent that even indigenous housing needs will not be satisfied and opportunities for further investment in the County will be severely curtailed".
That is the view of the House Builders Federation in regard to Hampshire. It is unlikely that Hampshire will be able to help to meet the general shortfall in housing in the South-East if it persists in that attitude—or if it is permitted to persist in that attitude.
Amendment No. 185A has the same aim as Amendment No. 185. Amendment No. 185B sets out detailed provisions relating to the manner in which the examinations in public would be held. In particular it relates to the information which the inquiry would be obliged to provide to objectors after it was over.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may refer to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about time wasting. I have written to him an extensive letter explaining the issues in respect of Amendment No. 205. The letter was dispatched on Friday and I am sure that he will find its contents helpful before the next stage of the Bill.
While listening to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I was reminded that during our debates on the Bill we have lurched from having faith in local authorities to not doing so. It is interesting to note that at one moment I am forced to say, "Please trust local authorities", while at the next I am being told not to trust them.
I promised to return to the House on Amendment No. 176, moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, proposing that the examination in public should be mandatory. Amendment No. 185 now moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, provides

703
that the EIP should be mandatory unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. We agree with the intention underlying this amendment. We agree that it would be preferable to place a duty on county planning authorities to hold an examination in public and to provide that any departure from that role must be authorised by the Secretary of State. In almost all cases an EIP will be necessary; dispensing with one will be very much the exception. We shall make that clear in guidance.
I should like to consider further the precise form which a new provision should take. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me a little more time to consider the wording on the understanding that I shall certainly bring forward an amendment at a later stage to place a duty on authorities to hold an EIP unless the Secretary of State agrees otherwise. There will an obligation on the local authorities to hold the examination in public, unless there is a determination by the Secretary of State that the matter may not be contentious and that it may be time wasting to hold an examination. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, would similarly make the holding of an examination in public mandatory. However, they are also intended to go further than that and to confer a right to be heard on objectors; make provision for the distribution of copies of the panel's report; and to give objectors to a structure plan a final right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I explained in Committee why we do not favour granting a right to be heard to those who raise objections to a draft structure plan. The planning authority must consider all written objections; but EIPs are conducted on the basis of a selective consideration of key issues and participants are invited to attend. To grant a general right to be heard would completely alter the nature of the EIP and turn it into a much more unwieldy and time-consuming event.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, seek to turn a structure plan EIP into the equivalent of an inquiry into objections to local plan proposals. But even with local plan inquiries, every objector is not entitled to receive a copy of the inspector's report and the authority's statement of decisions. Objectors do, however, receive notice of the availability of these documents for inspection and regulations provide for their sale at a reasonable charge.
We propose to cover the equivalent aspects for the new structure plan system under regulations. The report of the EIP panel would be published and made available for public inspection, as would the planning authority's statement of decisions on the panel's recommendations. If the authority wished to propose modifications to their proposals, these too would be published for the purpose of objection. Participants at the EIP and other objectors would be notified that the
704
relevant documents were available for inspection. In this way the public will be involved at each stage towards the plan's adoption.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, was worried about counties having the whip hand. We are saying that in future counties will not have the whip hand. Schedule 3 will require their structure plans to have regard to national policies and regional guidance. Through regional guidance the Secretary of State will continue to set housing provision figures as he does now. He will have reserve powers to ensure that they are met. Of course, counties will have local choice as regards where but not as regards how many.
The new system also provides for some or all of structure plan proposals to be called in for the Secretary of State's decision. It would be open to objectors who were unhappy with the planning authority's decision on the panel's recommendations to ask the Secretary of State to step in. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I have neglected one of the many helpful letters that the Minister has sent to me, I apologise. She kindly provided me with an explanation of government amendments, and Amendment No. 205 was described merely as being consequential on changes to Schedule 3 but she gave no further detail. I accept that the Minister must have written to me about the matter and that in the flood of paper I have overlooked it.
As regards Amendment No. 185, I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that the matter will be covered in planning policy guidance. That is probably so far as I can take it. If she decides that she wishes to raise the status of the provision that examinations in public shall be the norm rather than the exception, she will have our full support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 185A:
Page 96, line 11, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 12 and insert:
("shall cause an examination in public to be held for the purpose of considering objections to their proposals for the making, alteration, repeal or replacement of a structure plan.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for her comments, and shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 185A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 185B not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 97, line 18, at end insert:

"("(1A) A local planning authority may at any time with the approval of the Secretary of State prepare for their area or any part of thereof a plan to be known as a local subject plan and in this Act, save for this subsection and subsection (2) of this section, a local subject plan shall be deemed to be a local plan or, as appropriate, part of part II of the unitary development plan, for all purposes unless the context otherwise requires.

705

(1B) In a non-metropolitan county, a local subject plan relating to an area not wholly comprised in one district shall only be prepared by or with the consent of the county planning authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 186, 190, 191, 192 and 196 seek to patch up an unfortunate hole in the Bill's proposals for the development plan system. I have welcomed the Bill's intention to retain county structure plans and to make mandatory the preparation of district-wide local plans. However, the Bill makes no provision for carrying forward existing arrangements for the preparation of subject plans by local authorities.
At present there are approximately 40 subject plans. They usually have one or two functions. First, they deal with particularly controversial issues. Secondly, they tackle issues which cut across district and county boundaries.
I have no doubt that a full coverage of local plans will make the first of those functions largely redundant; for example, Humberside, a county known for intensive livestock rearing, can deal through a new structure or local plan and will not need to renew its subject plan.
However, the second function is much more difficult. Local and structure plans cannot cope easily with issues needing detailed policies which cut across boundaries; for example, a draft subject plan recently published by North Yorkshire County Council defines the detailed boundaries as the green belt around York. That involves no less than five separate district councils. It would be quite unrealistic to expect all those districts to come forward with their local plans at the same time to deal with the green belt, as the matter can only be dealt with by a subject plan.
An even more difficult area is the Mendip Hills where a subject plan has been prepared involving two county councils and four district councils to deal comprehensively with that area of outstanding natural beauty. Your Lordships can imagine the confusion if the separate parts of the plan were to be divided up. All the benefits of co-ordination would be lost.
In Committee I supported an amendment requiring the preparation of coastal zone plans. While acknowledging that there was a problem, the Government refused to accept those amendments. Retaining provision for subject plans would be an easy first step for the Government to take towards the proper planning of the coastline. I hope that my noble friend will accept that as a helpful suggestion.
I urge support for this simple amendment. It proposes nothing new but merely seeks to retain some of the best aspects of the existing development plan system. The amendment limits subject plans to cases where the Secretary of State considers them necessary. The effect would be to boost an already strengthened planning system, allowing it to deal with problems straddling county and district boundaries. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 186 and support the other amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord

706

Norrie. We discussed this matter in Committee under the slightly different heading of coastal zone planning. It is a very important subject and on that occasion we were honoured by the presence of the Secretary of State at the Bar of the House. Therefore, I assume that he is taking an interest in this subject.
As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has already told the House, this Bill does not provide for the continuation of local subject plans. We believe that that is a mistake. I have another example from Lincolnshire which is very worried about the proposals. I have a copy of a letter from Lincolnshire County Council to the East Midlands office of RSPB which states:
"It is now clear that the Government proposals in the recently published Planning and Compensation Bill will remove from County Councils the powers to prepare Local and Subject Plans such as those for the Lincolnshire Coast. A scenario could well develop therefore with a Lincolnshire Coast line from the Humber Bridge to Sutton Bridge involving at least five District Councils. All of them would have to co-ordinate voluntarily their coastal proposals within the context of the very generalised policy statements contained in the new 'streamlined' Structured Plans".
That letter was written after the county council had taken up the matter with the Department of the Environment and had been rather disappointed by the response.
I believe that last week the Nature Conservancy Council published a document on the problems of our estuaries. Unfortunately, I have not seen a copy of that document. I merely quote from an article in last Sunday's Observer which gives some fairly startling facts which should worry us all. I am told that the Nature Conservancy Council is pressing the Government to introduce effective marine consultation areas, involving wildlife groups and commercial interests. Mr. Hornsby, the current director-general, told the Observer newspaper:
"Our estuaries are under extreme and increasing pressure from a whole variety of types of development".
I could continue on this subject at length. The UK has 15,000 kilometres of coastline and 48 counties and regions border the coast. There are approximately one-third of a million square kilometres of territorial waters. The number and variety of activities which take place at the coast reflect its economic value but are also an indication of the pressures on the coastal zone.
In 1989, about half of the 500 development and planning cases examined by RSPB staff affected the coast. Over the past 10 years more than three-quarters of development planning cases affecting internationally important wildlife sites were on the coast. The coastline of the UK is of vital importance for internationally significant bird populations and for recreation and economic growth. However, its management is confused by layers of bureaucracy and lack of strategic planning. Over 33 government departments, statutory bodies and agencies have responsibilities in coastal areas. Add to that local authorities, landowners, managers and coastal users and the scope for confusion becomes obvious.
This is a vitally important matter. Everybody understands the need to speed up the planning process

707
and we do not want to clog the system. However, we must restore the opportunity to deal with subject areas and I have particularly in mind coastal areas.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments would reintroduce the concept of the subject plan—the local plan addressed to a particular topic, such as the definition of the boundaries of a green belt, or development control policies for a particular area of countryside. Our 1989 White Paper The Future of Development Plans was clear on this issue. We said:
"There will be no general provision for separate subject plans in the new development plan system".
The Bill reflects that policy position.
This is not to deny that in some areas subject plans have served a useful purpose. But they have done so against a background of very patchy local plan coverage. If in a particular county there has been very little except the county structure plan, then a countryside subject plan may well have had a useful function.
Under the new system introduced by this Bill the situation will be quite different. We shall be requiring all planning authorities to prepare comprehensive, district-wide plans, setting out development control policies for the whole of their areas. Given comprehensive coverage, the case for subject plans becomes much more questionable. For instance, if a county structure plan sets out strategic policies for the countryside, cannot detailed development control policies to give effect to the county strategy be incorporated in each district local plan? Why is there a need for a separate countryside plan?
One of the major aims of our reform of the planning system is to simplify and to streamline. We want to see a development plan framework consisting of structure and local plans, supplemented only by minerals and waste plans, because of the special statutory responsibilities of the counties for these topics. Once we move beyond this framework, and start reintroducing subject plans which overlap with local plans, cross boundaries, and blur the relative responsibilities of county and district, we lose a great deal of the benefit of simplication which the Bill seeks to achieve.
To argue against subject plans solely on the basis of bureaucratic tidy-mindedness may not seem persuasive. However, it is important that the planning system operates in a way which is readily intelligible to those who need to use it from time to time but are not immersed in it. From their point of view, simplicity is an important criterion.
I understand the force of the argument that there are certain areas which cross administrative boundaries but need to be planned as a whole. Green belts are one example. Others might be areas of outstanding natural beauty, national forest areas, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross mentioned, heritage coastlines. Where such areas straddle county or district boundaries, it might be helpful as a means of achieving coherence and consistency in the treatment of the area if the county and district authorities concerned were to work together to produce a joint statement of
708
planning policy for the area. Such a statement would itself be non-statutory, but it would form the basis for policies in the relevant structure and local plans and would help to secure their consistency, which is the point being made here.
That sort of joint working by agreement is a possibility which may deserve further consideration in particular areas. It is an approach which would need to be used sparingly, and would need to be supplementary to the statutory development plan framework. But that, I believe, is as far as we should go. The Government are not persuaded that the notion of the formal subject plan should be reintroduced into the scheme of things. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her full explanation. I am still concerned that the problems being dealt with by subject plans will not receive the attention that they deserve. However, we shall have to see what happens. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 97, line 21, leave out from ("area") to end of line 23 and insert:
("(2A) The policies shall include policies in respect of—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;

(b) the improvement of the physical environment; and

(c) the management of traffic.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 187 was spoken to with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 188 to 192 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 100, line 6, after ("(c)") insert ("or (e)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 174. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 100, line 49, after ("40(2),") insert ("or to any statement of conformity or non-conformity made available for inspection under section 46(4A),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 194, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 195. These amendments concern the issues we were discussing a few minutes ago regarding the conformity between county structure plans and local plans. The Minister expressed the view that the Government's policy is not to give excessive prominence to either county structure or local plans, or indeed the reverse; they will treat both seriously. We agree with that.
Our concern is not to give precedence to either structure or district plans, but to ensure that where differences exist between them they are brought out into the open so that they can be inquired into and the public are aware that differences exist.
Amendment No. 194 provides that a statement of conformity or non-conformity between the two levels of a plan should be made available for inspection. Amendment No. 195 provides that the statement shall be made available for inspection,
"at such places as may be prescribed by regulations".
I do not believe that they affect the relative importance of the two plans. They provide that differences which should be in the open and of which the public should be aware are the subject of public inquiry and that the information is available for inspection. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is already a provision in the Bill which achieves the purpose sought by Amendment No. 195. Section 46(2) provides for the structure plan authority to supply the local plan authority with a statement of conformity or non-conformity of the local plan with the structure plan, and new Section 40 subsections (2) and (3) provide for the statement to be made available for inspection at places prescribed by regulation under Section 53.
We considered when drawing up the local plan provisions whether to provide for objections to the statement of conformity or non-conformity and for such objections to carry the right to consideration at a public local inquiry as proposed by Amendment No. 194. We decided that that was unnecessary. We expect people who consider that any aspect of a statement of conformity is incorrect to make an objection to the relevant policies or proposals in the plan on the grounds that it does not conform generally with the structure plan. Such an objection carries with it the right to be heard before an inspector at a public local inquiry under new Section 42(1). A right for an objector to a statement of conformity to be heard at inquiry as proposed by the amendment would duplicate this provision.
A person who objects to any aspect of a statement of non-conformity would presumably be doing so in support of the allegedly non-conforming proposals in the local plan. The new legislation enables us to require that representations in support of proposals be considered by the local planning authority and our code of practice already provides for representations to be considered at the discretion of the inspector. The statement of non-conformity is to be treated as an objection which would be discussed at the inquiry, and we would expect the aspects of alleged non-conformity to be fully examined. An inspector may take all representations in support of policies and proposals into account and he has discretion over whether to hear them at inquiry.
We consider these amendments to be unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it sounds all right. But the noble Viscount is picking out bits and pieces of the Bill from different places. As the whole Bill consists of amendments to a principal Act of 1990 it is extraordinarily difficult for us to map the 1990 Act against the Bill and against the new provisions which were brought in at Committee stage. All I can say is
710
that I am glad to hear that the Government are in support of the principle behind my amendment. We shall consider carefully the wording to which he has referred us. I hope that it will make it unnecessary for us to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 202:
Page 102, line 43, leave out ("provisions in") and insert ("—

(a) provisions in a structure plan or")

Page 102, line 46, at end insert:

("(b) a structure plan and a local plan are made by the same authority and the provisions of the two plans conflict.").

Page 103, line 21, leave out ("under section 39(4) to serve a copy") and insert ("to serve a copy under subsection (1) of section 46").
Page 103, line 22, leave out ("section 46") and insert ("subsection (2) of that section").
Page 104, line 30, leave out ("local minerals") and insert ("minerals local plan or waste local").
Page 104, line 32, leave out ("that local minerals") and insert ("minerals local plan or waste local").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 104, line 34, at end insert:
("(2) In subsection (4) of that section at the end there is inserted "and Part III of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 203, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 205 and 206. These amendments deal with the transitional arrangements for development plans. They are important transitional provisions which honour our undertaking that work already carried out will not be wasted. They are in line with the policies we indicated we would follow in the White Paper on the future of development plans and during the Second Reading of the Bill.
I shall not go into detail unless the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, positively insists that I should. If he does not, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 204 and 205:
Page 104, line 37, leave out ("287 of the principal") and insert ("284(1) (a) of the principal Act (validity of development plans etc.) "repeal", in both places where it occurs, is omitted.
30A. In section 287 of that").
Page 105, line 5, at end insert:
("(2) In paragraph 7(3) of that Schedule, in paragraph (a) —

(a) for sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) there is substituted—

"(i) of any policy contained in a structure plan which has been adopted or approved;

(ii) of any policy contained in proposals made available for inspection under section 33(2);" and

(b) for sub-paragraphs (v) to (vii) there is substituted—

711

"(v) of any policy contained in a minerals local plan or a waste local plan which has been adopted or approved;

(vi) of any policy contained in proposals for the making, alteration or replacement of a minerals local plan or a waste local plan which have been made available for inspection under section 40(2);

(vii) of any proposal contained in a local plan which was prepared by the county planning authority and continued in operation by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991;

(viii) of any proposal contained in proposals in respect of a local plan which have been prepared by the county planning authority and are adopted or approved by virtue of paragraph 37 of that Schedule or made available for inspection in pursuance of that paragraph;".

32A.—(1) In Schedule 2 to that Act (transitional provisions with respect to unitary development plans) —

(a) in Part I, paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, and

(b) in Part II, paragraphs 3 to 16 and 18,

are omitted.
(2) For paragraph 4 of Part I of that Schedule and paragraph 17 of Part II of that Schedule there is substituted in each case—

".—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where—

(a) a local plan is in force in the area of a local planning authority;

(b) a unitary development plan is being prepared;

(c) the local planning authority who are preparing that plan have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering any objection to the plan.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (1) (c);

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it first formed part of the plan mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a).

(3) In this paragraph "existing policy" means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in a local plan in force as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a)."

32B.—(1) In Schedule 13 to that Act (blighted land) in paragraph 1 in Note (1) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—

"(a) proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan which have been made available for inspection under section 33(2);

(b) any proposed modifications to those proposals which have been published in accordance with regulations under section 53.

(2) In Note (2) to that paragraph for the words from "33(9)" to the end there is substituted "34".
(3) In Note (5) for "in force" there is substituted "in operation".
(4) After that Note there is inserted—
712

"(5A) In Note (5) the reference to a local plan in operation includes a reference to a minerals local plan, a waste local plan, which in either case is in operation, and to a local plan continued in operation by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991."

(5) In Note (7) to that paragraph for the words from "and all references" to the end there is substituted "and Notes (1) to (4) shall be omitted".
(6) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule in paragraph (a) for "in force" there is substituted "in operation".
(7) For Note (1) to paragraph 2 there is substituted—

"(1) In this paragraph the reference to a local plan in operation includes a reference to a minerals local plan, a waste local plan, which in either case is in operation, and to a local plan continued in operation by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and also includes—

(a) proposals for the making or alteration and replacement of any such plan where copies of the proposals have been made available for inspection under section 40(2) or by virtue of paragraph 37 of Schedule 3 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; and

(b) any proposed modifications to those proposals which have been published in accordance with regulations under section 53."

(8) Notes (2) and (5) to that paragraph are omitted.
(9) In Note (3) to that paragraph "also" is omitted.
(10) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, in Note (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "13(3)" there is substituted "13(2)"; and

(b) in paragraph (b) "or under section 22" is omitted.

(11) In Note (2) to that paragraph "13(7) or" is omitted.
(12) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule, in Note (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "13(3)" there is substituted "13(2)";

(b) in paragraph (b) "or under section 22" is omitted.

(13) In Note (2) to that paragraph "13(7) or" is omitted.
32C. In Schedule 4 to the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990—

(a) in paragraph 1, in the Table, the entry relating to section 9(4) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 2 of that Schedule is omitted;

(b) paragraph 2 is omitted.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 105, line 8, at end insert:
("PART III

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Interpretation
34. In this Part of this Schedule—

"commencement" means the commencement of Part I of this Schedule;

"the old law" means the principal Act in the form in which it was in force immediately before commencement;

"the new law" means the principal Act as amended by this Act;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

713

"winning and working of minerals", "depositing of mineral waste", "policies" in relation to such winning and working or depositing, and "waste policies" have the same meaning as they have under the new law.

Unitary development plans
35.—(1) Where a local planning authority have, under section 13(3) of the old law, made available copies of proposals for the making, alteration or replacement of a unitary development plan but the proposals are not adopted or approved before commencement—

(a) the proposals shall be treated on and after commencement as if made available under section 13(2) of the the new law; and

(b) any other step taken before commencement for the purpose of complying with any requirement of the old law with respect to such making, alteration or replacement may be treated on and after commencement as having been taken for the purpose of complying with any similar requirement imposed by or under the new law.

(2) Sub-paragraph (3) below applies where, at any time within the period of two years beginning with the date of commencement—

(a) a unitary development plan is in operation which by virtue of paragraph 4 of Part I or paragraph 17 of Part II of Schedule 2 to the old law includes a local plan (whether subject to alteration or otherwise);

(b) proposals are made for the alteration or replacement of the unitary development plan;

(c) the local planning authority who are making those proposals have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering an objection to the proposals.

(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (2) (c) above;

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it was included in the unitary development plan.

(4) In this paragraph "existing policy" means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in a plan included as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (a) above.
Structure plans
36.—(1) Where a local planning authority have, under section 32(3) of the old law, submitted to the Secretary of State copies of proposals for the alteration or repeal and replacement of a structure plan but the proposals are not approved before commencement—

(a) the submission of the proposals shall on and after commencement be treated for the purposes of the new law as the sending of the copy under section 33(2) (b) of that law; and

(b) any other step taken before commencement for the purpose of complying with any requirement of the old law with respect to such alteration or repeal and replacement may on and after commencement be treated as having been taken for the purpose of complying with any similar requirement imposed by or under Part II of the new law.

(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies the proposals may be adopted or approved under the new law as if they had been prepared after commencement.
Local plans
37. Where a local planning authority have made available under section 39(5) or 40(2) of the old law copies of proposals
714
for the making, alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan but the proposals are not adopted or approved before commencement, the proposals may after commencement be adopted or as the case may be, approved as if the old law were still in force.
38.—(1) A local plan which—

(a) immediately before commencement is in operation in the area of a local planning authority, or

(b) is brought into operation after commencement by virtue of paragraph 37 above,

(in this Schedule referred to as "a saved local plan") shall, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, continue in operation.
(2) Where a saved local plan—

(a) complies with section 36 of the new law and was prepared by the authority who are entitled to prepare the plan required by that section, or

(b) contains only those policies required or permitted to be included in a minerals local plan or a waste local plan in accordance with sections 36 to 38 of the new law and was made by the authority who are entitled to prepare a minerals local plan or, as the case may be, a waste local plan,

it shall be treated as if it were a local plan, a minerals local plan or, as the case may be, a waste local plan which had been adopted or, as the case may be, approved under the new law (and accordingly may be altered or replaced under the new law).
(3) In sub-paragraphs (4) to (8) below the references to saved local plans do not include a reference to saved local plans treated, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, as if adopted or approved under the new law.
(4) Any saved local plan shall have effect subject to a local plan, minerals local plan or waste local plan which is adopted or approved under the new law and shall not be treated as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above (and accordingly may not be altered or replaced under the new law).
(5) Where the last of the plans, or the plan, required to be prepared for an area under sections 36 to 38 of the new law is prepared for that area—

(a) any saved local plan, and

(b) any old development plan,

shall cease to have effect in relation to that area.
(6) If the Secretary of State so directs, any specified provisions of a saved local plan shall continue in operation—

(a) for such period as may be specified or determined in accordance with the direction;

(b) in relation to the area or any specified part of the area to which the saved local plan relates.

(7) The Secretary of State may revoke any direction given under sub-paragraph (6) above.
(8) Before giving or revoking any such direction the Secretary of State shall consult any local planning authority for the area in which the plan is in operation.
(9) A saved local plan shall, while it continues in operation, be treated for the purposes of the new law, any other enactment relating to town and country planning, the Land Compensation 1961 and the Highways Act 1980 as being comprised in the development plan in respect of the area in question.
(10) In this paragraph—

"old development plan" has the same meaning as in Part III of Schedule 2 to the principal Act; and

"specified" means specified in the direction.

39.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies where after commencement—

(a) there is in operation in the area of a local planning authority a saved local plan which does not fall within paragraph 38(2) (a) above;

715

(b) proposals are made in pursuance of the new law for the making, alteration or replacement of a local plan for that area;

(c) the local planning authority who are making those proposals have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering any objection to the proposals.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (1) (c) above;

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it first formed part of the saved local plan.

(3) In this paragraph "existing policy" means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in the saved local plan falling within sub-paragraph (1) (a) above.
Minerals and waste local plans
40.—(l) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies where after commencement—

(a) there is in operation in the area of a local planning authority a saved local plan which does not fall within paragraph 38(2) (b) above and which contains—

(i) any detailed policies for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; or

(ii) any waste policies;

(b) proposals are made in pursuance of the new law for the making, alteration or replacement of a minerals local plan or a waste local plan for that area;

(c) the local planning authority who are making those proposals have published in the prescribed manner a statement in the prescribed form identifying a policy included in the plan as an existing policy; and

(d) a local inquiry or other hearing is held for the purpose of considering any objection to the proposals.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the person holding the inquiry or other hearing need not allow an objector to appear if he is satisfied that—

(a) the objection is to a policy identified in the statement published under sub-paragraph (1) (c) above;

(b) the policy so identified is an existing policy; and

(c) there has been no significant change in circumstances affecting the existing policy since it first formed part of the saved local plan.

(3) In this paragraph "existing policy" means any policy falling within sub-paragraph (1) (a) above the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in the saved local plan falling within that sub-paragraph.
Duty of structure plan authority to notify authorities responsible for saved local plans etc.
41.—(1) Where at any time after commencement any proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan are adopted or approved, the authority concerned shall—

(a) notify any local planning authority in their area that the proposals have been adopted or approved;

(b) supply that authority with a statement that the saved local plan is or, as the case may be, is not in general conformity with the altered or new structure plan.

(2) A statement that a saved local plan is not in general conformity with a structure plan shall specify the respects in which it is not in such conformity.
(3) Where at any time after commencement any proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan are
716
withdrawn, the authority concerned shall notify any authority who prepared any saved local plan which is in operation in their area that the proposals have been withdrawn.
(4) Nothing in this paragraph requires an authority to notify or supply a statement to themselves.
(5) The provisions of a saved local plan shall prevail for all purposes over any conflicting provisions in the relevant structure plan unless the saved local plan is one—

(a) stated under sub-paragraph (1) above not to be in general conformity with the structure plan; and

(b) neither altered nor replaced after the statement was supplied.

(6) Sub-paragraph (5) above is subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State with respect to conflict between plans.
Consultation
42. Any consultation undertaken before commencement for the purposes of any provision contained in or made under Part II of the old law shall be as effective for the purposes of any similar provision contained in or made under Part II of the new law as if undertaken after commencement.
The Isles of Scilly
43. An order under section 319 of the new law may make transitional provision in connection with any development plan in force in the Isles of Scilly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 31, line 14, at end insert:
("(3) If the person concerned causes a local inquiry or hearing to be cancelled after the date on which the Secretary of State notified his decision on the date of the opening of the inquiry or hearing, such an order may require the person concerned to pay the costs of preparing for that inquiry or hearing incurred by the other principal party and by any other persons who have given notice in writing to the Secretary of State of their intention to appear at the inquiry or hearing.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is necessary that this amendment be taken with Amendment No. 208. Should both amendments be carried, Amendment No. 207 would have been removed together with the rest of Clause 24. In any case, it is important that we consider the whole issue of Clause 24. It is an issue that aroused a good deal of controversy at Committee stage; that is, the issue of costs at public inquiries.
The Government's purpose in introducing Clause 24 was well explained by Ministers at Committee stage. In summary, they are seeking to provide that if the inquiry procedure is adopted unreasonably, there should be the possibility for costs of other parties to be awarded against those who behave unreasonably in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and others expressed the strongly felt concern of the Law Society that this was a provision which would make it difficult for smaller people to use their rights to appeal to a public inquiry.
Amendment No. 232 was unsatisfactory in all kinds of ways, and I am bound to say that the more I think about the matter, the more I am inclined to the view that the power to award costs against those who go to a public inquiry should be restricted as far as possible. There was talk of an amendment at this stage to replace the word "unreasonable" by the word "vexatious". On reflection, if that had been put forward, we would have supported it. If the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Stanley, want to

717
pursue the argument that Clause 24 should be taken out, I am less opposed to that point of view than I was. I shall have to listen very carefully to the arguments before advising my friends what to do.
However, the issue raised in Amendment No. 207 is different. There should be protection against people being dissuaded from going to appeal. Those who start on the process of appeal and who wait until the Secretary of State has set a date for it and then withdraw, are likely to be the developers. The people who lose out are likely to be the objectors and the local planning authority. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Stanley, will agree with me that the boot is on the other foot here, and that in this case what appears to be an extension of the power to award costs is a justifiable extension which should not be taken on the same footing as the other objections raised to Clause 24.
Therefore, I hope that the Government and other noble Lords who are concerned with the implications of this clause—it is a very difficult point on which to reach a firm and wholehearted conclusion—will agree with me that there is justification for the provisions in my Amendment No. 207. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I was interested by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduced his amendment. He referred to mine and said that the effect of moving my amendment might be to delete his. The noble Lord the Deputy Speaker did not refer to that fact. I have always understood the situation to be that if the noble Lord's amendment is passed, my amendment, which seeks to undo it, cannot be called.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, of course it can.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I understand that that is incorrect, and that my amendment can be called. I do not oppose the noble Lord's amendment. It resembles an amendment to which he spoke in Committee. In fact, it appears to be near enough in the shape my noble friend the Minister said it should be as a prerequisite of her accepting it. I note the perverse reference in the previous amendment to the Secretary of State as an "it". That is as if the Secretary of State were the kind of person whom the noble Lord might refer to as "a chair" or "a spoke". I note that the reference has now been taken out of the amendment as though in anticipation that it was going to press forward into legislation.
I am glad to learn that even if the noble Lord's amendment is accepted today, I can continue and put to the House the question whether Clause 24 should be deleted from the Bill. The clause is unfair and it is likely to operate exclusively against a small builder or house owner wishing to extend his property. That is a matter which may seem simple; but it is just the sort of question where the reasonable requirements of the owner have to be balanced scrupulously against considerations of housing policy, aesthetics and the reasonable requirements of neighbours and the community.
718
The Government have found themselves in some difficulties over this clause. At Second Reading my noble friend said that the department would
"be publishing for consultation the criteria to be used in deciding whether someone's insistence on an inquiry or hearing is unreasonable".—[Official Report, 27/11/90; col. 908.]
It may be that we read too much into that in thinking that what was to be published for consultation was a list of criteria. What we have in fact is a consultation letter issued five weeks ago which says that it deals with
"the criteria for exercise of the discretionary power".
But it does not put forward any criteria at all.
The consultation paper gives as examples four cases where it might be considered unreasonable for a hearing to be asked for. The first two are similar. The first is where an application which has already been decided on appeal, following a public inquiry, is repeated in substantially the same form. The second is where an enforcement notice is appealed on the grounds that planning permission should have been given where only recently there has been an unsuccessful planning appeal for the very same permission. I have no wish to suggest that it is reasonable for the time of the inspectorate or the planning authorities and others to be taken up with oral hearings in either of these cases. These cases can surely be dealt with already under the existing powers because it is the appeal in each case which is unreasonable, not the manner in which it is to be heard.
I shall quote the third example in full. It is
"An enforcement notice appeal involving a comparatively minor material change of use, or minor building operations, when no appeal is made on 'legal grounds', there is little third party interest, and the appellant is professionally represented."
That is clearly designed to deter the small man from appealing, as is the fourth example, but I cannot see what criteria can justify it. Neither do I consider this to be a case where the fact that the appellant is professionally represented should have any bearing at all. I ask: what sort of law is it which would put a solicitor, for example, under a duty to his client to advise that if the client wishes to have an oral hearing he may do better to conduct his own case?
The fourth example is of a straightforward minor planning appeal—that is to say, a house extension, where there is no planning policy dispute, no third party interest and the appellant is again professionally represented. Again I ask: what are the criteria that could justify applying Clause 24 to such an appeal beyond the fact again that it is the small man who is likely to be caught? I have already indicated my feeling that housing extension applications should not be treated almost by definition as straightforward minor planning appeals. Is the fact that an appeal is considered straightforward and minor to preclude the individual house owner from his hearing? I do not see how that is to be justified.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I dwell a little longer on the consultation letter.

719
I do so now because the letter gives some idea of what the department understands Clause 24 to mean. I understand that the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision to ask for a hearing must be judged in the light of what the appellant thought and knew when he asked for the hearing. As I interpret the clause, what happens during the hearing cannot ex post facto have any bearing at all on whether the decision was reasonable although it may be relevant in establishing what was in the mind and to the knowledge of the appellant at the outset.
In paragraph 8 of the consultation letter—and here I explain what I have just been saying—I read that whether an appeal party has "unreasonably" requested the right "to be heard" in a particular case will only be apparent at the conclusion of the proceedings. It will then be possible to decide whether the party made,
"effective use of the opportunity to be heard".
Whether the party made effective use of the opportunity to be heard is totally irrelevant to the question whether the decision to ask for a hearing was reasonable. I hope that I carry my noble friend with me on this point. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has put his name to the amendment. In Committee he was prepared to support the principle behind Clause 24, but only where the request for an oral hearing was vexatious.
I sought to persuade the Committee that the concept of a vexatious request is unsatisfactory and unlikely to bite in the way intended. Neither I nor the Law Society, which share my views, wish to support vexatious appeals let alone vexatious and frivolous appeals. It is the vexatious appeals themselves, and not the manner in which they are brought, which should be struck at, and which are, I believe, as I have already sought to show, already likely to result in a costs order being made without the need for Clause 24.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also confessed to a fondness for the word "vexatious", and he has done so again this afternoon. On that occasion he said that he thought it unlikely that he would be able to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and myself into the Lobby should we decide to oppose the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill. His attitude was to seek to amend the clause and, as I understood him at the time and have sought to understand him since—I have to say that the report is not entirely clear—he felt that it was only in the case of appeals of the minor category that the appellant who asked for a hearing should be in jeopardy as to costs. I felt that we were not very far apart at the beginning of the debate in Committee and that the positions of the noble Lord and myself were drawing closer towards the end. He has indicated that he is coming further this way and I hope he has not gone back the other way after hearing what I have had to say.
I have not repeated lengthy arguments which can be found in the report of the Committee stage debate, but I hope that my noble friend will feel able to tell the House that she will take Clause 24 away, because it is
720
largely unnecessary. If there are instances where it may do a little good, in terms of the cost of running the planning inspectorate, nevertheless it will have done so at the cost of loss of rights enjoyed by the man in the street, and some diminution in natural justice.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the reason why I have decided to put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine to remove Clause 24 rather than argue whether the correct word is "unreasonable" or "vexatious", as I did at Committee stage (as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded me) is that, having read the report of those debates, I really do not see that the clause achieves anything at all. In particular the comment of my noble friend Lady Blatch at col. 914 of the Official Report particularly worries me. She said:
"If this clause is enacted, we would make it absolutely clear in publicly stated policy guidance that the provisions are not a deterrent and will not be used as such".—[Official Report, 4/2/91; col. 914.]
If the clause is not intended as a deterrent, why have it at all? Moreover, I believe that the problem of unreasonableness, if I may call it that, is already dealt with in Section 320 of the Town and Country Planning Act which I believe refers to Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972. Indeed, the problem of unreasonableness is dealt with in guidance contained in planning circular No. 2 of 1987. All in all, I think the Government should put this clause in the nearest litter bin.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Coleraine, and in so doing make an apology to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for not having heard the whole of what he said on his amendment, which I shall touch on subsequently.
With regard to Clause 24, I still feel that the points of substance that I made previously remain outstanding. At Committee stage we were told that the matter would be considered by the Minister and that she would come back and let the House know what she felt about it. It remains the case that this provision of costs is a threat to an appellant who would otherwise have a good case. It is something on which it is very difficult to be clear in terms of definition until after the event of the appeal. There is the conundrum that if the appellant wins on planning grounds, he can be penalised on costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, there is existing provision. I therefore wait with interest to hear what the Minister says about those points.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his Amendment No. 207. I did not hear everything he had to say, but I understand the intention behind the amendment is actively to discourage those people who use the appeals system without any intention of proceeding with it, and therefore cause a great deal of cost and trouble at public expense. I am sympathetic to the amendment if that is the sole intention behind it. Certainly the principle ought to be supported. I am not quite sure that I understand that the noble Lord's amendment

721
completely removes the possibility of the element of threat, but I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that when we discussed Clause 24 during the Committee stage considerable misgivings were expressed that the threat of a possible award, against an appellant, of the planning authority's inquiry costs would deter some appellants from requesting an inquiry or hearing when the circumstances of the appeal fully justified the request. Particular concern was expressed about deterring inexperienced or unrepresented appellants from asking to be "heard". Similar misgivings have been expressed to my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, by the Council on Tribunals, the Local Government and Planning Bar Association and the Law Society. At Committee stage, I undertook to consider most carefully, with my ministerial colleagues, all these representations, and to give a fully considered reply about the Government's intentions on Report.
On further consideration we recognise that the provisions of this clause may conceivably have some of the effects which critics of it have suggested. We accept that people who wish to exercise their right of appeal may feel unfairly deterred from asking, in some cases, to be heard. Accordingly, we have concluded that the right course is not to proceed with the clause in its present form.
Noble Lords will also recall that in Committee we undertook to consider further the drafting and substance of Amendment No. 232 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. His amendment would have provided costs to be awarded in appeal proceedings where inquiries or hearings are cancelled or curtailed because of the late withdrawal of an appeal or a late revision of evidence. We accepted the force of the arguments for enabling costs to be awarded in these circumstances and agreed to table a suitable amendment. Appeal parties may incur very considerable costs in preparing for an important inquiry. Those costs are wasted when the inquiry does not proceed. There is, at present, no provision in force in our planning legislation to enable the Secretary of State to order that "wasted" costs be recovered from the party whose action has resulted in cancellation of the inquiry. The noble Lord's proposals will remedy that unsatisfactory situation.
At first sight, Amendment No. 207 seems acceptable; but we need to scrutinise all its effects. For instance, the restriction of costs awards only to parties who have given written notice of their intention to appear at an inquiry or hearing may be an inappropriate limitation. This may have the effect in certain circumstances of ruling out, on a technicality, interested parties who may have incurred substantial wasted costs, but have not been advised that they are required to given written notice of their interest or have overlooked the need. We do not think such parties should be precluded from recovering abortive expenditure because of a procedural technicality. On
722
the understanding that we still accept the principle of Amendment No. 207, and will table an acceptable amendment, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
On Amendment No. 208, in the light of my undertaking that we shall not proceed with the clause in its present form I hope noble Lords will agree that Clause 24 should remain part of the Bill. We can then bring forward an amendment along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In that event, Clause 24 will stand alone with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. There will therefore be a Clause 24 in the Bill but not as presently drafted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think we are all struggling to some extent, but very much in the same direction. I am personally grateful to the Minister for what she said about Amendment No. 207. I accept that she is right about the provision that the notice should be in writing. I think it may be necessary to put into my amendment something about "unreasonable" as well, which is not there at the moment; but perhaps I am muddying the water even further.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and his colleagues think, but the commitments that the Minister has given to a radical rethink of Clause 24 are very far reaching. It looks as though we may land up with a Clause 24 which consists of my amendment in a slightly different form and nothing else. In that case we would probably all be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 208:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment and I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that she does not propose to pursue the clause in its present form. She suggested that Clause 24 should stay in the Bill and undertook to bring forward at Third Reading a provision which would bring in the amendment just withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I do not for the moment see why the clause should not now be taken out of the Bill. What will come forward at Third Reading will be something entirely different from Clause 24 as it stands at the moment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may intervene now I think it will help the House. I believe that it is possible to take Clause 24 out of the Bill as it stands. It is possible to reconsider the wording of Amendment No. 207 and for me to bring forward in the name of the Government an amendment which will be consistent with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. At this moment I see nothing to preclude my putting a new Clause 24 into the Bill at Third Reading. That would be one way to proceed.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I feel sure that my noble friend is correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Planning compensation repeals: minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 210 to 217:
Page 108, line 20, at end insert:
("Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (c.14)
2A. In Schedule 3 to the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (variation of fees) in paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (b) is omitted.
Post Office Act 1969 (c.48)
2B. In Schedule 9 to the Post Office Act 1969 (transitional provisions) in paragraph 27(7) for "Parts V and XII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990" there is substituted "Part XII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".").
Page 109, line 8, at end insert:
("10A. In section 90(3) (development with Government authorisation) for "Parts V and" there is substituted "Part".").
Page 110, line 16, at end insert:
("19A. In section 262(4) and (7) (a) (meaning of "statutory undertakers") "123" is omitted.
19B. In section 263(3) (meaning of "operational land") "123(3) and (4)" is omitted.").
Page 111, line 4, at end insert:
("27A. In section 315(2) (power to modify Act in relation to minerals) the words from "and in relation" to "in respect of such land" are omitted.
27B. In section 318(5) (ecclesiastical property) for "112, 133 or 327" there is substituted "or 112".").
Page 111, line 12, leave out ("definition of "new development" is") and insert ("definitions of "new development" and "previous apportionment" are").
Page 111, line 13, at end insert:
("32A. In Schedule 1 (distribution of functions) in paragraph 16(1) "114" is omitted.").
Page 111, line 34, at end insert:
("36A. In section 32(4) of that Act (purchase notices) for "new development" there is substituted "development (other than any development specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 3 to the principal Act)".").
Page 112, line 1, at end insert:
("39A. In section 91(2) of that Act (interpretation) "new development" is omitted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 210 to 217, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 218 to 223, 293 to 301, 303 and 304. These are all further minor but necessary technical amendments which are consequential on the planning compensation repeals set out in Clause 25, which applies to England and Wales, and Clause 46, which applies to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Planning compensation repeals: minor and consequential amendments—Scotland]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 218 to 223:
Page 132, line 8, at end insert:
("Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (c.14)
2A. In Schedule 3 to the Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 (variation of fees) in paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (a) is omitted.
Post Office Act 1969 (c.48)
2B. In Schedule 9 to the Post Office Act 1969 (transitional provisions) in paragraph 27(7) for "Parts VII and XII of the
724
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972" there is substituted "Part XII of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972".").
Page 132, line 29, leave out paragraph 6.
Page 132, line 37, at end insert:
("8A. In section 37(2) (development with Government authorisation) for "Parts VII and" there is substituted "Part".
8B. In section 40(3) (date when development is begun), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—

"(b) development of a class specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act;".").

Page 132, line 42, leave out paragraph 11.
Page 136, line 39, at end insert:
("19A. In section 179(2) (purchase notice on refusal or conditional grant of listed building consent) for "new development" there is substituted "development (other than any development specified in paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 6 to this Act)"
19B. In section 231(3) (validity of orders etc.), paragraph (c) is omitted.").
Page 137, line 17, leave out ("definition of "new development" is") and insert ("definitions of "new development" and "previous apportionment-' are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Planning in England and Wales: minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 226 and 227:
Page 112, line 22, at end insert:
("Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
2A. In section 7(5) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 paragraph (a) (iii) is omitted.").
Page 112, line 26, leave out from ("171C") to end of line and insert ("173A, 187A, 187B, 196A to 196C and 324(1) (b) and (c) and (7).").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 and will speak to Amendments Nos. 229, 230, 232 to 236, 238, 239, 242, 244, 245 and 248 to 257. These are all essential drafting amendments to Schedule 6 to the Bill, consequential on provisions being introduced or changes made elsewhere in the Bill. For that reason I do not propose to spend any more time on them now, but if any noble Lord wishes to query any one of them I shall be happy to explain it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 112, line 26, at end insert:
("Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30)
3A. In section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, in subsection (1) for paragraphs (a) to (c) there is substituted—

"(a) is executed for the purpose of securing the carrying out of works on land in the council's area in which the other person has an interest, or

(b) is executed for the purpose of regulating the use of or is otherwise connected with land in or outside the council's area in which the other person has an interest,

and which is neither executed for the purpose of facilitating nor connected with the development of the land in question."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 228 was discussed with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 229 and 230:
Page 112, line 33, leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
("6.—(1) In section 5(1) for "300 and 324(1) (b) and (c) and (7)" there is substituted "and 300".
(2) In section 5(3)—

(a) for "sections 36 to 49, 50(6) to (9), 51" there is substituted "Part II, sections",

(b) for "64 to 72" there is substituted "65, 69 to 72",

(c) for "81" there is substituted "79",

(d) after "106" there is inserted "to 106B, 171C",

(e) after "173" there is inserted "173A",

(f) after "184" there is inserted "187A, 187B",

(g) for "215" there is substituted "214, 215",

(h) after "299" there is inserted "299A", and

(i) for "316(1) to (3) and 324(1) (a)" there is substituted "316, and 324(1) and (7)".").

Page 112, line 37, at end insert:
("7A. In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or" is omitted.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 113, line 14, at end insert:
("13A. In section 174(6) "in writing" is omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Section 174 of the 1990 Act already provides for someone who occupies land under a written licence to have the right of appeal against an enforcement notice. In response to the concern expressed by noble Lords during the Committee stage of the Bill, we have decided that the right of appeal should be extended to those who occupy under an unwritten licence. This change would be effected by this small amendment to Section 174. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 232 to 236:
Page 115, line 4, leave out from ("omitted") to end of line 7 and insert:

("(b) in subsection (2) (a) for "or stop notice" there is substituted "stop notice or breach of condition notice", and

(c) in subsection (2) (b) after "stop notices" there is inserted "and breach of condition notices".").

Page 115, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 24 and insert:

("(a) in subsection (1) "an application referred to him under section 192(5) or" is omitted and for "applicant or appellant (as the case may be)" there is substituted "appellant",

(b) in subsection (2) for "an established use certificate on such a reference or" there is substituted "a certificate under section 191 or 192 on",

(c) in subsection (3) "application or" is omitted,

(cc) in subsection (4) for "established use certificates"").

Page 115, line 32, at end insert:
("Part XI
28A. Section 266(3) is omitted.").
Page 115, line 37, at end insert:
726

("(ab) in subsection (2) "(6) to (8)" is omitted;").

Page 115, line 39, leave out ("(2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 116, line 6, at end insert:
("31A. In section 288, at the end of subsection (3) there is added—

"or within fourteen days of the date on which the applicant was served with notice of the order or decision whichever is the later".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 288 of the 1990 Act is concerned with appeals to the High Court against decisions of the Secretary of State, on the grounds that they are wrong in law or that the correct procedure has not been followed. At present, appeals must be brought within six weeks of the decision being taken, which is interpreted by the courts as being the date on which the decision letter is typed, signed on behalf of the Secretary and date-stamped. The period is absolute, so that if the appeal is brought outside the six-weeks' period it must fail.
In Committee, I cited a case where some unfortunate person was not informed and fell outside the date, and therefore lost completely. It was admitted that it happened because of an error in the department of the local authority. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate expressed some sympathy, he said that it was far too long a period to allow, and that he might consider some amendment of a few days.
This revised amendment takes account of the debate by allowing 14 days to bring an appeal from service of the notice. It is fair to say that this is roughly the time on which people might be on holiday or recovering from a small illness. It also allows appellants to have time to consult legal advisers, which often takes quite a few days. So I hope that this amendment might meet with a rather more favourable response from the Government than my previous attempt. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when we previously considered this matter I had to indicate that I could not accept the previous amendment because of the length of time, as the noble Lord indicated, and I was also concerned that it would introduce uncertainty. That was because, if the time ran from the date of the notification, it might not be possible to ascertain when that was.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's objective of ensuring that an individual or a local authority, who may wish to challenge a decision in the courts, should have an adequate time to make up their mind without the fear of an administrative slip-up or postal delays cutting into that time. Accordingly, I should like to take the opportunity to consider this more carefully and to allow for wider consultation. An undertaking is given to do that. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am very grateful. I hope that what the noble and learned Lord

727
the Lord Advocate has said will produce the desired result and I am obliged to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 238 and 239:
Page 116, line 9, leave out ("296(2) (a)") and insert ("296, in subsection (1) (c) after "VII" there is inserted "except sections 196A and 196B".
(2) In subsection (2) (a) of that section").
Page 116, line 21, at end insert:
("Part XIV
34A. In section 306(2) (b) and (3) after "VII", in both places where it occurs, there is inserted "except sections 196A and 196B".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 116, line 28, leave out paragraph 36 and insert:
("36. For section 319 there is substituted—
"The Isles of Scilly.
319.—(1) This Act applies to the Isles of Scilly subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order direct.
(2) An order under this section may in particular provide for the exercise by the Council of the Isles of Scilly of any functions exercisable by a local planning authority or mineral planning authority.
(3) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with that Council.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 240 was spoken to with Amendment No. 94, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me one technical question on the amendment. He asked me why the amendment does not say that the order shall provide. The amendment makes clear that planning law applies to the Scillies but, because of their special circumstances, enables the Secretary of State to make an order making such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as he may direct. Since the basic power to make such an order is properly expressed within the word "may", the subsidiary power relating to the designation of council functions is also expressed in that way. This is a standard form for such a provision. I said in reply to the noble Lord that the council has had these functions in the past, and the order-making power will be used to ensure that it continues to have them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 117, line 7, after ("(9)") insert ("for "in Part V of Schedule 16" there is substituted "of Parts III, VII and VIII" and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 117, line 7, at end insert:

("(4) In subsection (10) for "sections 324(2) and" there is substituted "section".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 244 and 246:
728
Page 117, line 15, at end insert:
("(3A) In paragraph 7(1) for "sections 70 and 71" there is substituted "section 70".").
Page 117, line 39, leave out from first ("any") to end of line 41 and insert ("body having the function of taking enforcement action in respect of the breach in question".").
Page 117, line 41, at end insert:
("(9) For paragraph 20(3) there is substituted—

"(3) In relation to land in the area of a joint planning board, a person entering into an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106 may identify the council of the county in which the land is situated as the authority by whom the obligation is enforceable".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 247 to 251 inclusive:
Page 118, line 2, at end insert:
("(da) in sub-paragraph (1) (d) for "and (8)" there is substituted "to (8A)"").
Page 118, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert:

("(da) for the entry relating to section 106 there is substituted—

"Sections 106 to 106B.",

(da) after the entry relating to section 190 there is inserted—

"Section 192.
Sections 196A to 196C.",

(dc) after the entry relating to section 211(4) there is inserted—

"Sections 214A to 214D.",

(dd) in the entry relating to section 285, "except subsections (5) and (6)" is omitted,").

Page 118, line 23, at end insert ("and

(f) for the entry relating to section 316 there is substituted—

"Sections 316 and 316A.").

Page 118, line 28, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert:

("(c) after the entry relating to section 166 there is inserted—

"Sections 171A to 171D."

(d) for the entry relating to section 187 there is substituted—

"Sections 187 to 187B".
(4) In Part III—

(a) for the first three entries there is substituted—

"Sections 109 to 112.",

(b) the entries relating to sections 312(2) and 324(4) are omitted, and

(c) for the entry relating to sections 327 and 328 there is substituted—

"Section 328."
(5) Parts IV and V are omitted.
(6) In Part VI—

(a) for the entries relating to sections 65 to 68 there is substituted—

"Section 65.",

(b) in the entry relating to section 71 for "and (2)" there is substituted "(2) and (2A)",

(c) for the entry relating to sections 290 and 291 there is substituted—

"Section 291.", and

(d) in the entry relating to section 296 for "sections 65 to 68" there is substituted "section 65".")

729
Page 118, leave out lines 34 to 36.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule II [Planning in Scotland: minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 252 to 257 inclusive:
Page 141, line 21, at end insert:
("23A. Section 214(3) is omitted.").
Page 141, line 25, at end insert:
("25A. In section 242(2) (b) for "sections 97" there is substituted "sections 91A, 91B, 97".").
Page 141, line 28, leave out ("subsection (2) (a) of").
Page 141, line 29, after ("land)") insert ("in subsection (1) (b), after "Part V" there is inserted "except sections 91A and 91B of this Act and in subsection 2(a)".
Page 142, line 25, after ("Part II") insert ("(i)").
Page 142, line 25, at end insert:
("(ii) after the entry relating to section 56 there is inserted—
"Sections 83A to 83D."

(iii) after the entry relating to section 87 there is inserted—

"Section 87AA.".

(iv) after the entry relating to sections 102 to 107 there is inserted—

"Section 155.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 257A:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
Purchase notice: serious injury from works.
(" .—After section 64 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (extension of grounds for challenging validity or compulsory purchase order) there is inserted—
"Purchase notice: serious injury from works.
64A.—(1) Where the owner of an interest in land claims that the enjoyment of the land is seriously affected by—

(a) the carrying out of works by—

(i) the authority for the construction or alteration of any public works, or

(ii) the authority for the construction or improvement of a highway, or

(b) the use of—

(i) any public works, or

(ii) a highway which the authority have constructed or improved,

the owner may serve on the responsible authority or the highway authority, as the case may be, a notice (in this section referred to as a purchase notice) specifying the land and the nature of his interest in it and the affection by reason of which it falls within this section requiring that authority to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with this section.
(2) Without prejudice to any wider meaning of the words "seriously affected" for the purposes of section 26 of this Act and section 246 of the Highways Act 1980, land is seriously affected for the purposes of this section if—

(a) the enjoyment of it is affected by any of the physical factors mentioned in subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act as extended or limited, as the case may be, by subsections (5), (6) and (7) of that section or by interference with the drainage of, or natural flow of water to, the land, and

730

(b) the Lands Tribunal is satisfied that the land cannot continue to be occupied without material detriment to its enjoyment.

(3) The authority shall before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of service of the purchase notice serve on the owner by whom the purchase notice was served a counter-notice stating either—

(a) that they are willing to comply with the notice, or

(b) that for reasons specified in the counter-notice they object to complying with the purchase notice on the ground—

(i) that the owner is not the owner of an interest in the land, or

(ii) that the land is not land which is seriously affected for the purposes of this section.

(4) Where a counter-notice has been served under subsection (3) the owner may require the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
(5) An objection—

(a) on ground (i) specified in subsection (3) shall not be upheld by the Lands Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is well-founded;

(b) on ground (ii) specified in subsection (3) shall be upheld by the Lands Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the land is seriously affected land for the purposes of this section.

(6) If the Lands Tribunal determines not to uphold the objection in respect of the whole or any part of the land the Tribunal shall declare that the purchase notice is a valid notice for the land or for that part.
(7) Where no counter-notice has been served in time under subsection (3) or such a counter-notice has been withdrawn or the purchase notice declared to be valid by the Lands Tribunal the responsible authority, or the highway authority, as the case may be, shall be deemed—

(a) to be authorised to acquire compulsorily under the appropriate enactment the interest of the owner in the land or in that part comprised in the declaration of the Lands Tribunal, and

(b) to have served notice to treat in respect of the land or that part on the date on which the period for service of a counter-notice expired or the date of withdrawal of the counter-notice or the date of the declaration of the Lands Tribunal, as the case may be.

(8) A notice to treat deemed to be served by virtue of subsection (7) shall not be capable of withdrawal.
(9) A person who has served a purchase notice under subsection (1) may withdraw it at any time before it has been declared valid under subsection (6).
(10) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "public works", "responsible authority" and "relevant date" have the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act (right to compensation) except that "public works" does not include a highway;

(b) "highway authority" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 246 of the Highways Act 1980.

(11) A purchase notice under this section shall not be served before the expiration of one year from the relevant date and no subsequent purchase notice after the first shall be served until three years after the service of the last previous notice.
(12) Once a purchase notice has taken effect under subsection (7) of this section no further purchase notice shall be served under this section in respect of the land for which the purchase notice has taken effect provided

731
that notice of the taking effect of the purchase notice has been registered as a local land charge in the local land charges register of the appropriate local authority.
(13) Where compensation has been claimed under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (further provision as to compensation for injurious affection) or under Part I of this Act (compensation for depreciation caused by the use of public works) any compensation payable consequent upon such claim shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in consequence of a notice to treat deemed to be served under subsection (7)." ")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is really a return to Amendment No. 291 which I moved at the Committee stage, but withdrew. That amendment attempted to provide that where an interest in land is seriously affected by public works the owner can serve a notice on the appropriate authority requiring the purchase of that interest. There was provision for reference to the Lands Tribunal in the case of disputes.
The amendment was intended to build on powers already in the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the Highways Act 1980, which are in any event being extended under Clause 48 of this Bill. These allow an authority to purchase land by agreement which "in their opinion" will be seriously affected. However, I am not happy just to leave the matter at that point so that the acquiring authority has total discretion as to whether they will purchase the land or not. I do not think that giving them that total discretion is necessarily fair or just. I am particularly concerned that possible financial I considerations might outweigh justice.
Therefore Amendment No. 291 sought to amend that position, but three objections were put forward on behalf of the Government by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. First, he referred to a lack of definition and the need for greater detail in specifying the naming of "serious injury" and "seriously affected", although I would point out that the latter term appears in Clause 48 of the Bill in any event.
Secondly, the objection was put that it could not simply be left to the Lands Tribunal to determine the point of principle and the caseload on the Tribunal could be substantial. Thirdly, the objection was put forward that the amendment as then drafted would apply both to the construction stage of works, which of course might be short lived, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, and to the period after the scheme of works had come into final use. It was felt to be inappropriate to require an authority to purchase on this basis, quite apart from possible financial consequences.
In consultation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, I addressed myself to those criticism s and the result is this amendment, which attempt; to overcome them. First, it sets out to define the term "seriously affected". In the context of the amendment as now drafted, the definition is deliberately limited to the physical factors which are those specified in the Land Compensation Act 1973. Your Lordships will know that this refers to dirt, dust, noise and various similar factors.
Secondly, it provides that the Lands Tribunal has to be satisfied that occupation cannot continue
732
without material detriment to the enjoyment of the land. In doing this, it ties in with Section 8 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, where the Lands Tribunal has the authority to determine just such provisions.
There is another point, which is that in subsection (5) of this amendment it is intended to put the burden of proof on the claimant rather than on the acquiring authority. It was felt that this was an important safeguard. Finally, it provides that the notification procedure cannot be implemented until after the expiry of one year from the date when works come into use. It also provides for a time limit —a window—during which the notice can be served by the claimant.
I believe there can be no substantial objection to this amendment. Apart from the wording and the technical points involved, it will apply to very few cases in practice and certainly I do not think it can be seen as imposing a major financial burden on acquiring authorities. Furthermore, if it is considered appropriate under Clause 48 of the Bill as it now stands to give a discretionary power for an acquiring authority to purchase land, it must be right for there to be a provision when the worst effects of public works in their final use can be assessed so that someone with an interest in the property concerned can insist upon the authority acquiring that also if it fulfils the criteria and satisfies the tests which are already provided for in statute.
The alternative is that the person who is affected —it may be a householder or a business, but there is no distinction between different categories of potential claimant—may be entitled to compensation but only for some of his loss. It cannot be right for a householder to be left with a home he cannot sell and an environment he did not choose, and indeed would not have chosen, while I feel that acquiring authorities are likely to be conservative in their implementation of the discretionary powers which are currently covered by Clause 48 because of financial reasons. Therefore my amendment seeks to put the whole matter on a footing which I believe is in line with existing legislation and is capable of being scrutinised by the Lands Tribunal as final arbiter.
In so doing, I am trying to ensure that the consequential costs of public works are not in some way exported to the private citizen and that there is a reduction in what I believe are a significant number of hidden subsidies by the private individual to acquiring authorities. I feel that this is a most important safeguard, which will apply only in a limited number of cases, and I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, argues once again that an owner of property which is seriously affected by public works should have the right to serve a notice requiring that the responsible authority purchase the land. As I indicated when the noble Earl moved a similar, though not identical, amendment in Committee, the Land Compensation Act already provides for owners of land to be compensated for any loss of value attributable to physical effects arising from the use of public works.

733
There is also an entitlement to noise insulation for properties affected by noise disturbance at or above the specified level. In addition to that, as he has mentioned, there exists a discretionary power under which the responsible authorities may acquire land by agreement if it is seriously affected by public development. Clauses 48 and 60 extend this power so that it becomes available to authorities at an earlier stage in their project than at present applies. Clearly the noble Earl remains of the view that these provisions do not yet provide an adequate safeguard for landowners and that the solution is to place authorities under an obligation to purchase seriously affected property if required to do so by the owner.
I readily admit that the noble Earl has sought to address one of the objections that I raised when we discussed the issue in Committee, namely, the absence of any definition of "serious affection". However, the definition he proposes does not seem to me to be sufficiently precise. The provision would still present the Lands Tribunal with an unreasonable task in terms of the volume of cases that it could be called upon to deal with and the nature of the determinations it would be required to make. It would not be sufficient merely to leave it to the Lands Tribunal to decide whether the land could continue to be occupied without material detriment to its enjoyment.
Furthermore, the right to serve the purchase notice would still apply, as I read subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, during the construction stage of a project. Yet, as I said in Committee, the adverse effects of construction work will be, by definition, temporary. It seems to me that to require authorities to purchase properties at that stage would be altogether unreasonable. As a remedy, it would be out of all proportion to the grievance temporarily experienced.
While I am in no doubt as to the strength of the noble Earl's feelings on the matter, I am afraid that I still cannot accept the principle that there should be an obligation on authorities to purchase properties affected by public development. It remains our clear view that the right approach is to leave authorities free to look carefully at the circumstances of each case and to use their discretion to acquire—as extended in the Bill—where there is a clear case for so doing. That, together with the right compensation for loss of value caused by public works offers a reasonable degree of protection to owners of land affected by public development. Although I have said that the noble Earl addressed at least one of the complaints that I made in Committee, I hope that with that explanation he will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It will not surprise him to learn that I am totally dissatisfied with it. I accept that provisions exist which give a right to compensation in the circumstances that he has outlined. That is common ground between us. However, in going on to suggest that the definition is inappropriate, he has not suggested an alternative definition. The definitions I have sought to attach to the amendment are those
734
already enshrined in statute. It is extraordinary that my amendment should be criticised for being devoid of definition when at least part of the wording exists in Clause 48.
If my amendment is incapable of definition on that ground, it is clear that there is something else in the Bill that is also incapable of accurate definition. However, I bow to the Minister's greater knowledge of legal matters, and I cannot pursue that point further. In moving the amendment, I pointed out that it had been my intention that it should not apply to the construction stage but should apply only after the works had come into use. I thought that the wording of the amendment made that point abundantly clear. I am surprised that the Minister should make the same criticism of my amendment as he did of the earlier one in Committee. Clearly, it would be churlish of me to seek the opinion of the House on an amendment which is highly technical, especially bearing in mind that the hour is marching on.
I shall reconsider the point. I must reserve my position on it. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate, as the Minister has said, to leave matters solely in the hands of the acquiring authority which will be acting as judge and jury in its own cause without there being any form of recourse for a complainant who can suffer serious injury, and in the case of the residential occupier, serious injury to his daily existence. I feel strongly that it is an issue with which the Government must come to terms. It does not have major resource implications. I am surprised at the Minister's response. As I said, it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House, although in other circumstances I might seek to do so. I reserve my position, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 49 [Advance payments of compensation and interest]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 57, line 18, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("£500").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved two amendments in Committee to try to persuade the Government that their present method of paying outstanding sums of compensation awards did not put the owner or occupier of land in the same position as he was before the compulsory purchase order. My noble and learned friend said that the amendments were unacceptable because they were too complicated to administer. So, I have done as my noble and learned friend suggested and made the period one year, which is the same as at present, and to cut the amount from £1,000 to £500. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not consider £500 too petty a sum to bother about, because that is not the case for farmers today, most of whom would consider £500 a most acceptable sum.
Only the day before yesterday my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made great play of the generosity of the increases in hill livestock payments to sheep farmers. Those payments are worth about 50p a ewe to me and

735
so in one year for the 1,000 ewes on which I am entitled to claim—that is the maximum—I would receive £200. That is less than £500. The Government say that that £200 is a generous sum. They must logically accept that £500 is even better and should be paid out when the compensation amount reaches that level. If my noble and learned friend disagrees he may want to encourage the Government to increase the hill livestock payments. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, tomorrow evening I have to address the Angus NFU when I have no doubt that the point on which my noble friend has concluded will be made yet again and probably at least as forcefully.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind your Lordships how the Bill's provisions in respect of interest payments will operate. Where a compulsory purchase claimant exercises his right to ask for an advance payment of compensation under the existing provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 he will in future also be entitled to be paid any interest which is due to him at that point. That entitlement will apply regardless of the actual amount of interest which has accrued. Thereafter, the claimant will be entitled to be paid, at annual intervals, any further interest which has became due, provided that the amount of interest stands at more than £1,000 or such other sum as the Secretary of State prescribes. If, however, the authority makes any further advance payment of compensation, it will again be required to pay off any outstanding interest at the same time, regardless of the actual amount involved.
Our reason for specifying both a minimum amount and a minimum interval for interest payments, other than those linked to an advance payment of compensation, is merely to ensure that the new procedure does not impose an unreasonable administrative burden on authorities. A requirement to make frequent payments of relatively small sums would carry a heavy administrative cost for authorities which I do not think would be defensible from the point of view of the cost-effective use of public resources.
As I said previously, it is a matter of judgment as to what the appropriate minimum amount of interest should be. However, we are generally satisfied that the £1,000 we propose represents a reasonable choice in terms of both fairness to claimants and the sensible use of public resources. The lower figure my noble friend suggests tilts the balance too far in the claimant's favour.
The £1,000 and annual interval were explicitly referred to in the department's consultation paper of 1989 and gave rise to no general disagreement. The Bill's provisions in respect of interest payments represent an important new safeguard for claimants. While my noble friend may not accept our conclusions, I hope that he will accept that we have made a considerable improvement and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I must withdraw the amendment although I do not wish to. I did not think that my noble and learned friend's
736
answer was particularly good. I made an effort to ensure that his Civil Servants were not overburdened; it would happen every year, as it does under the Bill. The amount would simply drop from £1,000 to £500, the administrative costs are no greater.
I have to withdraw the amendment but I hope that when my noble and learned friend goes to Scotland tomorrow he will be asked—indeed I shall try to ensure that this happens —whether he takes the attitude that £500 is as good as £1,000. If so, will he do the same for Scottish hill farmers? With regret, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Certification of appropriate alternative development]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 258A:
Page 59, line 18, after ("but") insert ("if and so far as this is appropriate having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a revised version of the principle behind an earlier series of amendments moved at the Committee stage. The objective of these amendments was to alter the effect of certification procedures under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act. That provides that where land is compulsorily acquired the claimant may apply to the local planning authority for a certificate to ascertain what other developments or planning permissions might have been forthcoming but for the compulsory acquisition. This procedure was not available in certain circumstances but in many instances the situation was covered under Section 16 of the Act.
The reason for extending Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act is that there are often site-specific factors affecting possible alternative uses rather than general policy factors enshrined in the local development plan. The development plan itself may not be sufficiently up to date to give accurate current guidance in individual instances.
The Government moved their own Amendment No. 297 at the Committee stage and I warmly welcomed it. However it had one serious deficiency in the form of subsection (2) which is now in Clause 51, which amended subsection (4) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. This effectively provided that a planning authority could certify that planning permission would have been granted for a development of a specified type. That is in addition to the purpose for which the land was acquired. But the important point is that the permission must also certify that no other development would have been permitted. Bearing in mind the number of alternative types of development, the alternative uses that might be considered in any instance and the breadth of interpretation possible within, say, Class B.1—to quote one example of the Town and Country Planning Act use classes order—I believe that this is a recipe for gross unfairness and for a string of appeals to the Secretary of State. Therefore I feel that it is not acceptable to leave the Government's original

737
amendment in that form. It does not provide a perfect answer to the purpose behind the amendments that I intended to move.
The Government's reasons for objecting to my previous amendments related primarily to the conflict of interest which would arise between the contents of a Section 17 certificate and the development plan assumptions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate admitted that the risk was probably not great and, if anything, it was set to reduce. I agree; I do not believe that the risk is great.
Amendment No. 258A seeks to reconcile the problem by inserting the words printed in the Marshalled List so that a negative opinion is included in the certificate of alternative developments only if it is clearly appropriate. This may make matters marginally more difficult for valuers in terms of agreeing the appropriate value that arises from a possible differential basis of value. However, it should allay the conflict which concerns the Government. I think that it will greatly reduce the burden on the local planning authority which would be put in an impossible position as the Bill stands and it would reduce the burden on the Secretary of State in handling possible appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are concerned here with the provisions added to the Bill regarding the procedure for certifying what, if any, alternative development would have been permitted on land to be compulsorily acquired.
The main purpose of the new provisions is to remove the exclusion on the issue of a certificate in respect of land which is included within a development plan. Our grounds for making this change are that the designation shown on a development plan may not always provide a sufficiently precise or up-to-date indication of the planning status of an individual site for the purpose of establishing its value.
As I made clear when we discussed the matter in Committee, in extending the scope of the certification procedure to include land covered by development plans, we need to establish a basis for resolving any potential conflict between the content of a certificate and an assumption derived from a development plan. We have sought to achieve this by providing for the certificate not merely to specify what, if any, alternative development would have been permitted but also to make clear that permission would not have been granted for any development other than that specified. The contents of a certificate will thus override any contrary assumptions arising from a development plan.
The noble Earl expressed concern over the requirement that the certificate should exclude all development other than that specified. But it seems to us that this approach provides by far the most satisfactory means of resolving any conflict between a certificate and a development plan. The noble Earl's amendment would provide for the certificate to exclude development other than that specified only in cases where it is considered appropriate, having regard
738
to the development plan and other material considerations. However, such a formula would in my view leave matters far too vague and open-ended and thus cut right across what we seek to achieve— namely, a greater degree of precision as to the planning status of land to be compulsorily acquired. From what the noble Earl said, I believe that at one point he was prepared to accept that if his approach were to be adopted, it would make for greater difficulties for those who have responsibility for valuing. We wish to make this clear in order to eliminate unfairness and to give a degree of precision that will enable the task to be satisfactorily and clearly carried out.
I hope that the noble Earl will accept that the approach we have adopted in these provisions provides the best means of achieving the desired objective. Even if he does not care for my rejection of his amendment, I am grateful to him for what he said about the general improvement that he accepts we have introduced in these provisions.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. I fully accept that there must be a reasonably clearly defined basis on which to establish the planning use. However, with a central area redevelopment with a basket of possible uses there will be problems in insisting that the local planning authority must certify one use and also certify that all other uses are to be excluded. In practical planning terms, that is almost incapable of being achieved other than on a "suck-it-and-see" basis, "We'll stick that one in because it's the most likely use". I feel that an element of unfairness creeps in with the amendment which the Government have already made to the Bill. That is the issue I seek to address.
There is a problem and there will be a problem in the sense that there will be appeals. People will say, "I should have been allowed such-and-such a use and I shall appeal to the Secretary of State because it is not included on my certificate". I proposed the amendment as an attempt to improve and streamline the legislation, not to try to create difficulties nor to cut across a provision which is a cardinal tenet of government policy. I wish to make that clear.
I do not believe that we are at odds on the principle behind the legislation, it is purely a technical matter of how to deal with the provision. It is not particularly difficult for valuers to get to grips with alternative uses in the context of valuing according to a Section 17 certificate. It is often the case in valuation terms that to produce an open market value one must make one or other of a series of assumptions regarding planning. In my professional life I do it all the time. I may not be typical but I suspect I am. Therefore I do not see that this creates the problem that I suspect the noble and learned Lord is trying to proffer to the House. I shall reconsider this matter. I reserve my right to return with the provision at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Schedule 12 [Compensation where permission for additional development granted after acquisition]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 143, line 11, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I stand in for the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on this modest amendment which is an amendment to the welcome Amendment No. 287 accepted in Committee. That amendment was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
We are pressing this amendment today because we feel that a question of fairness is involved. Many development schemes take more than 10 years to complete. A motorway is but one example. If the scheme is not completed before the end of 10 years, it is unlikely that the authority will know whether land is surplus until that time. Therefore the landowner is open to the real danger of an abuse of the statutory power by the compulsory purchasing authority. There will even be a strong temptation for the purchasing authority to take just a little extra land in order to be safe. That may be by a process of—as children say —mistake on purpose. The purchasing authority may take such a step with a view to selling the land off afterwards and thereby helping to cover the cost of the project.
Where a scheme takes fewer than 10 years perhaps it takes six or eight—there will be a temptation to wait the final two years before applying for further planning permission in order not to have to pay the vendor a fair share of the additional value relating to new planning permission. That danger is made greater by the fact that many of the bodies which will have statutory powers in the future are not the old fashioned statutory undertakers but new PLCs. Those PLCs have shareholders pressing for a profit and a dividend. I believe the PLCs will regard this provision as a loophole in the legislation.
Long ago the private sector recognised that 21 years was a fair and reasonable time for deferred compensation. I find it hard to understand why the Government should take a different view. I remind the House that we are talking about compulsory purchase here. We are therefore talking about an unwilling seller. My argument is that the Government have to accept responsibility for being extra fair in that case. I believe that a period of 21 years is much more likely to provide a fair solution than 10 years. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment relates to the revised provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1961, under which a former owner of compulsorily purchased land can claim additional compensation in the event of its value being increased by a planning decision within 10 years of the acquisition. The noble Lord proposes to extend this 10 year period to 21 years.
As I indicated in response to a similar amendment in Committee, there is no simple basis for deciding over what period planning decisions should be taken into account for the purpose of establishing an
740
entitlement to additional compensation. Certainly we want to ensure that the provisions offer adequate protection for the interests of those whose land is compulsorily acquired. On the other hand, we do not think it would be sensible to allow the entitlement to additional compensation to become too detached in time from the actual acquisition of the land. A ten year period seems to us to strike a reasonable balance between these two considerations. It is of course double the amount of time allowed under the original 1961 Act provisions. By contrast, the 21 years advocated by the noble Lord would seem to go too far in separating the question of additional compensation from the actual acquisition of the land.
The noble Lord has argued that, where an interest is reserved against future development in the private sector, the period is usually 21 years. I am not sure I can agree with this assertion. It is our impression that, in so far as such arrangements operate within the private sector, the agreed period will vary from case to case but will not normally be as long as the noble Lord suggests. It has been asserted that 21 years is the maximum period allowed under the Land Compensation Act. I am afraid that I am not clear as to what is meant by this. I am not aware of any specified period in existing land compensation legislation which would be a relevant precedent for the purpose of these provisions.
I believe the noble Lord suggested that he felt that what he was asking for was fair. I shall advocate a provision that we suggest is also fair. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the approach we have adopted here is basically a fair one, and that he will not think it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that her reply disappointed me. I disagree on the issue of fairness. It remains for me to provide some evidence in writing to support the assertions that I have made. I hope that that may lead to a reconsideration of the matter at a later stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 144, line 17, leave out ("the Land Compensation Act 1961") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment relating to Schedule 12 of the Bill, which reinstates the former provisions of Part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Provision is made for interest to be paid on outstanding amounts of additional compensation under Part IV at the rate prescribed under Section 32 of the 1961 Act. As the provision is already contained in the Act, however, there is no need to repeat the title of the Act: hence the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Home loss payments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 60, line 32, at beginning insert:

741
("(1) In section 29(1) (e) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling) after the words "Housing Act 1985" there shall be inserted "or, in the case of a housing association, under ground 6 of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 261, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 262. We return here to the issue of home loss payments for tenants as well as owner occupiers. We had an interesting and, in some ways, encouraging debate in Committee when I proposed a number of amendments which appeared to be defective. Perhaps I had not found the perfect form for those amendments. However, the principle I sought to achieve was that home loss payments should be available to tenants as well as to owner occupiers on the basis enunciated by the Minister when she said that the fundamental consideration was the distress and disruption caused to people when they were deprived of their home after they had lived in it for a long time. It appears to us that if the criterion is the period of time spent in the home, that should apply equally to tenants as to owner occupiers. Owner occupiers of course also obtain the value of the home. The home loss payment is an additional payment.
We also sought to update the provisions in the Bill. It provides at the moment for statutory tenants. The Housing Act 1988 is progressively replacing statutory tenancies by assured tenancies at different speeds in different parts of the country. That is the Government's intention. As no one in his right mind who has a statutory tenancy would choose to replace it with an assured tenancy—as an assured tenancy provides less security of tenure and less security against rent increases—we believed that those who were put in the position of having an assured tenancy should have protection. That is the intention of one part of Amendment No. 262.
There are a number of grounds whereby tenants of housing associations may lose their tenancies. There is a particular ground concerning permanent removal from their homes if the homes are declared unfit for human habitation. We did not believe that provision was covered by the Bill as drafted and we felt that it should be covered.
Finally, in the latter part of Amendment No. 262 we cover the question of spouses with rights of occupation under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. There appeared to be an imbalance in that the husband normally has the tenancy but the wife does not have the same written tenancy and therefore is not entitled to home loss payments in the same way as the husband would be.
Again, there was discussion of the matter in Committee. The Minister sought to persuade me that it was not a problem and she has been kind enough to write to me since then. However, I am still not convinced that the matter is entirely clear. I believe that it is desirable for her definitive position on this matter to be spelt out in the House and to be available in Hansard as a result.
We should like to find a way of securing that the
742
degree of home loss payment should be proportional to the length of time the tenant has been in the home, in the same way as it will be for owner occupiers. If I have not found a satisfactory way of achieving that objective I apologise to the House, but I shall certainly go on trying. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in relation to Amendment No. 261 I should first make clear that any housing association tenant who is displaced from his home because the property has been compulsorily purchased for purposes of public development, for example a road scheme, will receive a home loss payment on the same basis as any other tenant.
The noble Lord's amendment relates, however, to the position of registered housing association tenants who are compelled by the association itself to move to enable the property to be redeveloped. Whether or not the tenant in those circumstances receives a home loss payment currently depends on the nature of his tenancy. A tenant with an old-style secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985 is entitled to payment, whereas a tenant with a new-style assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988 is not.
As I explained to your Lordships in Committee, the difference in the position as between old- and new-style tenancies reflects the shift in our overall approach towards the voluntary housing movement. Our policy has been to avoid applying additional statutory provisions to assured tenancies granted by registered housing associations which are not part of the general assured tenancy regime (which also covers lettings by commercial landlords). However, I entirely accept that a housing association tenant with an assured tenancy who is displaced for redevelopment purposes ought to receive financial compensation on similar terms to those applying in respect of old-style tenancies. As I indicated in Committee, we consider that that requirement can best be met by way of the tenants' guarantee. That is the general framework of guidance, formulated by the Housing Corporation on a statutory basis, with which all registered housing associations are expected to comply in managing their properties.
We have asked the Housing Corporation to make provision in the tenants' guarantee for housing association tenants with assured tenancies who are displaced to be compensated on a similar basis as would apply if they came within the scope of the statutory home loss payment scheme. We have no reason to expect that the Housing Corporation will be unwilling to comply with that request.
The issue is being considered as part of a general review of the guarantee which we hope will have been concluded by the time the Bill concludes its passage through Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord can accept my undertaking in that respect and will not press Amendment No. 261.
Amendment No. 262 seeks to add to those people who already qualify for home loss payments a further three groups. The first group is statutory tenants within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977. As I said in Committee, it is not necessary to extend the home loss payment provisions expressly to that Act. Although the provisions refer to the Rent Act 1968, tenants

743
under the 1977 Act also qualify by virtue of the fact that the 1977 Act was a consolidation of the 1968 Act and other Acts. The link is provided by the Interptetation Act, as is usual where legislation has been revised or re-enacted. There is thus no need for the noble Lord's amendment.
The second group would be those occupying a dwelling under a contractual licence. In our view, there is no case for bringing licensees within the scope of the home loss payment scheme. We are talking here about people living in a dwelling under a casual or short-term arrangement—for example, a lodger, a paying guest, or a student in term-time digs. Such people have no legal interest in the property, they do not have security of tenure, and in general one would not expect that in their case loss of the accommodation would give rise to the sort of personal distress with which the home loss payment scheme is concerned. There is also, as I explained in Committee, the possibility of such persons leapfrogging relatively easily from one home to another, ahead of an authority which requires possession of those properties, simply in order to gain entitlement to a home loss payment on each occasion.
The third group to which Amendment No. 262 refers is deserted spouses with rights of occupation under tile Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. I have given a good deal of thought to this matter since the noble Lord first raised it in Committee and I have listened carefully to the arguments he has advanced this evening. I have to agree that there is an issue here which we ought to look into further. I cannot at this stage make any firm promises, but I am prepared to go away and consider the problem in consultation with colleagues, to see whether there is any scope for us to come forward with a suitable provision in another place which would meet the noble Lord's concern.
I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendments in view of the response I have given. I rest my case.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not in a court of law yet; and I am certainly not on trial! That answer is three-quarters satisfactory. What the Minister said about the request made to the Housing Corporation goes further than what she was able to say at Committee. She said then that she proposed to make a request to the corporation and she now tells us that she has made that request. She recognises the justice of the assured tenancies, which we are agreed nobody moves to from choice, as being recognised for home loss payments in the same way.
What is required is for the Housing Corporation to continue to provide funding to the housing association movement to pay those home loss payments to assured tenants as well as to secure tenants. That is an issue which will no doubt be dealt with at another time. Therefore I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 261.
In connection with Amendment No. 262 I am very satisfied with what the Minister said in connection
744
with the definition of statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977, and I shall not return to the matter again.
I am not really satisfied with what she said about contractual licence because I am not convinced that contractual licences are always short term, as she suggested. A number of cases have been drawn to my attention, particularly of elderly people who have been in their homes for a very long time and have nothing in writing. They could be retired people who have been in a tied home and the position has never been regularised. They will still run the risk of loss of their home without adequate compensation. That is a matter to which I may have to return at a later stage.
I am grateful for what the Minister said about the rights of spouses under the Matrimonial Homes Act and I look forward to seeing the amendment that is brought forward in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, if Amendment No. 263 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 264.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 61, leave out lines 3 to 11 and insert:

("30.—(1) In the case of a person who on the date of displacement is occupying, or is treated for the purposes of section 29 above as occupying, the dwelling, the amount of home loss payment shall be £5,000 and 10 per cent. of the market value of his interest in the dwelling in excess of £50,000 or, as the case may be, the interest in the dwelling vested in trustees.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 263 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 265, 267, 268 and 269 in my own name, and also to Amendment No. 266 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I understand that we shall also be discussing Amendments Nos. 264 and 270 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
There is very little between my own amendment and the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ross, in terms of what they seek to achieve. The Bill provides considerable improvements in the position of tenants in relation to their right to receive a home loss compensation payment. On the other hand, the compensation—the home loss payment—which tenants will receive has hardly changed in many cases since 1973. In Committee I did not feel that that was a point that my noble friend took on board. I hope that this evening she will say something to encourage me to believe that we shall get somewhere in this respect. She said:
"A number of the amendments reflect concern that our proposals do not involve sufficiently generous treatment of tenants as compared with owner-occupiers. While it is undoubtedly true that nearly everyone is distressed when they have to move home against their will it seems to us that the distress will normally be greater for those who have substantially invested in their homes". [Official Report, 4/2/91; col. 1081.]

745
That seems to me to be unkind. I wonder whether my noble friend has confused distress with financial loss. But I do not make that point.
I shall not worry your Lordships with details of figures, because I am trying in my amendments and the other amendments to deal with the principles involved. My amendments provide for home loss payments to be fixed partly by fixed payment and partly by a percentage of the value of the interest acquired. One point that I raised in Committee was that it is only with this new Bill that the home loss payment provisions applying to tenants have been separated from those applying to owner occupiers by the introduction of what seems to be a slightly irrelevant dividing line between the interests of an owner and those of others.
In Committee I drew attention to various types of tenancy in which there were anomalies; namely, between tenants who might fall on one side or the other of the dividing line. If home loss payments are to be dealt with in a sensible way we should try to return to the position in which the distinction is not made. In that respect I prefer my amendment to the noble Lord's amendment whereby the distinction to be introduced by this Bill is maintained.
There is one other way in which I am not altogether happy with the noble Lord's amendment. It is very easy to award payments based on the number of years of occupation. I think that it is not right to suggest that as a general rule the distress which is occasioned on the loss of a home is to be measured by the length of time that one has lived in it. This is a case where one should adopt the legal tag that equality is equity and provide a similar payment for distress for all who have suffered it. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my amendment is slightly different. I shall speak solely to Amendments Nos. 264 and 270 in my name. As was said in Committee by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, the Minister made much of the fact that this clause was in aid of compensating people for personal distress and inconvenience. I drew your Lordships' attention to the point that there is a wider issue involved. It is imperative to the future success of British business competing on the home, European and worldwide markets that development proposals, in particular for major infrastructure projects, should not be hindered. That can occur when home owners object to the proposals on grounds that they are being offered inadequate compensation payments to move house. Adequate payments can help to smooth out the anxieties and reluctance of some home owners toward a future development in their local vicinity.
I must however stress that the level of compensation payment must be sufficient to satisfy all relevant home owners as potential objectors and an appropriate level chosen to discourage them from formally opposing development proposals. I feel that that level should be 25 per cent. I urge my noble friend to appreciate that point.
As I told the Committee, France gives 20 per cent. It seems to me that in a typical British way we have selected the figure at 10 per cent. as the least that can
746
be given to appear to compensate for personal distress and inconvenience suffered by people who are forced to move, as referred to in Committee by my noble friend. That does not address the problem of discouraging formal opposition to a move by an enraged householder. It takes only one dissatisfied owner to object to and delay in a most considerable manner such British developments as are vital to the future economic success of our country. I do not believe that the difference between 25 per cent. and 10 per cent. in cash terms will be vast. It is not as though the whole of the country was to have roads and railways run across it. It is only a selected area that would be affected.
I honestly believe that the principle that I am trying to voice is worthy of very serious consideration by my noble friend. When I move my amendments, provided that previous amendments are not agreed to, I hope that she will agree to them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 266 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and his observations about the differences between Amendment No. 266 and his amendment, Amendment No. 263. I accept that both amendments are trying to do the same thing; namely, to bring the sliding scale into operation for tenants as well as for owner-occupiers. Therefore, in one sense I do not mind very much which of the two amendments is accepted, provided that the Government are in favour of the principle. From what the Minister said in Committee I think that they were in favour of it and that we can be reasonably relaxed about the form of words that is used.
The difficulty about my amendment—I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord's amendment—is that by my amendment residence in previous homes counts only towards the minimum home loss payment and not when counting additional years. Therefore to that extent my amendment is the more modest. I hope that one of the two amendments, or at any rate the principle of a sliding scale for tenants, will be acceptable to the House.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I do not have very much to add to what has already been said. At the end of the day I hope that this House decides to give to tenants a more generous allocation in home loss payments. I supported the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I was specifically asked to do so by someone from the tenants' association, who drew the matter to my attention in the first place. I suspect that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is preferable and I certainly go along with it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, Amendments Nos. 264 and 270, would provide for the home loss payment for owner-occupiers to be set at 25 per cent. of the value of the property rather than at 10 per cent. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine would involve a substantial restructuring of the home loss

747
payments provisions. As I understand it, he proposes that the payments in all cases—owner-occupiers and tenanti—should be £5,000 plus 10 per cent. of the market value of the property above £50,000 without any upper limit.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, Amendment No. 266, would provide for the home loss payment for non-owner-occupiers to be £1,500 multiplied by the number of complete years that claimant has occupied the property, subject to a maximum of £15,000.
Your Lordships will know that under our proposals owner-occupiers will receive 10 per cent. of the market value of their property, subject to a minimum of £1,500 and a maximum of £15,000. The payment to tenants remains at £1,500 but the residence qualification for all claimants is reduced from five years to one year. We are also broadening entitlement in various other ways, in particular by removing the bar on a home loss payment in the case of blight notice acquisitions.
These new arrangements apply to anyone displaced in qualifying circumstances as from 16th November 1990. I do not think anyone denies that our proposals represent a substantial improvement on the previous scheme.
I start by emphasising once again that we are not concerned here with a simple black and white issue. As your Lordships are aware, the essential purpose of the home loss payment scheme is to provide some monetary compensation for the personal distress and inconvenience involved in the enforced loss of one's home. Since there is clearly no way in which personal distress can be objectively measured, whatever level of compensation is chosen must in the last resort be arbitrary. We can make the choice only on the basis of a judgment as to what is reasonable in all the circumstances—reasonable from the point of view of the claimant who is losing his home, but reasonable too in terms of the burden which the taxpayer or local chargepayer is expected to bear.
Forming such a judgment is a far from simple matter and I freely admit that we did not find it easy to reach a decision. But overall it seems to us that the approach we have adopted achieves the right balance between the two key considerations that I have mentioned. I would be very doubtful indeed as to whether that could be said of some of the various alternatives proposed by my noble friends. I have to say that the formula advocated by my noble friend Lord Coleraine is particularly open to objection in that it would seem to involve an almost limitless call on the public purse.
A number of your Lordships remain unhappy about the position of tenants under our proposals. I do not lightly dismiss these anxieties, but I would say this in response. We are dealing, as I have said, with the distress caused by the loss of a home and it seems to us that such distress will be considerably greater among those who have bought their property—perhaps making considerable sacrifice in order to do so—than among tenants. Whereas tenants frequently have to live with the possibility of being required to
748
move at some stage because the landlord requires possession of the property, the home owner normally expects to enjoy complete security of tenure. For him the enforced loss of his home at the hands of a statutory authority will generally come as a totally unforeseen blow.
Moreover, the owner-occupier who is displaced under statutory action is usually put to the trouble of finding an alternative property for himself, whereas a tenant can normally expect to be rehoused by the local housing authority—in many cases in accommodation of a superior standard to that which he has left.
On these grounds it seems to us right that the home loss payment for owner-occupiers should in general be higher than that for tenants. But let me also remind your Lordships that tenants stand to benefit from other aspects of our proposals. In particular, many more of them will not be eligible for a home loss payment as a result of the relaxation in the residence qualifications.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone proposes once again that the payment for owner-occupiers should be set at 25 per cent. of market value rather than the 10 per cent. that we propose. He has argued that to place the home loss payment scheme on a still more generous basis than we propose in this Bill would pay dividends in the form of a reduction in the extent to which major development proposals are resisted by those whose property stands to be acquired. Certainly, we wish to do all we reasonably can to minimise the cases in which people resist public development simply because they consider the terms of compensation to be unfair. Indeed, we hope that our proposals will yield important benefits in this respect. However, I would be very wary of putting too much emphasis on that aspect. There is no hard evidence as to how far the degree of resistance to public development is influenced by the terms on which compensation is available. After all, the people whose property is actually acquired for a public development are often only a very small proportion of the total number affected in some way by that development. But in any case it is our firm view that the crucial consideration in determining the level of compensation must be not what will prove effective in buying off resistance to projects, but rather what is fair as between the interests of the individual claimant and the community as a whole.
Despite what my noble friend has said about the French approach to land compensation, a comparison between the French system and our own is by no means straightforward. It is true that the French system provides for a general percentage supplement on top of market value for all claimants. This may in some cases be as high as 25 per cent., but only on the first 100,000 francs—that is £10,000. Otherwise, the percentage varies from case to case but is normally around 10 per cent. The French do not reimburse many of the incidental costs which are specifically covered by our provisions—for example, legal and surveying fees—and there is no provision for home loss or farm loss payments. So it is not at all clear that claimants do better in France than they do in this country.

749
My approach in responding to the various points which have been raised on the level of home loss payments is not to say that the Government's proposals are self-evidently right and the alternatives obviously wrong. These are undoubtedly difficult issues. However, I hope that your Lordships will accept that the provisions in the Bill represent a very substantial improvement on the terms of compensation offered to those who lose their homes and that they strike a reasonable balance between fairness to the claimant and a sensible use of public resources. I hope that on this basis noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press their amendments.
8 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank my noble friend for her answer to my amendments. The arguments seem plausible. Perhaps a figure halfway between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. might be an answer. However, that would be a matter for another place.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, my noble friend's reply was hardly nourishing. She has not answered the question of why compensation to tenants should be so little more than it was 18 years ago when the Act was originally passed.
She stated that tenants at some point must expect their leases to come to an end and the wicked landlord to shove them into the snow. Many tenancies end at a fixed time and the tenants have a perfectly good knowledge of when they will have to move. They can make their arrangements. Other tenancies have the protection of the law. I refer to assured tenancies or statutory tenancies. It cannot be said that those tenants can be chucked into the snow by the landlord. I did not find that part of her answer satisfying.
Nor did I find the answer satisfactory that an owner-occupier with his money will suffer more from being disturbed than the tenant. The owner-occupier by definition normally has the money with which to buy somewhere to which to move. The tenant is not in that position. He has to find another tenancy or go to the local authority for housing. I hope that the matter will be given further consideration and that it may be possible to produce a better provision in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 265 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 266.
[Amendments Nos. 265 to 269 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Home Loss Payments]:
[Amendment No. 270 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Amendments relating to land compensation]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 270A:
Page 152, line 17, at end insert:
("Further provision as to compensation for injurious affection
. After subsection (2) of section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (further provision as to compensation for injurious affection) there is inserted—
"(2A) Where a person has a right to compensation for injurious affection under this section that compensation shall include compensation for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the valuation of the land." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return to the theme of Amendment No. 341 which I moved at Committee stage. I felt that it was submerged in a group of other amendments, and that it was proper to raise the matter again at this stage.
The amendment relates to losses to a business arising out of public works. In particular, it seeks to reverse the effect of the decision of this House in the case of Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) v. Birkenhead Corporation in 1975. The effect of the case was that although the claimant had no land taken, he had satisfied the requirements under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 enabling him to make a claim for the loss in the value of his interest in land. That was accepted and was perfectly justified.
However, the claim for the loss to the business operating from those premises was disallowed. It was recognised that there was no right of compensation for an admitted loss even though other losses relating to land value had been accepted. It was also admitted that it caused undue hardship.
At Committee stage the Minister objected to my previous amendment. It was lumped together with other amendments. I wish to clarify that the issue has nothing to do with the general loss of business that might be incurred by the general construction of a bypass. It relates to a specific instance. It ensures that where a claim for loss in the value of land is admitted and established under the limited terms of Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 the consequential losses should also be taken into account. I believe that any other approach is entirely artificial. Why should somebody receive compensation for loss in the value of the land but not receive compensation for losses to the business that is being conducted from it? That appears to be an anomaly. I wish to make it clear that Amendment No. 270A does not create a new category of claimant.
Claims under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 can be made only in a few cases where no land is taken but where a legal right has been interfered with. Why should the provision be limited to that, and that alone? Surely, if land is taken, the profits from a business form part and parcel of that claim. At present an anomalous situation exists because where land is taken one can claim for the loss of business, but if one merely has a right of access interfered with, one cannot. How can that be right? I believe that an indefensible hardship is being created and that the Government should consider the position most carefully. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Earl was anxious that the point that he made in Committee had been lost. It may have been lost on everyone else but it was not lost on me. From the way in which he has again argued the point it is clear that he understands the issue causing anxiety.

751
The noble Earl argues once more that compensation for injurious affection under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 should take account of disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of the land. As he has explained, compensation claims can be made under Section 10 in cases where land is not taken but is, nevertheless, injuriously affected by the carrying out of public development. The provision is relevant mainly to business claimants.
The basis of compensation under Section 10 is the depreciation in the value of land due to the execution of the development. In the Argyle case, to which the noble Earl has referred, it was held that, where access to a motorcar showroom was permanently hindered by the reconstructed approach roads to the Mersey Tunnel, the compensation claimed under Section 10 could reasonably include loss of profitability in the business, in so far as it affected the value of the land on which the showroom stood. However, as the noble Earl has clearly said, actual loss of profits should not be taken into account. His amendment is designed to reverse the Argyle decision so that actual cash losses can be taken into account in an award of compensation under Section 10. I understand that while his amendment might expand the claim it does not introduce a new class of claim.
I regret to say that the Government are not persuaded that there is a case for changing the law in this respect. On balance it seems to us right that compensation in this context should relate to the value of the property concerned. If the owner of the business has been adversely affected by public development, that adverse effect will normally be reflected in a depreciation in the value of the property, including the business. Where such depreciation occurs, the owner can cliam compensation under Section 10.
A businessman affected by public development in this way will still of course be able to run his business. He may need to adjust his commercial strategy to take account of his changed situation and thus maintain his profits. But that is no different from what would be required in the event of, for example, the establishment of a rival business.
It is our view that Section 10, as it has been interpreted by the courts, provides a reasonable basis for the assessment of compensation in injurious affection cases. I know that the noble Earl will understand the argument. I cannot agree, as he would urge, that the basis for compensation in such cases should be further extended.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I appear to be having a bruising experience at the tongue of the noble and learned Lord. There is no disagreement between us on the extent of the provision, what it does and what it seeks to remedy. I felt that it was of limited application and accept that to some extent that cuts both ways. If it is of limited application, why legislate to put something right? On the other hand, one gross unfairness is one gross unfairness too many. That is why I return to the fray on this issue. I shall reconsider the situation because the Minister's reply is not entirely satisfactory. I recognise the point he makes
752
that someone can continue the business that they are running. While reserving my position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 270B:
Page 152, line 17, at end insert:
("Notice requiring entry
. After section 12 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (unauthorised entry) there is inserted—
"Notice requiring entry.
12A.—(1) Any person served with a notice to treat under section 5 of this Act (notice to treat, and untraced owners) shall be entitled at any time after the expiration of the period of one year from service of that notice and before it ceases for any reason to have effect to serve a counter-notice on the acquiring authority requiring the authority to take possession of any land included in the notice to treat and specified in the counter-notice, of which he is entitled to give them possession, on a date specified in the counter-notice being a date not earlier than the latest date on which the authority are entitled to withdraw the notice to treat under section 31 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (withdrawal of notice to treat).
(2) Unless the acquiring authority withdraw the notice to treat under section 31 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (withdrawal of notice to treat) the counter-notice shall take effect on the date specified in it and the authority shall be deemed to have entered on and taken possession of the land on that date as if they had served a notice of entry under section 11 of this Act (powers of entry).
(3) If the notice to treat is withdrawn as mentioned in subsection (2) the counter-notice shall be of no effect." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment relates to an amendment that I moved at an earlier stage. The purpose was to enable a claimant who had had a notice to treat served upon him under the provisions of a compulsory purchase order to serve a counter-notice on the authority requiring it to take possession of the land. The reason is that there may be a gap of months or years between the service of the notice to treat and entry by the acquiring authority. During debates at an earlier stage it was recognised by the Minister that the situation caused hardship. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade her of the merits of my amendment.
In the meantime a claimant is caught in a period of indecision where he can neither seek alternative premises nor make any medium or long-term plans. The previous amendment was objected to, although the inequity of the situation was recognised, principally because of the provision in the Government's Clause 46 (now Clause 53) that after three years the notice to treat will cease to have effect. Three years is a substantial period of uncertainty and is highly disruptive. In this respect I am concerned in particular about householders because they are most at risk. I fail to understand that it is reasonable to protect the public interest in this way by penalising a certain sector of society.
In order to obtain a compulsory purchase order an acquiring authority must in any event be satisfied and prove that the land is required. I cannot accept that an authority can merely change its mind three years after

753
serving a notice to treat and walk away from the natural consequences of that action. My amendment seeks to provide that after a certain period of time a claimant should require an authority to take possession of his land in order to introduce an element of certainty to the proceedings. It seeks to accommodate what I understood to be the Government's feelings and reservations about my original amendment. In addition, it seeks to provide the essential safeguard to claimants who must wait more than one year from the service of the notice to treat without entry being taken. That is an ample period.
I welcome the fact that a three-year rule has been introduced and I give the Government credit for that. Not everyone wishes to sell up as opposed to remaining in occupation for as long as possible. However, in other cases a severe hardship is caused by the acquiring authority not having taken possession. I know that it is contrary to the Government's philosophy to have the facility for somebody to put a requirement on the acquiring authority as opposed to it having full discretion in these matters. However, hardship must be avoided and, in all fairness, something must be done even if this amendment is not the best vehicle. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment is similar to that which the noble Earl moved in Committee except for the fact that the owner's right to require acquisition would be delayed until one year after the service of notice to treat. That would leave a period of two years in which the owner could take such action before the notice to treat would lapse by default by virtue of Clauses 53 or 62 of the Bill.
I do not want to give the impression that the Government are unsympathetic to the position of owners who have been served with notice to treat but who are uncertain and worried about when the acquiring authority will actually take possession of their property. On the contrary, we are sufficiently concerned to have introduced provisions, which put a three-year limit on the effectiveness of notice to treat if no constructive progress has been made by the authority in that time. The noble Earl accepted that. Indeed such a time limit was among the recommendations put forward by the RICS in its memorandum on land compensation published in 1989. We believe that it is a fair and reasonable timescale for both claimant and authority.
However, in making provision for claimants, we must take care to ensure that we are not burdening authorities with unnecessary bureaucracy and costly administrative responsibilities which, in financial terms, outweigh the perceived advantages to claimants. A right for owners to intervene and insist that the acquiring authority enter on to the land as and when he chose would, in our view, tip the balance too far against authorities. The co-ordination of public development is normally a complex and time-consuming process and it seems to us that to accept the noble Earl's proposal would mean adding a further layer of complication which it would be very difficult to justify.
754
The noble Earl has been extremely patient this evening. He has put his case very well and the Government are not without sympathy for it. However, in this instance we argue for a balance between both parties. I hope the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for putting it in such courteous terms, as she always does. After consultation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors I decided to retable this amendment in its present form. It is true that it was originally suggested that three years was probably a satisfactory period. I believe it was felt that that was the best that could be achieved at the time rather than what was necessarily considered to be fair, particularly to the claimant, in the circumstances.
This is a difficult question of balance. I shall consider the matter further. I thank the noble Baroness for her kind comments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 153, line 28, at end insert:
("Disturbance payments
. Section 37(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for not raising this matter before. I had not appreciated the point until we discussed tenants' compensation in Committee.
If a claimant for compensation has a greater interest than a tenant for a year or from year to year, he must be served with a notice to treat. That being so, Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 will not apply. Those holding up to five-year tenancies under Section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 are in such a position. There is a strong argument that they should be no worse off than a yearly tenant. The statutory means of achieving that is vague and extremely complicated. For a reason which I do not understand, agricultural interests were excluded from the provisions of Section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. That enabled those without "compensationable" interest to be paid disturbance.
It is considered that while such an exclusion may have been justified under conditions prevailing in 1973, the increased number of short-term tenancies now becoming apparent require a change and the removal of Section 37(1) would be a step towards that.
I hope that my noble friend will say that I am correct to pose this problem. If I am and the Government will not accept this amendment, which I believe would make the position absolutely clear, will she say whether the Government have other ideas to deal with the problem?
There is an additional anxiety. On 12th February this year my right honourable friend the Minister responsible for agriculture published a consultation paper which, if accepted, would put all future tenants in the same category as those I have in mind as regards

755
this amendment. I realise that my noble friend cannot give me a specific answer to that point as she will say that that depends on what the Government eventually decide to do after consultation. However, perhaps she will assure me that representatives of her department will take a walk over to the Ministry of Agriculture to discuss the problems of these new tenants as regards compensation. Her department could be landed with some fairly burdensome problems if that does not take place. Perhaps wrongly, I feel that the Department of the Environment does not always deign to talk to other departments, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture. I beg to move.
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, it would appear that the reason why agricultural land was omitted from Section 37 was that disturbance compensation in respect of agricultural interests which would not otherwise be covered by Section 5 of the 1961 Act were already provided for under existing agricultural legislation.
In our view, provision for disturbance for tenant farmers displaced by compulsory purchase is adequately dealt with under agricultural legislation in those cases where it is not covered by the land compensation code.
I know that my noble friend is also concerned about the levels of compensation which might be payable to tenant farmers following the reform of agricultural tenancy law which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently published. I can assure my noble friend that the Department of the Environment will be keeping in close touch with the Ministry of Agriculture over these issues and that they will look carefully at any interaction between the statutory land compensation code and agricultural legislation. I hope my noble friend will agree that it would not be appropriate to address these matters in this Bill. If I promise my noble friend that I shall go walkies across to MAFF in his interests, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful for that answer which is exactly what I wanted to hear. I do not believe that short-term tenancies are covered by the land compensation code. However, if the Minister is prepared to take that walk to the Ministry of Agriculture, no doubt she will iron out the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 154, line 38, leave out paragraph 14 and insert:
("14.—(1) In Schedule 13 to that Act (blighted land) for paragraph 16 there is substituted—

"16. Land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by the Secretary of State if he has given written notice of the proposal, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the land in question, to the local planning authority".

(2) In paragraph 18 of that Schedule for "trunk road or special road" there is substituted "highway".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 273 to 278. These are essential drafting and
756
consequential amendments relating to the service of blight notices in respect of highway proposals by the Secretary of State. Also included are some minor amendments in respect of compensation for ecclesiastical property. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 273 to 277:
Page 155, leave out line 30 and insert:

("(b) for "to be applied" there is substituted").

Page 155, line 32, at end insert ("and, in either case, shall be applied", and

(c) at the end of that section there is added—").

Page 156, line 24, leave out paragraph 27.
Page 156, line 26, leave out ("that") and insert ("the principal").
Page 156, line 39, leave out paragraph 30.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Amendments relating to land compensation in Scotland]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 168, line 46, at end insert:
("15A.—(1) In section 181 of the 1972 Act (blighted land) for paragraph (h) of subsection (1) there is substituted—

"(h) is land comprised in the site of a road as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by the Secretary of State if he has given written notice of the proposal, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the land in question, to the planning authority;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 279:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
Consequential amendment of section 91A of Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
(". In section 91A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (waste disposal: restoration payments)—

(a) in subsection (4) (b) for "any term of a relevant agreement" there is substituted "any relevant obligation"; and

(b) for subsection (7) there is substituted—

"(7) For the purposes of this section a relevant obligation is—

(a) an obligation arising under an agreement made under—

(i) section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as originally enacted;

(ii) section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;

(b) a planning obligation entered into under section 106 of the Act of 1990, as substituted by section 12 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991;

(c) an obligation arising under or under an agreement made under any provision—

(i) corresponding to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as originally enacted or as substituted by the Act of 1991; and

(ii) for the time being in force in Northern Ireland."").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Short title, commencement, etc.]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 73, line 42, at end insert:
("(4A) Nothing in any provision of this Act affects the punishment for an offence committed before the provision comes into force.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment inserts a new subsection (4A) in Clause 66 of the Bill, so as to safeguard anyone who is convicted of an offence under the principal Act which he committed before any provision of the Bill, following its enactment, comes into force. This is the usual procedure where Parliament approves an increase in the maximum penalty for offences.
It would be inequitable if an increased maximum penalty provided by the Bill were imposed by the court for an offence committed before the new penalty takes effect. This amendment effectively retains as the maximum penalty the maximum applicable at the time the offence was committed, irrespective of the date of the conviction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 74, line 2, after ("Act") insert ("apart from section (Consequential amendment of section 91A of Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 282:
Page 174, line 21, at end insert:

("1976 c. 57.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

In section 7(5) paragraph (a) (in).").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 282, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 283 to 292, 302 and 305. These amendments to repeal a schedule are, as always, consequential on provisions in the Bill or in amendments which have already been discussed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 283 to 292:
Page 175, line 13, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or".").

Page 175, line 19, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 176(4) "in writing".").

Page 175, line 31, column 3, leave out (""such a reference or" (in subsection (2))").
Page 175, line 43, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 266(3).").

Page 175, line 47, column 3, leave out ("Section 285(2)") and insert ("In section 285, in subsection (2) "(6) to (8)" and subsections").
Page 176, line 35, leave out second ("and").
Page 176, line 38, at end insert:
758

("and in the entry relating to section 285 "except subsections (5) and (6)"; and in Part III, the entries relating to sections 312(2) and 324(4); and Parts IV and V."

Page 176, line 40, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 38(2) "within such period as may be so specified." In section 39(7) "in writing". Section 42(7).").

Page 176, line 50, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 36(5) "Subject to subsection (6)".").

Page 176, line 51, column 3, leave out ("3, paragraph 10") and insert ("2, paragraphs 3(2) and 35(1) (b).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 293 to 300:
Page 177, line 6, at end insert:

("1968 c. 14.

Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 7(b).").

Page 177, line 22, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 198(4) (a) "80, 81". In section 220(3) (a) "80, 81". In section 262(4) and (7) (a) "123". In section 263(3) "123(3) and (4)". Section 284(3) (c).").

Page 177, line 34, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 315(2), the words from "and in relation" to "in respect of such land".").

Page 177, 38, column, 3, leave our ("definition") and insert ("definitions").
Page 177, line 39, column 3, at end insert

("and "previous apportionment". In Schedule 1, in paragraph 16(1) "114".").

Page 177, line 42, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 16, in Parts III and VI, the entries relating to Schedule 12.").

Page 177, line 49, column 3, at end insert:

In section 91(2) "new development".").

Page 177, line 50, column 3, after ("Schedule 2") insert ("paragraphs 12(3) (a), 18, 24(3) (a) (i) and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 301 to 305:
Page 178, line 26, at end insert:

("1968 c. 14.

Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 7(a).").

Page 179, line 53, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 214(3).").

Page 180, line 22, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 180, line 23, column 3, at end insert

759

("and "previous apportionment".").

Page 181, line 18, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 3(a)") and insert ("in paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) (iii)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.