Lords Sitting of 1 July 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

R&D Investment: Government's Role
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What specific measures they propose to encourage industry to invest more in research and development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the prime responsibility for such investment lies with industry. Research and development funded by industry grew by over 50 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1989. The Government's role is to establish a climate which stimulates innovation. We seek to achieve this with a wide range of policies including taxation, employment laws and the development of a strong science base. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry spends around £300 million per annum on various schemes to support R&D.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which is welcome so far as it goes. However, is he aware that industry financed R&D in this country runs at a much lower level than in the United States, Japan, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland? Is the Minister also aware that the British figure for registration of patents in the United States is only 37 per cent. of that for Germany? Is the Minister further aware that ICI is one of the few exceptions to the rule of low investment in R&D, and that ICI spends 18 times more than the figure Hanson plc spends on R&D? Is that factor alone not enough to persuade the Government to relinquish their "hands off" attitude to a potential takeover of ICI?
Lord Reay: My Lords, R&D expenditure is a matter for each individual company to decide through its own management. The decision will be determined, among other factors, by the needs of the sector in which the company operates. However, one cannot fail to be struck by the noble Lord's comments as regards the generally higher rates of investment in R&D shown by companies in Germany, Japan and the United States.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that two weeks ago a small parliamentary party from this House was invited to visit the Glaxo research laboratories at Brentford? I joined the visit and I was impressed to discover that this year Glaxo is spending £480 million on its research programme. That enables Glaxo to dominate the pharmaceutical markets of the world in specialised products. That
766
would seem to indicate that my noble friend's explanation of the Government's policy is fully justified.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be impressed by the figure which my noble friend has given. The Innovation Advisory Board of the Department of Trade and Industry has recently suggested the idea of an R&D scoreboard. That was published in the Independent earlier this month. The intention of that scoreboard is to stimulate all those who are interested in R&D to develop their interests in that area.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many skilled professionals who have worked in R&D for big organisations, along with a number of skilled artisans, are now unemployed? The first object of the Government should be to try to create jobs to enable people who are specialists in R&D to have something to research into.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper concerns R&D and industry. As I said in my original Answer, this is an area in which funding by industry has grown by over 50 per cent. between 1983 and 1989.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in spite of what the Minister said about the help being given by the Government to stimulate R&D in this country, the fact is proportionately we are lagging behind our major competitors. My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham pointed this out. In these circumstances does not the Minister agree that we should review our policy, paying particular attention to further fiscal and other financial incentives that could be introduced to encourage British firms to accelerate their R&D programmes?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government spend close to £3 billion on civil R&D; that is 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. The percentage of GDP we devote to R&D is at least as high as in Japan and the United States. However, we are not complacent. We fully realise that there is a long way to go.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the expression used in the Question—
"to invest more in research and development"—
slightly misleading in that it pretends that the problem is a purely quantitative one? Is it not the case that all wise industrialists and science institutes know that effective R&D is not purely quantitative but depends upon two concurrent factors: the existence of promising leads and of first-class researchers? Therein lies the root of the problem.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend is right. That is one reason why the Government concentrate their R&D on areas where industry may find it too risky to undertake R&D on its own. They leave it to industry to fund R&D close to the market where we believe that industry is best placed to take commercial decisions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord agrees with his noble and learned friend. Is it not therefore of great importance for the Government to avoid the brain-drain of the able scientists from this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the policies which we have pursued over the past 10 years, and in particular our taxation policies, have done a great deal to reverse that trend.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support for research and development in industry. Does the noble Lord remember the old adage that one can lead a horse to water but 20 cannot make it drink?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a wise remark.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us find his answers so far very disappointing? It is all very well for the Government to say that they will set the scene, and I support that view. However, it is obvious from the figures which have been given and which some of us know about that that policy is not working. Further, what has the Minister to say about the excellent reports on R&D which have been produced by the Select Committee of this House? If the Government had taken notice of them, the position now would have been very different.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am surprised at the remarks of the noble Lord. We published our response to the report on Thursday. In our response, we warmly welcomed the report. The committee highlighted the importance of innovation in manufacturing industry and argued that a cultural revolution was necessary to change national attitudes. We entirely endorse those views.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Dormand, perhaps I may ask this question. Is the Minister aware that the report to which he referred made two statements:
"Public expenditure on R&D in the United Kingdom is not growing in line with that in competitor countries"?
Furthermore,
"Failure by Government to maintain the national R&D budget gives the wrong signals to industry about the importance of R&D and the innovation process to the national economy".
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, of course I am reading. I am quoting from the report. Such silly interventions do not assist.
Is the Minister aware that those are the objective views that have been set? Are they not far more convincing than the PR exercise in which the Government engage in order to cover the real truth?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not in any way trying to cover the real truth. The total United Kingdom R&D budget for 1989–90 was £11.4 billion. That is an enormous figure by any standards. As a percentage of GDP it was higher than that of Italy and similar to that of France.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government noticed that they are almost alone in the country in not caring much to whom ICI belongs?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is a different Question.

British Rail: Investments
2.46 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
When, in view of their increased commitment to rail transport, they will approve the expenditure for British Rail's 188 class 465 coaches and for the Ashford international passenger terminal.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport approved investment of £127 million for 188 class 465 vehicles on 19th June. Further consideration of British Rail's proposals for Ashford international passenger station depends on British Rail's review of its investment priorities in the light of the increase in its external finance limit for 1991–92 announced on the same day.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and particularly for the welcome news about the investment in rolling stock. Does he agree that the recently announced Treasury freeze on British Rail investment will put crippling uncertainty on the prospects for Ashford international passenger terminal and investment which is crucial to our prospects for Europe in 1992 and will cause great uncertainty locally?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, rather than a freeze—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I assume that noble Lords do not wish me to make up the answers. I shall try not to do so. Rather than a freeze on investment the announcement on 19th June referred to an increase of £400 million in British Rail's EFL, which was an increase of 36 per cent.
The Government remain committed to the provision of Ashford international passenger station. However, in the light of the funds now available to British Rail, and its priorities, it must now consider whether works on the Ashford IPS could go ahead quickly if it were approved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what seems to be singularly lacking from the Answer he has given is effective consultation between the Government and British Rail? Does he agree that this is a matter of great urgency? Delay can signal great disadvantages to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances will the Minister indicate the timescale that the Government have in mind for this critical issue?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord over the suggestion that this indicates a lack of consultation with British Rail. Many people in the Department of Transport spend all their working time consulting British Rail on such matters. It allows us to come to the conclusion we have reached—to announce the approval of the vehicle's mentioned in the Question. That means that over the past year or two we have given approval for a total of 674 new vehicles for this part of the world, which will give a greatly improved service.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the delay at Ashford is becoming extremely worrying and that, if steps are not taken to start to build that interchange within reasonable time, some ether method will have to be arrived at for dealing with passengers when the tunnel starts to operate in a few years' time?
Lori Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is possible that the station may not now be ready in time for the opening of the tunnel. Since the proposals for the station were first outlined, the possibility of the new fast rail link has arisen. That was not thought of when Ashford station was first proposed. That point must be taken into account. I must also point out that the matter is subject to the progress of the British Rail (No.3) Bill which at present is not making any progress in another place.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when the British Rail (No.3) Bill was before your Lordships' House, we received a special report from a House of Lords Select Committee in which Kent County Council expressed great concern about Ashford station? That was after consideration had been given to a possible rail link and in view of the fact that it was responsible for the approach road to the station. The form of words satisfied Ashford District Council, but did not satisfy Kent County Council. The Select Committee accepted the form of words and it was on that basis that noble Lords, including myself, agreed to accept the report.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Bill is now stuck in another place. However, the Government appreciate the importance attached to the station by local authorities and others and we have confirmed our commitment, subject to it being a viable project.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, given the exigencies of public investment in British Rail, may we ask how the Government's investigation of the Ryrie rules is proceeding and what the prospects are for British Rail being allowed to go to the private market to raise capital?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that question at present. It is slightly different from the Question on the Order Paper. I shall write to the noble Lord.

Westminster Council: Housing Policy
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the attempt by Westminster City Council to find homes in other local authority areas for homeless people in Westminster accords with government policy.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Westminster proposals offer homeless and other families the choice of housing outside London, through the creation of voluntary partnerships with other local authorities. Against the background of the high pressure of demand for housing in central London, those proposals appear to be sensible and they do not conflict with government policy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that other local authorities, certainly those in the major conurbations, are faced with an ever-increasing number of homeless people and families, does not the Minister think it rather bizarre that one of the greatest contributing factors to the situation in Westminster was the policy followed by the city council, under its former leader Dame Shirley Porter, when it deliberately kept properties empty until blocks of flats became available to sell on the open market? Is not that one of the greatest contributing factors, if not the major contributing factor, to the present situation in Westminster?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, where any local authority agrees that an unoccupied dwelling could be made available and two local authorities are in agreement about the arrangements to bring that dwelling into use; and a homeless person or family is willing to be accommodated away from London; and that agreed action reduces the number of homeless people; and the arrangement does not disadvantage anyone; that can only be a good thing and an imaginative way of addressing the problem.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a somewhat synthetic Question? Was not the party opposite a strong supporter of the Greater London Council, which had a policy of building, renting and buying blocks of flats in places other than London for the sole purpose of exporting elderly people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. The Question attacks a very good scheme which addresses a difficult problem for Westminster. The Labour Party's record in office is not very good.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness reconsider her reply to her noble friend? The noble Lord makes no good point at all. There is no comparison between the scheme to which the noble Baroness referred and the scheme under the former LCC and the GLC. Does she agree that Westminster City Council is so obsessed with keeping down the rate

771
of poll tax that it cares neither about its responsibilities towards the homeless nor its respect for the dead?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord's remarks. I do not believe that Westminster's record is a bad one. It gives good value for money with its services. On the question of the sale of houses, Westminster council has sold 6,300 houses out of a total stock of 24,700 in the last 17 years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how on earth does the noble Baroness expect local authorities such as Swindon—I mentioned Swindon the other day; it has a housing waiting list of seven years and all re-lets have to be used for its own homeless people—to help authorities such as Westminster which have failed miserably to make proper provision? If she believes in that policy, will she allow the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of funds which the local authorities have earned from the sale of council houses to be used for the building of houses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord totally missed the point of my response to the first two questions. The scheme is entirely voluntary. If a local authority has no spare empty property, it will not enter into a voluntary agreement with Westminster. However, there are many local authorities throughout the country which have spare property, either through mismanagement or simply because they happen to have spare property, and in those cases the scheme would be a good use of those properties.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister endorse all the policies operated by Westminster in order to keep down its poll tax? Obviously, we have no respect for the dead there. In addition—this is unique to Westminster—it sacks people from the education service and it behaves appallingly. Do the Government also endorse the expenditure that was incurred by the Lord Mayor when entertaining the ex-Prime Minister the other day?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question is about housing the homeless in Westminster.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many replies Westminster council has had from local authorities saying that they are willing to help it out? Will she also tell us which local authorities have all those empty houses to which the homeless people could go?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that there has not been a great deal of interest, although Calderdale is one of the authorities that has shown some interest. The policy is well-intentioned and the fact that only a few authorities have replied is no good reason for not at least trying to address the difficult problem of housing the homeless.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we read in the papers some time ago that Westminster council sold a couple of cemeteries for a few pence. It is no good noble Lords saying, "Oh!". That happens to be the truth. I am asking just to make certain. Is it not now possible
772
that those cemeteries which were sold for 10p or 20p each will be used by those who purchased them to build expensive homes? Are we not at least entitled to have some comment on what the Government think of that kind of behaviour?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I can well understand her colleague rising from the Back Benches to defend her answers to me, bearing in mind the fact that he was a Minister in the department when all this nonsense was taking place? Is she also aware that he is completely off the ball given the fact that, when I was in Manchester for example, the council built 30,000 houses outside Manchester? We are not talking about the same situation. Will the Minister comment on the rather uncharacteristic and unsympathetic remarks made last week by the Minister for Housing, Sir George Young?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have every confidence not only in the past record of my noble friend, but in his prowess on the Back Benches. As regards my honourable friend, I am astounded that anyone could misinterpret his remarks. He has done a great deal to help the young people sleeping rough on the streets of London. He was drawing attention to the menace of professional beggars on our streets in London who have a home to go to and who prey on vulnerable youngsters who have nowhere to sleep, as well as on passers-by.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say how many homes Westminster has found in other local authorities and whether any other London boroughs are following the policy that Westminster has started?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the scheme has been announced only in the past few weeks, so I suspect that there have been no responses at this stage. However, I do not know precisely about that, nor do I know of any other local authorities that have started such a policy. There are empty properties in many local authorities and attempts are being made to ensure that the problem of the homeless is combined with bringing some of those properties back into use.

Heveningham Hall
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present owner of Heveningham Hall, Suffolk, has yet been discovered; and what action is being taken to prevent further deterioration of the buildings.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the position is as it has been since 1981: Heveningham Hall is owned by ID Investment Development AG, a company registered

773
in Switzerland. The buildings are not deteriorating: though much remains to be done, good progress has been made recently, particularly with restoration work to the fire-damaged east wing and the lodges. English Heritage is monitoring the situation regularly.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But is it not a fact that as this is a Grade 1 listed building, the owners are responsible for keeping it in good order? Is she serious in saying that they are doing so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. The owners are indeed responsible for keeping it in good order. English Heritage is monitoring the situation. Indeed, it is working alongside the people who are responsible for the restoration. To date, all our information is that it is proceeding satisfactorily. We have recently heard that some local people, including the Georgian Group, are unhappy about what is happening there. I have asked for an investigation to be made straight away by English Heritage to make sure that I am brought up to date with any falling down on the standards of restoration work.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Suffolk there is growing concern about the future of Heveningham Hall? There are two reasons why that concern has been increasing recently. First, an authoritative report has come into the hands of the Suffolk Preservation Society (of which I am a member) which reveals that many details of the restoration work have been carried out in an incomplete and incorrect way. Secondly, there have been rumours and reports in local newspapers that the property is up for sale. If that is the case, will the Government do everything possible to ensure that the conditions and covenants which they inserted into their original deed of sale 10 years ago are carried forward to the next proprietor so that the conditions and stipulations can in future be properly enforced? I regret to say that I do not think that they have been observed up to now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am certainly aware that there is concern about the future of Heveningham Hall. I understand that there has been a report on the work. I have to say that it is an anonymous report. Nevertheless my department takes it very seriously. I have asked English Heritage to respond in detail to it.
We have no knowledge of the house being up for sale. The Government have pre-emptive rights for 21 years after its acquisition. Therefore if it were up for sale, we should have to consider the possibility of repurchase.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of the long-running and very sad story of this marvellous historic house, will the Government ensure that more care is taken in future over our historic houses and that they are not sold to offshore companies of a speculative kind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my department has been diligent in making sure that the restoration work on this fine Grade 1 listed building is kept up to standard. That is my response to my noble friend. As recently as May 1991 an article in the Architects' Journal—which is not necessarily known for supporting government policies—stated:
"Now, to the great surprise of many sceptics, the repair of the two ground-floor rooms [at Heveningham] is not only nearing completion but promises to be a model restoration".
It goes on to say that there is:
"a group of craftsmen whose works prove that they are capable of dealing with the most difficult of tasks. It is now clear that the Wyatt interior will live again in all its glory".
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I visited Heveningham on 2nd June and perhaps my noble friend will take it from me that the house—indeed the whole property—is in a deplorable state. The garden is a wilderness. Does she agree that the Government have shown a most disappointing record of stewardship over the past decade? Will she encourage the Secretary of State to exercise the opportunity to reacquire this property, which was sold for a very low price on the basis that it would be cherished and made available to the public? It was sold for £726,000 in 1981, which is equivalent to £1.25 million now. Will my noble friend try to obtain more backing for public ownership and transfer into safer hands?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the only way that the Government could even consider repurchase would be if the house were up for sale. They have no power simply to make a compulsory purchase with no good reason for it. With regard to my noble friend's first point, English Heritage has been the agent of government in terms of overseeing the standards of work. All the information that I have indicates that the work is being done to a satisfactory standard. However, it has recently been brought to my notice that that is not the case. I immediately instigated a detailed report from English Heritage. Indeed, I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been down to Heveningham to see the work for himself.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that English Heritage is doing the best that it can? It said in a report that people there want the work done in-house and it says that they have the necessary expertise. In fact, the curator of arts for English Heritage was very unhappy about it. Is the Minister aware that in a press notice of November 1981, it was reported that the then Secretary of State for the Environment (who is now again Secretary of State for the Environment) in his announcement talked only about completing the sale with Mr. Al-Ghazzi? There was no mention at all of the house going to a Swiss bank. Is she further aware that the transaction was carried out by issue of bearer shares and that therefore there is no way of knowing who owns the house? Is it not quite wrong that parts of our heritage should be allowed to be sold in that way?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there was nothing at all improper in the sale. As for the standards, I made

775
quite clear in a number of responses that I am asking English Heritage for a detailed report on the standards of the work that has been done so far.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, all good things must come to an end.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Luxembourg.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:

Standing Order 35
Paragraph (1), line 1, after "Debate" insert "or a time-limited debate"
Paragraph (2), line 2, after "Debate" insert "or a time-limited debate"

Standing Order 61
Insert a new paragraph (5A):
"(5A)The Committee of Selection shall also have power to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form any other body, not being a Select Committee, referred to it by the Chairman of Committees."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (98) as. first printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 2, page 4, leave out lines 4 to 15 and insert 'planning permission for carrying out any development of land has been granted subject to conditions.
(2) The local planning authority may, if any of the conditions is not complied with, serve a notice (in this Act referred to as a "breach of condition notice") on—

(a) any person who is carrying out or has carried out the development; or

(b) any person having control of the land,

requiring him to secure compliance with such of the conditions as are specified in the notice.
(2A) References in this section to the person responsible are to the person on whom the breach of condition notice has been served.
(2B) The conditions which may be specified in a notice served by virtue of subsection (2) (b) are any of the conditions regulating the use of the land.'.
2 Page 4, line 25, at end insert 'or any other conditions'.
3 Page 4, line 35, after 'notice', insert '(a)'.
4 Page 4, line 36, after 'with', insert 'and
(b) the steps specified in the notice have not been taken or, as the case may be, the activities specified in the notice have not ceased'.
5 Page 4, leave out lines 38 to 41.
6 Page 5, line 2, after 'prove', insert '(a)'.
7 Page 5, line 4, at end insert 'or
(b) where the notice was served on him by virtue of subsection (2) (b), that he no longer had control of the land'.
8 Page 5, line 8, after 'section' insert '(a)'.
9 Page 5, line 8, at end insert 'and
(b) references to carrying out any development include causing or permitting another to do so'.
10 Clause 5, page 7, line 29, after first 'land', insert 'by discontinuing any use of the land'.
11 Page 7, line 31, leave out 'removing or alleviating' and insert 'remedying'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 11. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 17 to 30, 47 to 49, 51 to 59, 61, 62, 64, 69, 71 to 75, 84, 86, 87, 89, 103 to 106, 135 to 142, 167, 168, 174, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 216, 228, 232, 233 and 240.
These amendments all relate to the enforcement provisions of the Bill, including the amendments to the parallel regimes for enforcement of listed building, tree preservation and hazardous substances control. As noble Lords are aware, those are some of the most complex provisions in the planning Acts. It is perhaps therefore not entirely surprising that as the Bill progressed in another place some technical requirements proved to be essential.
I do not intend to take your Lordships' time with a detailed explanation of all the amendments. However, I shall try to deal with any points that noble Lords wish to raise.
Moved. That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 11.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley cannot be present today. As regards Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 136, he asks me to thank my noble friend and her department for bringing forward the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 clause 5, page 7, line 35, leave out 'demolition or alteration' and insert 'alternation or removal'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.
These amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 37 which would alter the law relating to planning control over the demolition of buildings. We shall later debate Amendment No. 37 and Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I have been advised that we cannot debate the noble Lord's amendments in a group beginning with Amendment No. 12.
I believe that I am right to say that no one disagrees with the principle of what we propose on demolition. Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 to 16 make consequential changes in the planning enforcement provisions, in particular by defining what is meant by a "replacement building" where such a building is required by an enforcement notice following a demolition in breach of control. These amendments would be needed whether or not the House agreed to the noble Lord's amendments, which would alter the detail of the demolition provision, but not its underlying thrust.
On this basis, and in anticipation of our main debate on this subject, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 5, page 7, leave out line 39.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 5, page 7, line 44, at end insert:
'(5A) Where an enforcement notice is issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building, the notice may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to subsection (5B), is as similar as possible to the demolished building.
(5B) A replacement building—

(a) must comply with any requirement imposed by any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;

(b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;

(c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b)).'.

15 Page 8, line 20, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
16 Page 8, line 25, leave out from 'granted' to end of line 28 and insert 'by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.
(10) Where—

(a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and

(b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of that construction.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 6, page 9, line 21, at end insert 'or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach'.
18 Page 10, line 10, after, 'may', insert 'on such terms if any as the Court thinks fit (which may include terms requiring the local planning authority to give an undertaking as to damages or any other matter)'.
19 Page 10, line 28, at end insert:
'(6) In section 303(3) of that Act (fees payable to Secretary of State in respect of deemed applications for planning permission) for "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted—

"(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the local planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under section 177(5); and

(b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".'.

20 Clause 10, page 13, line 23, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
21 Page 13, line 42, leave out from 'force' to end of line 43.
22 Page 14, line 5, leave out from 'force' to end o line 6.
23 Page 15, line 3, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
24 Page 15, line 11, leave out 'were'.
25 Page 15, line 12, leave out from 'application' t second 'they' in line 13 and insert 'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
26 Page 15, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert:
'(4) The lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, i any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
27 Page 16, line 12, at end insert:
'(4A) A certificate under section 191 or 192 shall not affect any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'.
28 Clause 11, page 18, line 32, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
29 Page 18, line 33, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 34 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
30 Page 19, line 12, at end insert:
'(3) In section 325(6) of that Act (compensation in respect of damage caused in exercise of right of entry)—

(a) for "land is damaged" there is substituted "damage is caused to land or chattels"; and

(b) for the words from "in respect of" to "in the land" there is substituted "may be recovered by any person suffering the damage".'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 30. I have spoken to Amendment No. 17 with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 30.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
31 Clause 12, page 19, line 43, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'.
32 Page 19, line 49, leave out 'to the extent of his derivative interest' and insert:
'(3A) The instrument by which a planning obligation is entered into may provide that a person shall not be bound by the obligation in respect of any period during which he no longer has an interest in the land.'.
33 Page 20, line 2, leave out from 'injunction' to end of line 4.
34 Page 20, line 39, at end insert:
'(10A) Regulations may provide for the charging on the land of—

(a) any sum or sums required to be paid under a planning obligation; and

(b) any expenses recoverable by a local planning authority under subsection (5) (b),
and this section and sections 106A and 106B shall have effect subject to any such regulations.'.

35 Page 23, line 4, leave out from 'into' to end of line 11 and insert 'an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106(1) (in this section referred to as a "planning obligation") enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (2A).
(2) A planning obligation may not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed which—

(a) states that the obligation is a planning obligation for the purposes of this section;

(b) identifies the land in relation to which the obligation is entered into;

(c) identifies the appropriate authority who are entering into the obligation and states what the Crown or Duchy interest in the land is; and

(d) identifies the local planning authority by whom the obligation is enforceable.

(2A) A planning obligation entered into under this section is enforceable—

(a) against any person with a private interest deriving from the Crown or Duchy interest stated in accordance with subsection (2) (c);

(b) by the authority identified in accordance with subsection (2) (d).

(2B) Subject to subsection (3), subsections (2), (3A) to (7) and (9) to (11) of section 106 and sections 106A and 106B apply to a planning obligation entered into under this section as they apply to a planning obligation entered into under that section.'.
36 Page 23, line 19, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 30 and insert '(2B))'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 36. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 175.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, I believe that she wishes to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 36.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I am moving Amendments Nos. 31 to 36 and the others that I mentioned.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 address a point made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. The amendments
780
enable the instrument which creates a planning obligation to limit the liability of the original covenanter to the period before they cease to have an interest in the land. This enables someone entering into a planning obligation to cease to be bound by its terms once he has disposed of his interest in the land concerned.
The same will apply to successors in title. A successor in title will be bound, however, to meet any obligations which have not been carried out, or only partly so, by his predecessor in title. For example, periodical payments under a planning obligation may not have been made. Where someone purchases an interest in land in such circumstances, I would expect the purchaser to ensure that any outstanding commitments are met before the transaction is completed.
Amendment No. 33 removes the provision for recovery of sums due under a planning obligation via the magistrates' court. Instead, such sums will be recoverable via the county court or the High Court. My view is that the magistrates' court is not the appropriate forum in which to make decisions about the large sums of money which may be payable under some planning obligations. Nor should the magistrates' court deal with the complex legal issues that may arise.
Amendment No. 34 would empower my right honourable friend to make regulations specifying that money to be paid under a planning obligation shall be a charge on the land. This would strengthen the position of the local planning authority if the covenanter or his successor in title did not pay moneys due. The authority would then have a power of sale over the land, without the need to go to court to recover the money due. Any regulations made could also provide that the local planning authority had a prior claim over those of other mortgagees. I believe this amendment further strengthens the enforcement powers available under this clause.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 175 are essential drafting amendments, intended to ensure that new Section 299A in Clause 12(3) works properly.
Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 are consequential amendments to Clause 67. They amend Section 91A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 by adding references to planning obligations entered into by the Crown. The effect of this is that a restoration payment made pursuant to such an obligation will be allowable as a tax deduction.
I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 36.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcome this group of amendments. They will remove a number of doubts. In particular one should mention Amendment No. 35. That shows exactly where planning obligations may not be entered into and the requirement of the instrument executed as a deed laying down the conditions. That is important and we should not pass it by without a word of gratitude to the Government for what they have achieved on this point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their indulgence. I welcome the Minister's comment on these amendments. However, does she believe it satisfactory that a developer who enters into a planning obligation can then avoid the obligation by selling on the land? While I appreciate the provisions for charges—and indeed first charges will take priority over others as the Minister has outlined—it surely cannot be right to leave it to the local authority to pursue; a purchaser (he might be a man or a company of straw) and to go through the rigmarole of enforcing the charge and selling the property with no recourse against the original developer.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that if the local authority has overtly had difficulty pursuing repayment under an obligation on the part of an owner, and that owner sells on, the obligation will be well known. The obligation is sold on to the new purchaser.
There are two points on that. First, it ought to be made known at the point of sale that an obligation goes with the land. Secondly, the purchaser should make absolutely certain by taking proper advice that he is buying not only the land but an obligation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Demolition of buildings
'.—(1) In section 55 of the principal Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes—

(a) demolition of buildings;

(b) rebuilding;

(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and

(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
"(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities generally or to a particular local planning authority."
(3) After section 108(3) of that Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
"(4) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsection (1) shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order."'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. In doing so, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 63, 65, 66, 67, 90, 129, 150, 153 to 156, 158 to 165, 169 to 171,176, 177, 178, 185, 198, 207, 211, 212, 214, 215, 222, 225, 229, 230, 234 to 236, 258, 260, 270, 271, 285, 288
and 289.
These amendments, together with Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 to 16, apply to England, Wales and
782
Scotland. I need to remind the House that with these amendments we shall discuss Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B.
During the earlier passage of the Bill in this House the noble Lord, Lord Ross, supported by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposed an amendment to include "demolition" in the definition of "building operations" and so bring all demolition within planning control. In a second proposed amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, argued that demolition should be regarded as development; she suggested that a way forward would be to extend to all areas the application of the special demolition consent procedures currently required in conservation areas.
The obvious concern that lay behind both proposed amendments was to prevent those examples of speculative demolition that pressured a local planning authority into granting planning permission for an out-of-character development for which planning permission should be refused. This is a concern that the Government share.
In replying to those debates at that time I said that we believed that general legislative control over demolition would be too sweeping a response to what seemed a relatively limited problem. The consultation paper had not produced systematic evidence of a general and widespread problem. A great deal could be done, however, to tackle the problem by the inclusion of appropriate policies in local and unitary development plans and by issuing new policy guidance. At the same time we wished to consider the High Court's decision in January this year in the case of Cambridge City Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investment Ltd which held that the demolition of certain semi-detached houses was development.
We listened carefully to the arguments put and the concerns expressed in those and subsequent debates on demolition. We also considered the High Court's decision in the Cambridge case. We concluded that the time was right to introduce selective controls on demolition and therefore introduced these amendments in another place.
The amendments look complicated but represent the best way forward. Subsection (1) of the new clause brings the demolition of all buildings within the meaning of "building operations" and hence within the definition of "development". The new clause also provides a direction-making power which will enable the Secretary of State to direct that the demolition of any specified type of building does not involve development. Subject to consultation that power will be used to exclude from planning control the demolition of all buildings that do not contain a dwelling house or a flat. In such cases, as I have said, there is no evidence of a need to extend planning control.
We shall then propose amendments to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 to grant permitted development rights for the demolition of houses in most circumstances. This would reflect the fact that most demolition is uncontroversial. It would be possible to control the

783
most damaging cases by, for example, making an Article 4 direction that would require a developer to submit a planning application for the demolition of a dwelling house in a particular case.
Planning authorities will be able to use such directions to prevent the demolition of houses where they see a particular risk, or in areas they regard as vulnerable to damage from speculative demolition. Demolition within conservation areas is already subject to control but there may be other circumstances where greater planning control is desirable. While it would not normally be appropriate to control the whole of a district in this way we should be prepared to look sympathetically at Article 4 directions covering particular buildings or small areas where there was a clearly demonstrable case for extending control for more than six months.
The amendments to the general development order will be subject to public consultation and we expect to issue the consultation document within a month. I cannot say at this stage exactly what those amendments will be but our aim will be to ensure that the controls are selective and to implement this measure as soon as possible. The aim will be to allow local planning authorities to control the worst excesses of demolition of dwelling houses without imposing extra demands in the large majority of cases on either developers or local planning authorities.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(Baroness Blatch.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 37
37A Leave out subsection (2).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37A and shall speak also to Amendment No. 37B. In speaking to an earlier amendment the Minister said that we are intent on the same purpose and are moving in the same direction to improve controls of demolition. That is right, but the trouble is that not all are willing to travel the same distance down that path. Amendment No. 37 is welcome because it is an improvement on the Bill which left this House. However, subsection (1) of that amendment is only a recognition of the law as it was laid down in the case of Cambridge City Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investment Ltd. It goes no further than that. We welcome the fact that "demolition" has been declared by the courts and now more explicitly by Parliament to be a building operation. That is right, but we begin to worry when we look at subsection (2) which provides that "demolition" is subject to a direction given by the Secretary of State. The Minister has made clear that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to interpret "demolition" under planning control as relating only to dwellings. Non-dwelling buildings will not be covered by the new definition.
I suggest that at the very least that departs from what is made explicit in subsection (1) which deals with the demolition of buildings. The subsection does not refer to the demolition of dwellings but to the demolition of all types of buildings. To make a written
784
commitment in subsection (1) of the amendment and then immediately in subsection (2) to withdraw that by fiat of the Secretary of State does not appear to make a great deal of progress.
The Minister then went even further by saying that subject to consultation there will be amendments to the general development order that will make it clear that virtually all demolition will be included as permitted development. In other words, almost all the protection that is provided in subsection (1) of Amendment No. 37 will be removed by the general development order. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that there is protection under Article 4. There has always been protection under Article 4 but the problem is that the local planning authority is required to step in when demolition is threatened and impose an Article 4 order before demolition takes place. The evidence that was produced time and again during the passage of the Bill through this House showed that unscrupulous developers simply arrive in the middle of the night and knock down the building. That is the end of the matter because then there is no chance to impose an Article 4 order.
The Minister qualified the reply by saying that under certain circumstances—and I should like to know what circumstances—the protection extends to buildings or small areas. What is a small area? I suspect that a large number of local authorities such as Cambridge City Council will seek to use the loophole which the Minister is now providing. However, they are not being given clear guidance about the extent of the additional protection.
We are on the same side and are trying to achieve the same objectives. I am sorry to say that the clause as drafted, particularly in the light of the Minister's comments, makes it clear that the additional protection to be provided by the clause will be minimal. I regret that having listened to the arguments and having paid lip-service to them in Amendment No. 37 the Government are not prepared to make them effective.
Moved, That Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 37, be agreed to.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to detain your Lordships further but the point that I wish to make arises in a most extraordinary way. Today when I was driving to the House in my car I heard on the lunchtime news a report of the most appalling act of vandalism against listed buildings which is becoming more prevalent; namely, painting them in garish colours. It was said that such acts applied even to medieval buildings.
One's hopes are raised by the amendment. I am sorry that I have not had the opportunity of speaking to my noble friend about the matter. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 37 includes in its definition of "building operations":
"(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and
(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder".
However, it is the builders who are carrying out the painting work. The new clause is a welcome improvement, so far as I can understand it, because it

785
contains many references to previous legislation. I hope that the other operations will refer to vandalism by painting. Having said that, I do not know whether it is even reasonable that I should ask my noble friend to comment. However, if she has a comment and says that she is sympathetic, that would be good for the record.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I sympathise with the la it comment about listed buildings. Anything which we can do to help local authorities and English Heritage to protect them will be welcome. However, I rise to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B.
I hope that the legislation will give teeth to what the public clearly wants. I say that because I have sat on many a development control committee where members of the public have expressed anguish at the prospect of buildings being pulled down and the local planning authority having no means to prevent it. I am referring to buildings outside conservation areas which are not listed but which, nevertheless, are valued by the local community. Article 4 directions exist, but they are very difficult and time consuming and one requires a lot of resources.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point raised by my noble friend on painting is outside the scope of these amendments. However, I note what he says and I shall write to him specifically about that.
As regards anxieties about the amendments, I shall argue why I believe the House should not accept Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B. I know there has been concern on the part of local authorities but, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, considers not only the new impetus given to the use of Article 4 directions but their possible extended use, because they can now apply to local authority areas, I hope her faith will be restored.
Perhaps I may take your Lordships back to our first debate on this matter early in the year. In that debate I said that in the 175 responses to the consultation paper on the subject there was little evidence that the demolition of buildings was a general and widespread problem. Those problems that did arise were limited to dwelling houses. In the debates both in this House and in another place no further evidence has come forward to cast doubt upon that view. Indeed I believe it is generally accepted that the problem of speculative demolition is small-scale and limited, but when it happens I do not underestimate how distressing it can be.
However, where it occurs, the consequences can in some circumstances be very serious for neighbours and local amenity as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out. For that reason, the Government decided to introduce selective controls—that is, in order to tackle a problem that arose in particular cases. Ensuring that the controls are selective requires the direction-making power to limit control to particular types of building and the use of the general development order so that authorities are
786
not swamped with minor applications. The consequences of these amendments would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut—a degree of control quite out of line with practice in other areas of development.
Perhaps I may take the argument forward. There are already adequate controls on demolition in a number of circumstances. The Building Act 1984 provides controls over the demolition of delapidated or unsafe buildings. Special consent by the local planning authority is already required for about half a million listed buildings in the country and for all buildings in over 7,000 conservation areas that are larger than the size of a typical garage. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 provides controls to protect the health and safety of employees and the public in the case of demolition. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 also provide further controls that protect the health of employees and the public, as well as the environment, in the circumstances of particular kinds of demolition.
A further consequence of these amendments, therefore, would be the addition of unnecessary and duplicate controls in all these circumstances. For example, any demolition of a building in a conservation area would need not only conservation area consent for being in a conservation area but also planning consent for being a demolition. Moreover, while conservation area consent would not be necessary to knock down a typical garage in a conservation area, planning consent would be necessary. That is just not logical, and your Lordships will not want to be responsible for introducing such an anomaly into planning control. In such cases we are using not just one sledgehammer to crack a nut; we are using two.
Particular concern arises from the amendment proposing that no demolition could be permitted through the general development order. The purpose of the GDO is to grant permission for smaller or uncontroversial development in order not to clog up the planning system. The GDO works well; it has been operating since the beginning of the planning system. It is kept under review and any amendments to it take place only after public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Is it right that the GDO should allow a typical householder to build a limited extension to his house without a planning application, whatever its impact on local amenity, but not to knock it down; or to build a garage in most circumstances, or a greenhouse or kennels for the dog, but prevent him from knocking any of them down?
That would be the effect of this amendment. The typical householder would have to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission to knock down his old garage at the bottom of the garden. Just imagine the absolutely enormous extra demands on the local planning authority in terms of staff, time and money; imagine the resulting delays in deciding genuine applications for planning permission for development. Surely, to have such little faith in the general development order, which has served us so

787
well for so long, is to bring the whole system into disrepute. Neither planning authorities nor householders want it. They have not asked for it; we should not allow it to happen.
Contrary to the assertions by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, there has not always been the opportunity to use Article 4 procedures. Until now demolition has not been within the definition of development. Therefore, until now there have been no permitted development rights to withdraw. We need to look at each case on its merits.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Renton, I understand that there is already judicial authority to the effect that painting a listed building requires listed building consent. I understand that the case involves the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. That is not appropriate for this Bill but, as I promised, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clarification. I just add that the particular complaint about which I heard related to some listed buildings at Penrith.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister bases her response largely upon the argument which she used as the Bill was proceeding through the House earlier this year; namely, that there has been no widespread demand for improved control of demolition. She confirmed me in my view that the Government are simply acceding to the judicial interpretation of the law in the Milton Park case. They are determined to go no further than that. They have no intention whatever of extending controls over demolition in any significant way.
As to whether there is a demand for greater controls, only time will tell. The important point about the legislation is that it includes demolition as a building operation and, therefore, without a change in legislation the possibility arises in future to strengthen the provisions. Regulations made by this Secretary of State which fail to advance the prohibition of demolition can be undone by a future Secretary of State.
I remind the House that demolition is not merely an aesthetic matter. Developers quite deliberately demolish buildings, whether dwellings or other buildings, not because of any need to demolish them because they are in a bad condition but in order to force the hand of a planning authority to make it easier to obtain permission for something which would otherwise be unacceptable.
The nature of the replacement building, which is dealt with in Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 to 16, is the significant consideration. However, on the basis that the law has now been changed in such a way that future action can be taken without further legislation, I do not believe that it is appropriate to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 37, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37B not moved.]
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 37 agreed to.

European Council, 28th-29th June
3.40 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the draft parliamentary Statement on the European Council. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Luxembourg on 28th/29th June. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.
"It was clear from the events there that Yugoslavia must be the first item on our agenda. I discussed the overnight position with the Prime Minister Lubbers and with Chancellor Kohl before the Council opened. We were able to reach rapid agreement in the Council on invoking the emergency mechanisms of the CSCE, and a meeting is taking place in Vienna this afternoon.
"We also agreed to despatch to Yugoslavia the Foreign Ministers of troika—Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. Their visit brought some respite in the conflict. But the situation was very fragile yesterday and the Foreign Ministers returned to Yugoslavia yesterday afternoon. They secured agreement to the appointment of Mr. Mesic of Croatia as the next President of Yugoslavia and to other measures to defuse the crisis. The situation remains very volatile and the Community will need to be closely involved over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Community aid to Yugoslavia has been suspended. British citizens have been advised to leave Slovenia. Steps have been taken to evacuate British subjects who could be at risk.
"The main item of scheduled business was to discuss progress in the two intergovernmental conferences launched last year, one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. Discussion centred on the issues raised in a draft treaty text circulated by the presidency, though there was no detailed negotiation of the text itself.
"This European Council—as we had wanted—was a stocktaking. It was not the occasion to take decisions, but we have registered the considerable progress made in the Luxembourg presidency as well as our collective will to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.
"The conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House, incorporate a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, though some other partners in the Community disagree with it strongly. The present text means that some things are done on the basis of the Treaty of Rome but others on the basis of intergovernmental action in which the Treaty of Rome does not apply and the Commission does not have the sole right of initiative.

789
"I welcomed the concept of a common foreign arid security policy set firmly within the context of the Atlantic Alliance and stressed the need to work by consensus in this crucial area.
"There is agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law. That reflects a British proposal which would enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states which fail to comply with Community legislation. We have long argued for a level playing field, and for full respect of the rule of law, and we are determined to get it. We have a good record on implementation and we believe that all states that sign up to Community law should implement it.
"The conclusions call for early progress on the remaining legislation needed to complete the single market. This means in particular measures on insurance, and air, sea and road transport which are of importance to this country.
"The Council discussed the need to strengthen the community's external perimeter boundary if free movement of people is to be able to take place within it. We also agreed to better co-ordination in the fight against international drug trafficking and organised crime through the establishment of a Central European Criminal Investigation Office (EUROPOL).
"The conclusions also commit us to strengthening the community's links with the countries of Central rind Eastern Europe. This will initially take the form of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Government hope that those countries—and probably others—will be ready for full membership in due course.
"I also made clear that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree arid it was understood that nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed. I explained that, even though, to many, federal union implies decentralisation, the term carried the reverse implication in this country and would not be acceptable in a text to be agreed at the end of the year.
"I explained our reservations about the existing text on the role of the European Parliament. We see a strong case for an increased role for the European Parliament in areas such as control over the Commission through audit of expenditure and measures to safeguard the rights of Community citizens, including the appointment of a European ombudsman. The text entirely reserves our position on the issue of co-decision. The present proposal, involving a complicated conciliation procedure, would not, in our view, improve Community decision-taking.
"In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency arid a single central bank. We discussed the issue of economic convergence. The need for such convergence is increasingly recognised by our partners but the nature and extent of that convergence and its relationship with possible target dates for moves to Stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are still for
790
negotiation. All other member states understand that there must in any case be a separate decision by the Government and this House on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency and, if so, when.
"The European Council has issued a number of political declarations which are also available in the Library of the House. The Council endorsed the initiative which I took in April to establish a UN register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly.
"The Council also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief within the UN system. We envisage the appointment of a high level co-ordinator, with direct access to emergency funding and with the authority to pull together the whole disaster relief operation. We are taking that initiative forward in the United Nations now.
"At British initiative, the Council agreed a text on human rights, the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. The Community will use its leverage to promote human rights through the economic and co-operation agreements which it makes with third countries.
"We welcomed the abolition in South Africa of the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We also declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been set up. The establishment of such an independent and non-racial body for cricket was announced on the same day.
"I believe this European Council was a good example of the Community at work. We took rapid action to respond to the crisis in Yugoslavia and will continue to work together for a peaceful settlement. We took stock in a businesslike way of the progress made under Luxembourg's chairmanship. There are difficult issues still to be resolved. As in any negotiation there will have to be give and take and a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation.
"There was a common determination in Luxembourg to work for an agreed outcome to the negotiations by the end of the year. I shall continue to argue for what I believe to be in the interests of our own country and the interests of the Community as a whole."
That concludes the Statement of my right honourable friend.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. The weekend meeting of Foreign Ministers was dominated also by events in Yugoslavia. We note that the Statement says that the three Community Foreign Ministers have returned for a second emergency mission. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will indicate whether that diplomatic pressure

791
has yet achieved any real success. Perhaps he will say also when its members are likely to report back to the EC.
The Statement refers to British citizens in Slovenia. Perhaps the Minister will outline the steps being taken to facilitate the evacuation of British holidaymakers wishing to leave Yugoslavia. Can he indicate also the number of UK holidaymakers thought to be at risk from the crisis at the present time?
Compared with some meetings in the past, this one was relatively peaceful. I believe that the House will agree that the reason was that the decisions on the main issues have been deferred until the Maastricht summit in December. It is then that the crunch—if there is to be a crunch—will come. Nevertheless, the Statement shows that useful proposals were agreed on. One is the agreement to set up the European security force known as EUROPOL. Can the noble Lord tell us what its precise functions will be and to whom it will be answerable? For example, may we assume that it will work closely with Interpol? What distinction should we draw between EUROPOL and Interpol?
We note the proposal to restrict immigration into the Community. We shall need to look at that very carefully. The Statement mentions the external perimeter boundary. Immigrations rules vary considerably from country to country within the Community. We must ensure that they are all equitable and that the results are equitable. As regards the relaxation of sporting links with South Africa mentioned in the Statement, can the noble Lord say whether that now means the repeal of the Gleneagles Agreement? In this regard we need to have a level playing field as well as in other areas. We also welcome the proposed Community register of arms sales. Can the noble Lord say when the draft resolution will be tabled? At the United Nations General Assembly the Government may be certain that we shall give them full support on that point.
The big issues will be decided at Maastricht. One of the central objectives is the central bank and the single currency. The Prime Minister reserved his position on those two matters in the Statement. Does the noble Lord agree that that means that we do not share the views of the great majority of the Community countries on these essential matters? Can the noble Lord say what he considers to be the prospects of achieving agreement on these crucial points? At the moment it appears that the prospects are not too good, although we wish the Government well. These are momentous decisions to take which will affect the lives of everyone in this country and in the Common Market generally.
Can the noble Lord say whether the hard ecu proposals are still Government policy or have now been abandoned? We welcome the summit communiques that economic convergence should govern any move towards EMU. Does the Minister accept that convergence is not simply defined in terms of inflation, but that it should also include rates of growth and employment levels as well?
792
Furthermore, does the noble Lord agree that it is also essential that social measures accompany further economic integration? Is it not in fact the case that social policy remains a key area of divergence between our country and our European partners? Does the Minister accept that that is one area in which the Government may, in the Prime Minister's own words, have to
"surrender something our partners wish to gain",
as we on this side have been urging for quite some time? Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the Government should seek to achieve unity between parties and people within the United Kingdom as well as in the Community as we approach this historic meeting, which will be probably the most significant since the end of the last war?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his courtesy in repeating the Statement to us. I congratulate the Prime Minister on having achieved, so far as it went, a satisfactory European Council from his point of view and probably from the national point of view, too. The co-operation he received in his desire for a six months' pause for breath is an indication of the goodwill which he commands in Europe, largely perhaps by virtue of not being somebody else. It is also an indication that, if Britain shows a little co-operative spirit, it can easily be among friends rather than adversaries in the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was right when he said that a great many crunch issues have been postponed until Maastricht. We recognise that the Government will want to take a separate decision on a single currency and have it endorsed by Parliament as is normally done with all major issues of policy. In passing, I must comment as regards the Statement that the sentence,
"nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed",
was rather sweeping by any standards. It may be that we shall want to look at the overall picture in December, but insistence on agreeing nothing until everything is agreed would frustrate most forms of human activity.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House two questions. A separate decision need not be a late one. Does he not recognise that there will be considerable advantages for Britain in not always being the reluctant partner at the end of the queue? On the question of the desirable need for convergence of the economies, will the noble Lord explain why, in view of the alleged economic miracle in the past 11½ years, it is frequently stated that we—perhaps in company with Portugal and Greece—are the only countries of the 12 which could not sustain the rigours of a single currency?
3.56 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for his congratulations to the Prime Minister on what I believe will be recognised by all impartial observers as a very satisfactory conclusion to the council meeting. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked a

793
number of questions about Yugoslavia. I wish that I was able to give him more positive replies than I can. Clearly, the position is very fluid. I do not think that there is anything much that I can add to what is in the Statement itself. There are a number of United Kingdom holidaymakers in Slovenia and they have been advised to leave. No doubt that advice is being communicated to them and they will be leaving at this time.
When one comes to the substantive matters concerning the European Community and the relations between the member states, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to EUROPOL. It is intended as an investigative agency. As I understand it, it is intended to be an organ of the Community where the member states will not just pool their intelligence but together will actually use the intelligence available. We shall have to see how that proposal develops. We in Britain have worked for a long time towards closer co-operation between the member states in the investigation of crime.
The noble Lord referred to external frontiers. We made well known our belief that there has to be a more secure external frontier and the same standard of security throughout the whole of the perimeter of the European Community before one can talk about being able to have completely free movement within the European Community. We have often made clear how foolish it will be for us to sacrifice our advantages of geography and the advantage that we gain as a result of having the ability to have checks at our ports to deal with crime, the drugs trade and immigration. When one looks at the proportion of drugs seizures where the drugs in question have come from other countries in the Community, that point is hammered home easily. As regards the register of arms sales, I gather that the resolution will be tabled at the outset of the incoming Dutch presidency.
I shall now deal with the question of the single currency. As the noble Lord has said, the Prime Minister maintained our reserve on the single currency and the single central bank. We made clear—and there was widespread support for this—that without convergence a number of member states could not cope with the economic consequences of moving to a single currency. The noble Lord is right: there are many measures of the strength of a country's economy which have to be taken into consideration in deciding whether there is sufficient convergence to make a single currency even a remote possibility. All other member states understood that there must be a separate decision by the Government and Parliament on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency. We shall not accept treaty changes that commit the United Kingdom to take part in a single currency.
There are differences within the Community on social policy. However, all are agreed on one thing: the Community has a social dimension. We are not prepared to see Community competence extended for instance into the field of industrial relations. Extending qualified majority voting would put at risk all the achievements of the past 12 years. We must not allow over-regulation to lead to extra cost to industry
794
and ultimately, job losses. That is not to say that we have not co-operated in the social action programme. Indeed, 12 proposals have already been agreed. In the 18 measures which were put in place before the beginning of the social action programme we are top of the league in implementing all 18. That is by far the best record of any country in the whole of the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is right to say that we should strive for unity in the Community and unity in this country. I can assure the noble Lord that our Prime Minister is fighting to get the most successful outcome of these negotiations in the interests of this country.
I shall now deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Certainly Britain found herself among friends in many of the discussions which took place. If one looks at the draft text, one will find many proposals which originated here in Britain; for instance, the proposal strengthening the supervision of Community finance and spending by the European Parliament.
The noble Lord referred to the phrase:
"nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed".
I am not quite sure that the author of that phrase can be found in this country. It seems to be one of those phrases which has become "Eurospeak". I am not claiming authorship for anybody in this country. However, it sums up quite nicely the attitude at this meeting which was a "take-stock" meeting. It was not a meeting where the Ministers arrive intending to negotiate and come to decisions on specific matters. The general attitude was, "We've got six months' hard work ahead of us. At the end of that six months, we must look at the package as a whole and see whether we can come to agreement on it".
4.5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it accepted within the Community that we have an immigration problem that is different in character and different in scale from the immigration problem of any other country in the Community? Will this be borne in mind when there is an attempt to assimilate immigration laws?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am not sure that other countries would accept that we have a bigger problem than they have. Indeed, illegal immigration and the tide of people claiming refugee status is a problem with which all the Community countries are faced. There is a recognition that we have a system of control that is based on our geography which it might be thought foolish for us to abandon.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that events in Slovenia over the past few days have shown that enforced federation simply cannot work? Should not that be a salutary lesson to those who want to stampede the Community into a premature federal state? The Statement refers to the British Government's view that there should be fines for countries who do not implement Community decisions. How are such fines to be enforced? The Statement also refers to the British Government and

795
the British people having to give and take. So far it seems to me that we have done all the giving and the other countries have done all the taking. What proposals are there to ensure that in the future they do some of the giving and we take some of the taking?
Finally, in relation to the central bank, the Prime Minister's view is—and I have just heard it—that this may be a long way in the future. However, he was quite sure—and indeed he is stating—that such a European central bank would have to be brought under the control of a directly elected body. Can the noble Lord tell the House what form that directly elected body would take? Would it be individual parliaments, or would it be the European Parliament?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it would not be right for me to try and draw any parallel between the events in Slovenia and progress in the European Community. The British Government have made their views quite plain on federalism. As I have made clear, this was not a drafting session. However, the Prime Minister made clear that we could not accept a text which included the concept of federalism, which to many people means a unitary state with a directly elected central executive.
So far as concerns the enforcement of Community law, the European Court would be able to impose fines on those countries which fail to implement directives. That seems the appropriate way to take the matter forward. I cannot see how, in the light of the Statement which I have just read, the noble Lord can say that it has been a question of giving and that there has been no taking. There was not a single sentence in what I said a few moments ago to suggest that our Prime Minister has abandoned any of the great interests of this country.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware—and there is no reason why he should be—that I have spent more than 40 years studying and writing on federalism? Witness my edition of the standard text of federalist papers which is available in your Lordships' Library. From that I derive the inescapable conclusion that a great deal of misinformation is being deliberately spread by those who are trying to push this country into a totally unacceptable form of union. In this sense, though it is perfectly true—and this is where the play on words comes in—if one takes a unitary state, as the United Kingdom was, say, in 1900, and thinks of ways of diffusing power, one could end up in a federation. However, to put a sovereign state into a federation means depriving it of certain essential powers. The question then becomes: would the United Kingdom be better off in relation to a "European government" if it had the same status as South Dakota to the federal Government of the United States, or as Western Australia to the federal Government of Australia? The noble Lord will be aware that those are the only two successful federations—apart from Switzerland—that exist. Both of them have a homogeneity of language and culture which is absent, alas, from the European continent.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Certainly, this much must be common ground—different people have been arguing that "federalism" has different meanings. Some have said that federalism involves less concentration at the centre and more devolution; others have suggested precisely the opposite. If people have all these different views as to what federalism means, it seems to be a very insecure basis for putting the word "federalism" into any treaty.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that the Prime Minister stated most clearly his objection to the term "federalism". Are the Government satisfied that the explanation was concurred with by the Prime Minister of Italy, who, we understand, was asleep for a good deal of the time?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I made it plain when reading the Statement that the Prime Minister made Britain's position quite clear and made quite plain that Britain would not be able to agree to a treaty's text which included the word "federalism".
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister on having secured six months in which we can look at this problem in more detail. Surely, it is essential that we should have the fullest possible information. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who spoke about a central bank, made it clear to me that he and I think quite differently about central banks. Can we not have a definition of what it would mean if there were a central bank? How much power would it have over credit policies, interest rates and so on?
"How easy is a bush supposed a bear!"
Most people in this country think of a central bank as a bear. But perhaps it is only a bush. No one will tell us.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I was guilty of discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in that I did not reply to his question. I did not reply to his question, first, because I forgot to do so; and, secondly, because when I look again at the Prime Minister's Statement I see that it would have been quite unnecessary for me to have done so. The Prime Minister said in his Statement:
"In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency and a single central bank".
So there was certainly no giving there.
The correct reply to my noble friend Lord Eccles is that many of these issues are in the future. All the Prime Minister was saying is that he cannot agree to the text of a treaty at Maastricht in December of this year which will say that Britain is committed to a single currency and a central bank; and that we must see how we get on.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for rising to speak again, but there is one small point in the Statement on which I should be grateful for clarification from the Leader of the House. I quote:
"a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation".

797
I assume that means that there will not be a final agreement without the approval of the House. The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister is of course referring to the House of Commons. Am I right in assuming that what he really means is Parliament, and that the approval of this House will be required as well as the approval of the House of Commons?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, what is made clear is that the treaty would have to be ratified and that there would have to be agreement by Parliament.
Lord Jay: My Lords, can the Leader of the House say whether an English version of this draft treaty which we are all discussing is now available to the British Parliament?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there certainly was a draft text in the Library of the House. I just assumed, when I read my brief, that that draft text was in English, as I certainly have a copy in my papers here.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have been told that decisions about a single currency and other issues have been postponed until December. Is not uncertainty in the meantime harmful to the ability of the country to cut interest rates rapidly? Questions of convergence have to be clarified before we enter a single currency. What kind of convergence are we talking about and in what matters? In the meantime, our dithering is leading to a doubt about our credibility in the exchange rate mechanism and is making it difficult for interest rates to be cut properly. Does the noble Lord not agree that it is necessary to clarify as early as possible what we mean by convergence? How rapidly will convergence be achieved, and what do we expect at the end of this process to converge and how?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, for the life of me I cannot see how what is going on can be described as dithering! When it was decided to have two intergovernmental conferences—one on economic and monetary union and one on the political side—it was always recognised that an important matter was being embarked upon by the member-countries; that the negotiations would take a long time; and that the IGCs were not to come to a conclusion until the end of 1991. No one, so far as I know, has ever thought for one moment that we would come to a conclusion on these matters until December of 1991.
One thing is certain—dithering cannot come into it for one moment. I should have thought that questions about convergence might better be addressed to quarters other than the British Government. I have made entirely clear what is the British Government's view about a single currency. Others say that it may be possible to have a single currency very quickly indeed and that we are very pessimistic about it. But they all agree that a single currency could not come about now because of the lack of convergence. How much convergence do they think will make a single currency a possibility within a year, two years, three years, four years, five years or six years? These are questions which can properly be addressed to others.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said something extremely interesting about a common
798
currency. I take it that what he is saying is that the British Government accept that it is quite possibly going to happen in time. Does he not agree that some of the comments which were made about the common currency indicate that people have not fully understood the process of diplomacy in which we are engaged at the moment? It takes time. The Prime Minister has done extremely well in restoring an atmosphere of diplomacy. However, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, surely made a valid point when he said that the Government's apparent anxiety about this point is curious when so many other nations are perfectly willing to consider the principle and accede to it. Of course, the timing is another matter.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. We have gone into these negotiations intending to act sincerely and intending to get the best possible result for the United Kingdom. That can come about only as a result of sensible and honest negotiations. The House can remain confident that our Prime Minister will do the best for Britain.

Planning and Compensation Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Fish farming
'.—(1) After section 55(4) of the principal Act (meaning of "development") there is inserted—
"(4A) Where the placing or assembly of any tank in any part of any inland waters for the purpose of fish farming there would not, apart from this subsection, involve development of the land below, this Act shall have effect as if the tank resulted from carrying out engineering operations over that land; and in this subsection—
"fish farming" means the breeding, rearing or keeping of fish or shellfish (which includes any kind of crustacean and mollusc);
"inland waters" means waters which do not form part of the sea or of any creek, bay or estuary or of any river as far as the tide flows; and
"tank" includes any cage and any other structure for use in fish farming."
(2) This section does not apply to the placing or assembly of any structure before this section comes into force.'.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.
In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Commons Amendment No. 91. These amendments fulfil a commitment I gave on Report. At present freshwater fish tanks and cages count as development if they involve an engineering operation to fix them to land but may not otherwise. Their visual impact can be significant irrespective of how they are moored, and we have recognised that the existing position is unsatisfactory. Under these amendments, the placing or assembly of any tank in any part of inland waters for the purpose of fish farming would constitute development, whether in England, Wales or Scotland. The carrying out on land of building and other operations for fish farming already constitutes

799
development. The amendments would ensure that all freshwater fish tanks counted as development, whether they were on land or in inland waters.
We discussed fish farming at some length during the earlier stages of the Bill. In view of that interest, it may be helpful for me to summarise and update the Government's position on planning controls over freshwater fish farming. In Scotland there are no permitted development rights for fish farm buildings or operations. In England and Wales certain permitted development rights are conferred by the general development order. We have announced that we will withdraw rights in the national parks, as recommended by the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place, and that we will require local planning authorities to consult the National Rivers Authority when dealing with planning applications for fish farms. We have also announced that, in parallel with Commons Amendment No. 38, we will introduce permitted development rights for floating freshwater tanks and cages in England and Wales outside the national parks. That is in line with the thinking of the Select Committee in its comprehensive report.
Since we last debated fish farming, the Government have announced changes to agricultural permitted development rights in England and Wales and introduced an amendment to this Bill on environmental assessment. We intend shortly to issue a consultation paper on permitted development rights for fish farming taking account of those developments. I trust that these remarks will serve to set Amendments Nos. 38 and 91 in their wider context and to show the importance which we attach to the subject of fish farming.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that this is another example of the Government appearing to make the right noises on the face of the Bill and then announcing, as the noble and learned Lord has just done, that they propose not to give effect to such changes. It is paradoxical that it should be the noble and learned Lord who makes the announcement. After all, as he said himself, there are no permitted development rights for fish farming in Scotland. However, what he did not say was that the permitted development rights in Scotland were withdrawn in March 1990 where they had existed before.
As I understand it, the position which is now proposed for England and Wales is that there will be permitted development rights, except in national parks. I put it to the Government that the situation in England and Wales ought to be closer to that which pertains in Scotland and that the powers which are provided by the amendment (which apply only to floating fish tanks, and of course there are existing controls which apply to those that require engineering works to connect them to the land) are still pretty
800
minimal and should be more widely extended beyond national parks; indeed, many other environmentally sensitive areas ought to be covered by the amendment.
I can only say that it was not worth tabling a further amendment to this amendment because the face of the Bill now makes it possible for the Secretary of State to exercise wider controls. It is possible that a future Secretary of State would wish to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
39 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Assessment of environmental effects
'After section 71 of the principal Act there is inserted—
"Assessment of environmental effects
71A.—(l) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the consideration to be given, before planning permission for development of any class specified in the regulations is granted, to the likely environmental effects of the proposed development.
(2) The regulations—

(a) may make the same provision as, or provision similar or corresponding to, any provision made, for the purposes of any Community obligation of the United Kingdom about the assessment of the likely effects of development on the environment, under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972; and

(b) may make different provision for different classes of development.

(3) Where a draft of regulations made in exercise both of the power conferred by this section and the power conferred by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, section 333(3) shall not apply.".'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39. In doing so, I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 98. These new clauses enable extensions to be made to the existing requirements for environmental assessment in respect of projects that require planning permission. They follow the extensive discussions which your Lordships had on this issue during the Bill's earlier stages. I am especially grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Norrie.
The annexes to Directive 85/337 set out the types of project that require assessment. Annex I lists types of major projects which must always be assessed, while Annex II lists the much larger number of types of project which must be assessed if they are likely to have significant environmental effects. The directive has been implemented by regulations made under powers granted by the European Communities Act 1972, but those powers do not permit implementing regulations to amend primary legislation in such a way that provisions are made which are not required by Community law. Primary legislation is, therefore, needed to extend categories of project for which environmental assessment is required. These clauses will enable such extensions to be made for projects which are subject to planning control.
I should say that the powers are likely to be used sparingly to cover types of project which are demonstrably likely to have significant environmental effects yet are not contained within either Annexes I or II to the directive. There will be full consultation with

801
all those concerned, including operators, local authorities and other interested parties, before any type of project is added to the list. That is to ensure that any new requirement for environmental assessment is imposed only where it is essential to do so and where the environmental benefits will exceed the economic cost. These are important amendments which I believe are widely welcomed. I hope that the House will agree to them.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to welcome Commons Amendments Nos. 39 and 98. I can only hazard a guess at the number of times that I have urged the Government to introduce legislation along these exact lines —certainly throughout the passage of last year's Environmental Protection Act, as well as during previous stages of this Bill.
Given the sympathy shown to my amendments both in Committee and on Report, I am very pleased that the Government have honoured their promise to look at the matter sympathetically by introducing these amendments in another place. The amendment before us does exactly what my earlier amendments sought to achieve: it provides power for the Secretary of State to extend the influence of environmental assessment in this country beyond the strict confines of the European Community's directive. When regulations are made under the proposed new clause, it will for example, allow the Secretary of State to ensure that EAs apply to water treatment plants, fish farms, wind farms and other projects which have been left out of the EC directive for one reason or another. That is most welcome and will reassure all those who have expressed concern about projects which have damaging effects on the environment and which are not fully covered by the European Community's text.
However, the amendment does more than that: it brings EA into primary legislation for the first time. That is where it ought to be. That demonstrates the Government's support for the concepts and the practice of EA and sends a signal to everyone concerned about its importance. That is all the more welcome because some parts of the Government have in the past shown less than wholehearted enthusiasm for EA. I am sure that my noble friend had to work very hard to secure the agreement of other government departments to the amendment. I congratulate her on her success in so doing.
Finally, the amendment before us is simply an enabling tool. It allows the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to achieve its objectives. Therefore, can my noble friend say when we can expect these regulations to appear? I believe that she has already covered the point about consultation. However, I hope that the answer to my first question will be, "Very soon". I look forward to hearing her reply.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too should like warmly to welcome the amendment and pay tribute to my noble friend for achieving its introduction and also for
802
securing the new clause as proposed in Commons Amendment No. 98. It is rather strange that both amendments which introduce new clauses are set out in identical terms. It is rather a cumbrous way of drafting. It tempts me to say, following a previous attempt to consolidate this legislation to prevent it becoming voluminous, complicated and overlapping, that one hopes that there will be another attempt at consolidation when the Bill is passed. Those who have to obey the tenets of the law, whatever good guidance is provided by the departments, have a terrific task ahead of them in finding out what the law is and what are their obligations, responsibilities and rights. Having said that, I welcome the amendment.
In Committee, when my noble friend Lord Norrie, who is to be congratulated on his initiative, first raised the matter, I suggested that the acceptance of a provision along these lines would be a test of the Government's environmental credibility. Through her own efforts, my noble friend Baroness Blatch has proved the Government's environmental credibility. For those of us who are keen that Parliament should do all that it can to protect the environment, it is also satisfactory to note in passing that a broadly similar result was achieved only last Monday in the New Roads and Street Works Bill by the Department of Transport and my noble friend Lord Brabazon. That is all very splendid.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not much of a one for nice noises. As my last two speeches were not especially nice, it is only right that I should say how much we on these Benches echo the welcome given to the amendment by the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Renton. We supported their proposal when the Bill was in the House. We are glad that pressure, from whichever quarter, has succeeded and has achieved this result.
The reason that we sit silent when amendments are proposed is largely because we agree with them. The general thrust of Commons Amendments to the Bill is welcome. There are only a few points that we feel obliged to raise on Commons Amendments to the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is an example of an amendment in your Lordships' House going a bridge too far, which is something I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did in Committee, yet having excellent results. He, too, should receive congratulations on promoting this matter and perhaps bullying my noble friend into achieving this satisfactory result.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for all the remarks that have been made. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has just said, I believe that everyone should bask in the glory of this achievement. I was a mere vehicle, but a willing one. My noble friend Lord Norrie asked about the timetable. It might help if I make a general comment upon the timetable. Clause 68(2) provides that the Bill shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes.

803
The Government's intention is that a first commencement order will bring as much of the Bill as possible into force two months after Royal Assent. It is practice to allow a period of two months after any Act is printed. We expect that the provisions to be commenced in the first order will include among others the new compensation provisions; the provisions relating to the status of development plans; and the IDO provisions. We also hope to bring in some of the enforcement provisions at that time. The Bill provides for some of the compensation provisions to have effect from the time of the Bill's introduction in the House last November.
The provisions in question are the home loss payment provisions. The new entitlement will apply mostly to people displaced from their homes on and after 16th November 1990. Some of the planning compensation appeals will apply in cases where the relevant planning application was made on or after that date. Other provisions cannot be brought into force as quickly. That is mainly because subordinate legislation will be required before they can be operative. It applies, for example, to the development plan and simplified planning zone provisions; those provisions relating to planning obligations; advertisement control and some of those relating to enforcement.
In addition, extensive amendments will be required to the GDO to implement the provisions on fish farming; notice of planning applications; and demolition. A great deal of planning guidance will also have to be re-written. I hope that that general statement on the implementation timetable will help all noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Clause 13, page 23, line 42, at end insert:
'(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any application for planning permission, any person (other than the applicant) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the application in such manner as may be required by the order.'.
41 Page 24, line 22, leave out from 'section' to end of line 23 and insert:
"agricultural holding" has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

(a) is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple;

(b) is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired; or

(c) in the case of such applications as may be prescribed by a development order, is entitled to an interest in any mineral so prescribed,

and the reference to the interests in the land to which an application for planning permission relates includes any interest in any mineral in, on or under the land.'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 96.
804
The purpose of this group of amendments is to retain in primary legislation a requirement that owners of land and tenants of agricultural holdings should be notified of applications for planning permission affecting their land. Amendment No. 41 defines "agricultural holding" and "owner" for this purpose. Amendment No. 96 makes parallel provision for Scotland.
Clause 13 originally sought to remove to secondary legislation the notification requirement. However, the Government recognise the paramount importance to owners of land, and to agricultural tenants, of being aware of development proposals submitted by other parties and have been persuaded that the fundamental principle of owner notification should be enshrined in primary legislation.
The Government recognise the implications for agricultural tenants of planning permission granted for non-agricultural use. Those implications were highlighted at earlier stages of the Bill in particular by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It is clearly important, given the prospect of an incontestable notice to quit, that agricultural tenants should be aware of any relevant planning application. My officials have consulted the National Farmers' Union and the Tenant Farmers' Association about the practicability for applicants of satisfying a requirement to notify agricultural tenants. Their comments have been taken into account in formulating Amendment No. 40 which fulfils the Government's commitment to provide a notification requirement in primary legislation, but which leaves the procedural details to be dealt with in secondary legislation. Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 for Scotland make essential drafting changes to ensure the proper operation of the new Section 24 of the 1972 Act, as introduced by Clause 38.
My department and the Welsh Office will undertake public consultation about those procedural details shortly. The consultation paper will also invite views on the best way of ensuring that all planning applications in England and Wales receive some publicity—a step to which the Government are now committed, as my noble friend Lady Blatch announced to your Lordships on 9th May.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 and 41—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as I said, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is unable to be here today. He has asked me warmly to welcome the Government's agreement to continue the right of notification in primary legislation. He said that all owners and tenants will now be able to sleep in peace. He wants me to thank my noble friends for all the work that they have done. They had said that it could be achieved by secondary legislation, but my noble friend made the point that that could be altered on a ministerial whim. He is grateful for what the Government have done.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I wish to refer to the welcome promise that the Government made in another place about publicity in respect of planning

805
applications generally. The amendment proposes that agricultural tenants are to be notified when a planning application is made affecting their holding. During earlier consideration of the Bill, I advanced similar arguments in respect of neighbourhood notification with what must have seemed to my noble friend Lord Astor to be monotonous regularity. It is with some regret that I notice we still have no legislative provision for that matter. Nevertheless, during debates in another place, Ministers recognised the need to examine the extent to which publicity is given to all planning applications and have promised to bring forward proposals to improve and standardise the treatment given to planning applications. That will be of great benefit to third parties, whether neighbours or not. and I welcome it. I look forward to seeing the Government's further thoughts on that matter in the near future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
42 Clause 17, page 26, line 31, leave out from 'be' to 'the' in line 33 and insert 'determined by the authority concerned, by another interested planning authority or by'.
43 Page 26, line 36, leave out 'to' and insert 'falling to be determined by'.
44 Page 27, line 9, at end insert 'unless the application is referred to the Secretary of State under section 77'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 151, 152, 157, 172, 173, 254, 256, 2,7, 259., 261 to 263, 267, 269, 272, 274 and 279.
The amendments in this group make essential minor changes to Clause 17, Schedule 5, Schedule 6 and Schedule 17. Amendment No. 120 removed the Privilege amendment. I should be glad to explain any of these amendments in more detail should your Lordships wish.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 en bloc —(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
45 Clause 18, page 27, line 22, after 'materials' insert 'and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'.
46 Insert the following new clause:
Old mining permissions
'.—(1) In this section and Schedule (Registration of old mining permissions) to this Act, "old mining permission" means any planning permission for development —

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or

(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste,

which was deemed to be granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 by virtue of section 77 of that Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 21st July 1943).
(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.
(3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 1st May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out at any time after the coming into force of this section unless—

(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above, and

(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

(4) An old mining permission shall —

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and

(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

(5) An old mining permission shall, if—

(a) such an application is granted, but

(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.
(6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section —

(a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect, and

(b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 102 of or Schedule 9 to the principal Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).

(7) This section and that Schedule, and the principal Act, shall have effect as if the section and Schedule were included in Part III of that Act.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 en bloc. In moving these Amendments, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 102, 121 to 128, 130 to 134, 179, 181 to 184, 186 to 188, 264 to 266, 268, 283, 284 and 286.
I now come to the question of old mining permissions and particularly to those granted under interim development orders. This is a subject where we have all learnt a great deal in a very short time. It seems much longer ago than November that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, first raised this issue on Second Reading. Since then, as your Lordships will know, the subject of interim development order (IDO) permissions for mineral working has been debated several times during the passage of the Bill, and there has been extensive public consultation.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the concerns expressed here so well by noble Lords on these Benches and on those opposite have been very fully addressed in another place. Your Lordships will recall that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said in Committee that the Government were considering what action to take. Subsequently, I promised the House on Report that the Government would bring forward amendments during the passage of the Bill to deal with the problem of IDOs; and, after a widespread consultation exercise, my right honourable friend Sir George Young announced the

807
Government's proposals on 1st May. Amendments Nos. 46 and 134 (101 and 188 for Scotland) give effect to those proposals.
First, the Bill now provides that landowners or mineral owners with an IDO permission who wish to apply to the mineral planning authority to have their permissions registered must do so within six months of commencement of these provisions, or the permission will fall without compensation. Disputes over the validity of permissions will be determined by the Secretary of State. This will get the records straight and ensure that the extent and terms of IDO permissions are known.
Secondly, once it has been determined that there is a valid IDO permission, either by the MPA or on appeal, the holder must—within 12 months of that determination, or such longer period as may have been agreed with the MPA—submit a scheme of operating and restoration conditions for the MPA's approval, or the permission will cease to have effect. This will get active sites up to standard.
In response to concerns expressed that the time period for registration and submission of schemes set out in our consultation paper was too short, we have provided for longer time periods and separated the two processes. There will be six months from commencement instead of four to submit applications for registration. As the time period is now public knowledge, applicants will in practice have a much longer period. There will be a full year from the date the permission is registered for the submission of schemes. Indeed we have built in extra flexibility by providing that that period can be extended if the MPA agrees. This should provide a reasonable length of time for the industry to prepare itself and the flexibility to ensure that the system is not overloaded.
Thirdly, in the case of dormant sites, that is sites where there had been no working to any substantial extent for a period of two years preceding 1st May 1991, operations cannot recommence until the permission has been determined as valid and a scheme of operating and restoration conditions has been approved. This is an important proposal which meets many of the concerns expressed about the reactivation of IDO permissions on environmentally sensitive sites. There will be no compensation for the cost of complying with any conditions imposed. But there is provision for appeal to the Secretary of State against the imposition of unreasonable conditions, and for the Secretary of State to call in an application for his own determination.
I know that the industry has expressed concerns about some aspects of our proposals and is worried about the effect on asset values. The minerals industry is very important to the nation. Without the raw materials it supplies, the country would have no houses, no roads and hospitals. But the nature of the industry is that many of the operations go on for a long period of time. It is essential therefore that it keeps pace with the latest environmental standards. It must demonstrate its commitment to high environmental standards across the board if it is to win the future planning permissions necessary to meet
808
demand. I welcome the assurances that representatives of the industry have already given on this point.
Nevertheless, throughout the debates on IDOs, we have drawn a distinction between expropriation of the asset and working the asset in a way which meets modern conditions. We have made it clear that we shall issue full guidance on the preparation of schemes and model conditions and we are already discussing this guidance with representatives of the industry and MPAs with a view to publishing a draft for public consultation in September. That guidance will give clear advice to MPAs that, in the case of working sites, they should draw a distinction between, on the one hand, conditions which deal with the environmental and amenity aspects of working the site, which would not affect the asset value, and on the other hand, conditions which would fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation. Conditions which would significantly affect the asset value would be more appropriate for MPAs' reviews under the provisions introduced by the Minerals Act 1981.
Full modern conditions will be appropriate to truly dormant sites—that is, where no working has taken place for a number of years—and will generally be appropriate to large areas of unworked land covered by otherwise active permissions. However, I know that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who spoke to me prior to the consideration of the Commons amendments, is concerned about sites which have been recently mothballed for operational and economic reasons. Clearly the type of conditions that will be appropriate in any particular case will depend on the nature and extent of the working that has already taken place. We shall advise MPAs that where an applicant can demonstrate that an otherwise dormant permission has been active in recent years and that operations have been only temporarily suspended, they should consider the extent to which the imposition of full modern conditions would fundamentally affect the developer's ability to work the site in the future, and to apply a degree of flexibility.
These amendments will ensure that in a relatively short period of time the details of all valid IDO permissions will be known, that these permissions are brought up to an acceptable standard, and that dormant sites cannot be reactivated without warning and without proper conditions. This will bring IDOs within the embrace of a modern planning system.
But, that is just the first step. As was made clear in the response to my department's consultation exercise on IDOs and in debates in both Houses of Parliament, permissions for mineral working granted in the 1950s and 1960s may also have conditions attached which fail to meet today's standards. With regard to these permissions, or indeed to any minerals permissions which are now unsatisfactory, MPAs have existing powers to take action, including powers to prohibit the resumption of mineral working where a site has been inactive for several years. They have a duty to review mineral working sites in their area and to make such orders as they consider appropriate updating those sites to modern standards. However, there is no

809
time limit on the reviews, and orders can give rise to compensation. Progress has not been as fast as we would have hoped.
We therefore announced in the environment White Paper our intention to review MPAs' existing powers to take action to see whether any changes are necessary. That review is underway and that review is the rig:-it place to consider the problems of 1950s' and 1960s' permissions, whether active or dormant. We hope to consult on our proposals next year. I can assure your Lordships that we attach high priority to completing the review and we regard it as essential that any changes arising out of the review can be implemented quickly.
To that effect Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 provide a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order the periods in which MPAs must carry out their duty to review sites and the matters to be covered in such reviews. Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 make similar provision for Scotland. Amendments Nos. 125 to 128 and 130 to 133 replace the existing powers to make regulations abating compensation in relation to the winning and working of minerals, and those originally proposed in the Bill in relation to the depositing of mineral waste, with a single order making power to provide for the abatement of compensation following orders updating permissions for the winning and working of minerals or the depositing of minerals waste.
The amendments also remove the existing restrictions in Schedule 11 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the circumstances in which and the amount by which compensation may be abated, providing instead for the amount of abatement and the circumstances in which compensation can be abated to be set out in the regulations themselves. Regulations will be subject to consultation and to affirmative resolution in both Houses, and the existing provisions will be retained until the review has been completed and there has been consultation on any change3. Amendments Nos. 179, 181, 186 and 187 make similar provision for Scotland. Amendments Nos. 45, 264 to 266 and 268, and for Scotland Amendments Nos. 100, 283, 284 and 286, are consequential.
The Bill now contains a comprehensive package of measures which demonstrates the Government's commitment to raising environmental standards in the mineral s industry. Taken together they will ensure that there is a rigorous framework in place to enable all old minerals permissions to be brought up to an acceptable standard over the next decade. These are tough proposals but I believe that they are in the long-term interests of the industry and local communities.
I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for her explanation of the new proposals which the clause contains. I think that they will be understood and accepted by the industry,
810
even if not welcomed with open arms exactly, for reasons which my noble friend will understand. I must declare an interest as I work for a company which is one of the largest quarry operators and aggregate producers, ARC. The recognition of the effect upon the asset value of the relevant dormant sites which is addressed by these proposed changes, with which my noble friend dealt, is generally to be welcomed, because there would have been serious effects upon operators if the asset value issue had not been recognised. I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming the position as concerns consultation with industry and to know that that consultation process should be completed by September and, if I understood my noble friend correctly, that the appropriate guidance will be issued.
I am also grateful to her for stating that to a considerable extent the matter of sites which may form part of another site and which are temporarily taken out of use and mothballed for economic reasons is also recognised.
I am sure that she made the point, although I shall have to study carefully what she said in the Official Report, that there is a recognition that the two-year cut-off point, while in general being accepted by industry, is somewhat different when it comes to the mothballed sites. Operations there may have been taken out of effect for economic reasons. Under the Bill, if I understand it rightly, the provision would not be interpreted under the MPA reviews as applicable under the Minerals Act 1981. I believe that my noble friend has given an assurance on that point, but I wish to study carefully what she said because she will recognise the clear concerns of the industry on the matter. If she is able to give further reassurance on that point I should be grateful, but I welcome the remarks that she made.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, interim development orders or old mining permissions, as Amendment No. 46 and the rest of the enormous block of amendments call them, have been a blot on the landscape for far too long. As my noble friend said, they have caused concern in all stages of the Bill, not only in this House but in another place. Quarries, for example, are capable of extension or even subject to new construction —if that is the correct word—under permissions granted as far back as 1948 which have been forgotten by local people and even in some cases the planning authorities themselves which granted the permissions. That fact means that in recent years, quite rightly, there has been a great public outcry.
I hope that the whole House will agree with me that the Government have taken a giant step in the right direction in moving this series of amendments. I was interested, as the House will be, in what my noble friend said from his viewpoint about the subject.
However, I have one or two anxieties. My noble friend has briefly told us what will happen between the end of the first six months when applications are due and the end of the following 18 months when they are either confirmed and put on a proper recorded basis or denied. But one of my worries is whether the planning authorities or the department have enough records to

811
ensure that they will be able to reject applications that have no basis in reality. The other side of the coin is that they will grant them where a record is supplied by the firm but not recorded by the local minerals planning authority. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer these potentially serious questions when she comes to reply.
Having carried out a little research, I understand that a belief that an IDO was granted in the past will be sufficient reason for an application to be filled out and sent to the minerals planning authority. However, the proof will be in the mineral plans held by the authority. Thus I see a potential difficulty if there is a piece of paper, for example, from ARC, which my noble friend talked about, which proves that a permission was given in the past which is not in the local plan.
Although there is a potential difficulty—and I do not believe anyone pretends that this attempt at regulation and at restoring the position to what it should have been under the 1947 Act will be easy—the Government are to be congratulated on making this serious attempt to improve matters.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, perhaps we may turn from quarrying to peat extraction for a moment. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify some points. Can she confirm that the principal Act, as amended by Commons Amendment No. 121, allows for periodic review by planning authorities of planning permission for peat extraction? How often would she expect such reviews to take place? Can she also give the assurance that she will look urgently into the two cases of Thorne and Hatfield Moors? Will the Government be prepared to assist the minerals planning authority, which may be sympathetic to the idea of revoking planning permission for these sites? The amount of compensation required to do this may well be beyond the means of the authority. Would the amendments to the Bill, including Commons Amendment No. 125, facilitate such a process?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the two amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has mentioned. First, I welcome the series of amendments which I believe will do an extremely useful job. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the importance of the peatlands in Great Britain. Most of our peatlands are of international importance, particularly the lowland raised mires, which are now in great danger because of old planning permissions which in many cases have been outstanding since the 1950s and in some cases earlier. It is very important indeed that they should be the subject of review, together with other mineral workings.
I know that the peat industry has given assurances in relation to sites of special scientific interest, but these sites can be severely damaged if the surrounding area is extracted in an unsympathetic way. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned Thorne and Hatfield Moors. These were dug out by Fisons under a licence granted in 1951. The company used traditional hand cutting methods until the mid-1960s. However, I
812
understand that it is now going back over those workings again with the new modern methods and stripping the moors to the bone. When that is done, the wildlife interest, not only of the bogs which are being stripped but of all the surrounding area, is severely damaged.
The peatlands campaign consortium, which comprises most of the conservation bodies in this country, is concerned that the peat extraction licences should also be subject to review and that where it is necessary for a local planning authority to give compensation, the Government should be sympathetic when the time comes. I hope that when the Minister answers the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, she will be able either to give a sympathetic answer or to promise that the matter will be looked at a little further.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that the Government are wise to have dealt with this old and complex problem in the way that is proposed in the Bill. I should like also to refer to Amendment No. 121 and to ask my noble friend about the periodic reviews. As I understand it, the mineral planning authority will decide the length of period after which those reviews are to take place and it could make the intervals very lengthy. I hope that my noble friend can give us an idea of how long it is envisaged the intervals will be. It may be that in this complicated mass of amendments of the existing law there will be some opportunity for the Department of the Environment, or perhaps the Department of Energy, to ensure that the reviews take place with reasonable frequency.
The issue impinges upon the question of coal mining subsidence about which we had some discussion in the House last week. But that is not within my noble friend's responsibility and we shall come to the Third Reading of that Bill quite soon. However, in relation to mining subsidence, the Department of Energy does not seem to show quite the environmental sensitivity that the Department of the Environment shows on all other matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that we are back to modified rapture on these amendments. Much simpler and more far-reaching amendments which had been proposed were rejected in favour of what must be seen as a compromise. The Minister gave a long and comprehensive explanation of the amendments. I cannot claim to have followed everything that she said, although, if I understood her correctly, she promised fairly speedy implementation of the provisions and fairly speedy provision of draft guidance. I welcome what she said about draft guidance being available in September.
The critical point that must be resolved before we can be satisfied that the change goes far enough in the right direction is the issue of compensation. A review of the Minerals Act 1981 is taking place, but I do not think that mineral planning authorities will be satisfied that their position on compensation is clear until the review has been completed and incorporated in all the subsequent action that will be required as

813
part of these amendments. Sir George Young, who is to be congratulated on the part that he played in the matter, distinguished between what would be reasonable conditions for the working of those rights and what he called expropriation of the asset. The trouble is that in many cases some of the working that would be permitted by interim development orders is totally unacceptable, regardless of the working conditions. We were therefore bound to find ourselves with expropriation of the asset. That will continue to concern mineral planning authorities until they are satisfied that they can do what is environmentally necessary without running the risk of exorbitant compensation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I am grateful for the qualified welcome for these amendments. I can give ray noble friend Lord Glenarthur the assurance that I, e seeks regarding his point about multiple sites. We are looking at the terms of the guidance concerning types of conditions and different types of sites. Those issues will be addressed and there will be full public consultation which will include the industry.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale questioned how we shall deal with spurious claims to register IDO permissions. The amendments provide that only owners, tenants and persons with an interest in the minerals may apply to register a permission. They must certify that they have notified any other owner when applying to the mineral planning authority. The mineral planning authority must be satisfied that there is a valid permission or the application will be refused and disputes will be determined by the Secretary of State. The guidance that we propose to issue will spell out the procedures and advice on the evidence to be submitted with applications. We hope to consult on the guidance in September, as has already been said. As regards the absence of records, the purpose of registration is to get the records straight. If no application is made within the six-month period, the permissions will fall.
My noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, were all concerned about peat extraction. The Government fully recognise the desirability of conserving peatlands and are actively considering the ways and means of resolving the apparent conflict between peat extraction and major conservation issues. Officials have held extensive discussions with interested parties in the public and private sectors, including conservation bodies and the Peat Producers Association, which represents the majority of the companies involved in peat extraction. We hope to develop a common understanding of the problems and an agreed approach for future policy development. Our broader review of the provisions of the Minerals Act 1981, which has also been of concern to your Lordships, and the provisions that we have introduced in the Bill to ensure that the outcome of that review can be implemented quickly will deal with the issue of compensation and provide a sound planning framework for dealing with those problems.
Amendment No. 121 applies to all mineral working, including peat. It enables us to implement
814
the outcome of our review of the 1981 Act quickly. We shall consider the correct period, which was a concern to my noble friend Lord Renton, for reviews to be carried out by the MPAs as part of our review of the Act. We cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review, but we hope to consult on proposals next year. With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, MPAs are currently under a duty to carry out reviews, but there is no time limit. Amendments Nos. 121 and 124 allow us to prescribe a time limit. We shall therefore look at whether we should prescribe time periods and what they should he as part of our general review.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend referred to Amendment No. 124, but the provision is not absolutely express there. It states:
"If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed".
Does that mean that, when making regulations, the Secretary of State shall say how often the reviews shall take place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's interpretation is right. There is at present a power to review, but there is no power to prescribe periods between reviews. That will now be a power for the Secretary of State. It will be a judgment as to specifically what that time limit should be, but the power is enshrined in Amendment No. 124.
On the point about compensation made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the distinction between the type of conditions will be covered in guidance. We shall look at the question of restricting working rights and compensation in our review of the 1981 Act and we shall consult, but we shall always make it clear that we shall not expropriate assets as part of IDO amendments.
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to Scotland. The available information on IDO permissions suggests that they are rare in Scotland and, to my knowledge, no representations for urgent change have been made. Nevertheless, we believe that it is prudent to take equivalent powers in Scotland so that they may be used to control troublesome IDO permissions, should they surface. A letter has been sent to all Scottish planning authorities and the minerals industry explaining the provisions added to the Bill and seeking to improve the available information on IDOs in Scotland. The provisions will not be commenced in Scotland until that further survey is completed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 19, page 29, line 22, leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
48 Page 30, line 26, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
49 Page 30, line 27, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 28 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 which were taken with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Before Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
Status of development plans
'. At the end of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted—
"Chapter III General
Status of development plans.
54A. Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50, and in doing so I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 107, 143 to 149, 166, 255 and 273. All but the first two amendments in this group are technical ones. I should like to focus on Amendments Nos. 50 and 107. These are two new clauses dealing with the status of the development plan in the decision-making process. The first relates to England and Wales and the second makes equivalent provision for Scotland.
Your Lordships will recall that several noble Lords raised this issue during earlier considerations of the Bill in this House. The purpose of the new clauses is to make clear what is meant by having regard to the development plan in all places where the planning Acts require regard to be had to it. For example, in future when a planning authority deals with an application for planning permission the new provisions will mean that the determination will have to be in accordance with the plan unless other considerations indicate otherwise. Thus it will be clear how the authority should go about making the decision. As my honourable friend said in another place, if the development plan has something to say on a particular application the starting point would be that the plan should be followed unless the weight of other considerations tells against it. There would thus be a presumption in favour of the development plan, but it would still allow appropriate weight to be given to all other material considerations.
The new clauses, which have been widely welcomed, reflect our view that the system should be plan-led. It is all the more important, if the development plan is to carry its full weight, that it is up-to-date and consistent with national and regional policies as well as relevant to the proposal concerned. I commend this group of amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously we on this side very much welcome the new clause and the consequential amendments. I believe it to be one of the more important amendments to the Bill. I would
816
wish to praise it enthusiastically were I not afraid that in the process the Government might go careering off in the other direction.
What the Minister has said must be right. The amendment finally makes clear, as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pressed in Committee and at Report stage, that in future planning and development will be plan-led and therefore not market-led, appeal-led or Secretary of State-whim-led. We have all had examples of those processes in the past. The amendment will also ensure that planning is placed firmly at local level. It will help to clarify the framework within which not just developers but residents, neighbours and local authority members can seek to work. In particular, it will signal to developers that the local plan, subject to it being up-to-date, will no longer be subject to guerrilla warfare or attrition by automatic or simultaneous appeals, as has happened so often in the past. In that sense, it will help to alleviate some of the concerns expressed on this side about the imbalance in favour of developers with unilateral undertakings, twin-trackings and the like. I believe that at the time the Minister said that she hoped that by restating the weight of the local plan some of our objections and worries in that sphere would be met. I think that has been achieved.
One point which I believe should be emphasised —and with which I am sure the Minister will also agree—is that the amendment will mean that in drawing up local and development plans the process of consultation, itself the subject of a series of amendments all round the House both in Committee and at Report stage, will become much more significant because the greater the weight of the development plan the more important it should bear the authority of informed consent. We look to the Minister for support and articulation on that. Given all that, on our side we welcome the amendment very much indeed. Obviously, we recognise that considerations such as an out-of-date plan are relevant, but it will now firmly clarify the weight, status and significance of the development plan in ways we hoped to see.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister. This amendment does more than any other to demonstrate the Government's commitment to a strong and firm planning system. I would go as far as to say that I believe it to be the most important clause in the Bill. Members of the House may recall that I raised this issue repeatedly during our consideration of the Bill. My concern was that while the Government were doing a great deal to improve the planning system in this country it would be worthless if the development plan was ignored when it came to taking decisions on individual planning applications. The Government repeatedly reassured me that they did not intend the planning system to be firm and plan-led. To honour that intention they have brought forward their own amendment to ensure that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan.
The past 10 years have been difficult ones for the planning system. Certain signals from central

817
government coincided with a development which led to the creation of a speculator's paradise in which the planning system was left to try to pick up the pieces. Developers quoted government policy of a presumption in favour of development which led to the most outrageous proposals. Planning authorities were besieged by unprecedented numbers of planning applications and appeals. All of that has now changed, and this amendment confirms the extent of that change.
In their White Paper of September last year, reinforced by the Bill, the Government nailed their colours firmly to the mast of good planning. Their decision to maintain strong county structure plans and provide full coverage of district-wide local plans was welcomed by all consumers of the planning system, conservationists and developers alike. The amendment makes clear that those plans will now be implemented. It has been welcomed by a very wide range of interested parties.
I should like to have clarification from my noble friend on two vitally important matters. First, the new weight to be attached to the development plan needs to be reflected in government guidance on planning matters in the form of planning and policy guidance notes, or PPGs. PPG1 states the Government's previous policy of a presumption in favour of all development. That must now be changed to reflect the new cause in the Bill. Can my noble friend assure me that a revised version of PPG1 will be issued, stating a presumption in favour of development that is in accordance with the development plan? I hope that is so, and that the new guidance will be issued soon.
The second (and more alarming) point is that there is much debate about possible reforms of the structure of local government. Ideas are now being formulated. Although I am by nature an optimist, I do not think the planning system is at the centre of that debate. It ought to be. I cannot believe it is the Government's intent ion to undo all the good things provided by the Bill by reform which throws a strong two-tier planning system out of the window. Can my noble friend reassure me that whatever the Government decide to do the, Planning and Compensation Bill provisions will remain intact?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome all of the comments which have been made on these amendments. I refer specifically to the two questions. PPG will indeed be updated. All of the points which have been raised by my noble friend will be addressed. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the details, but the points made by my noble friend are certainly noted.
On the question of local government restructuring, I not only hear what my noble friend says but understand the importance of the statement he makes. The panning system and the measures in the Bill will remain central in the Government's thinking as they work towards reform of local government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 29, page 35, leave out lines 15 to 26 and insert 'planning permission for carrying out any development has been granted subject to conditions.
(2) The planning authority may, if any of the conditions is not complied with, serve a notice (in this Act referred to as a -breach of condition notice") on —

(a) any person who is carrying out or has carried out the development; or

(b) any person having control of the land, requiring him to secure compliance with such of the conditions as are specified in the notice.

(2A) References in this section to the person responsible are to the person on whom the breach of condition notice has been served.
(2B) The conditions which may be specified in a notice served by virtue of subsection (2) (b) of this section are any of the conditions regulating the use of the land.'.
52 Page 35, line 36, at end insert 'or any other conditions'.
53 Page 35, line 46, after 'notice' insert '(a)'.
54 Page 35, line 47, after 'with' insert 'and
(b) the steps specified in the notice have not been taken or, as the case may be, the activities specified in the notice have not ceased'.
55 Page 36, leave out lines 1 to 4.
56 Page 36, line 14, after 'prove' insert '(a)'.
57 Page 36, line 16, at end insert 'or
(b) where the notice was served on him by virtue of subsection (2) (b) of this section, that he no longer had control of the land'.
58 Page 36, line 21, after 'section' insert '(a)'.
59 Page 36, line 21, at end insert 'and
(b) references to carrying out any development include causing or permitting another to do so'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move those amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
'After section 260 of the 1972 Act there is inserted —
"Interdicts restraining breaches of planning control
260A.—(1) Whether or not they have exercised or propose to exercise any of their other powers under this Act, a planning authority may seek to restrain or prevent any actual or apprehended breach of any of the controls provided for by or under this Act by means of an application for interdict.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) of this section the court may grant such interdict as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining or preventing the breach.
(3) In this section "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff.".'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. Also covered in this grouping are Amendments Nos. 68, 70, 76 to 83, 85, 88, 94, 95, 97, 99, 180, 189, 190, 193, 196, 199 to 206, 208 to 210, 213, 217 to 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 231, 237 to 239, 241, 245, 282 and 287.
Amendment No. 60 introduces a power to allow planning authorities to seek interdict in cases where a breach of planning control has taken place or is expected to take place. The provision provides a Scottish equivalent to Clause 3 of the Bill, which

819
provides for planning injunctions in England and Wales and which your Lordships have already approved.
The other amendments in this large group make various minor technical and drafting amendments to the Scottish clauses of the Bill. I propose that they be agreed to en bloc, although I shall of course be happy to explain any particular amendment if so required.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Clause 31, page 38, line 30, after first 'land' insert 'by discontinuing any use of the land'.
62 Page 38, line 32, leave out 'removing or alleviating' and insert 'remedying'.
63 Page 38, line 36, leave out 'demolition or alteration' and insert 'alteration or removal'.
64 Page 38, leave out line 40.
65 Page 38, line 45, at end insert:
'(5A) An enforcement notice issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to subsection (5B) of this section, is as similar as possible to the demolished building.
(5B) A replacement building —

(a) must comply with any requirement imposed by or under any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;

(b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;

(c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection).'.

66 Page 39, line 20, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
67 Page 39, line 25, leave out from 'granted' to end of line 28 and insert 'under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.
(10) Where —

(a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and

(b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

planning permission shall be treated as having been granted under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of that construction.'.
68 Clause 32, page 40, line 3, leave out from 'specified' to 'as' in line 5 and insert 'in the notice'.
69 Page 40, line 23, at end insert 'or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach.'.
70 Clause 35, page 42, line 20, leave out 'subsection (1) or.
71 Clause 36, page 43, line 42, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
72 Page 45, line 12, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
73 Page 45, line 20, leave out 'were'.
74 Page 45, line 21, leave out from 'application' to second 'they' in line 45 and insert 'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
75 Page 45, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert:
820
'(4) There shall be an irrefutable presumption as to the lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
76 Page 45, line 41, after 'regulations', insert 'under this Act'.
77 Page 45, line 43, after 'by', insert 'such'.
78 Page 45, line 44, after 'under', insert 'such'.
79 Page 45, line 46, after 'by', insert 'such'.
80 Page 46, line 1, after 'particular', insert 'such'.
81 Page 46, line 4, after 'by', insert 'the'.
82 Page 46, line 8, after 'under', insert 'the'.
83 Page 46, line 21, after 'by', insert 'such'.
84 Page 46, line 22, at end insert:
'(4A) A certificate under section 90 or 90A shall not affect any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'.
85 Page 46, line 33, after 'by', insert 'such'.
86 Clause 37, page 48, line 37, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
87 Page 48, line 38, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 39 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
88 Page 48, line 41, at end insert:
'(3A) The provisions of section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under subsection (3) of this section as they apply in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'.
89 Page 49, line 9, at end insert:
'(2) In section 266(4) of the 1972 Act (compensation for damage caused in exercise of right of entry)—

(a) for "land is damaged" there is substituted "damage is caused to land or moveable property"; and

(b) for the words from "in respect of to "in the land" there is substituted "may be recovered by any person suffering the damage".'.

90 Before Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
Demolition of buildings
'.—(1) In section 19 of the 1972 Act (meaning of "development") after subsection (1) there is inserted —
"(1A) For the purposes of this Act "building operations" includes —

(a) demolition of buildings;

(b) rebuilding;

(c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and

(d) other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
"(g) the demolition of any description of building specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State to planning authorities generally or to a particular planning authority."
(3) After section 154(3) of the 1972 Act (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by development order) there is inserted—
"(3A) Regulations made by virtue of this subsection may provide that subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply where planning permission granted by a development order for demolition of buildings or any description of buildings is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers conferred by the order.".'.
91 Insert the following new clause:
Fish farming
'.(1) After subsection (3A) of section 19 (meaning of "development") of the 1972 Act there is inserted—

821
"(3B) Where the placing or assembly of any tank in any part of any inland waters for the purpose of fish farming there would not, apart from this subsection, involve development of the land below, this Act shall have effect as if the tank resulted from carrying out engineering operations over that land; and in this subsection—
"fish farming" means the breeding, rearing or keeping of fish or shellfish (which includes any kind of crustacean or mollusc);
"inland waters" means waters which do not form part of the sea or of any creek, bay or estuary or of any river as far as the tide flows; and
"tank" includes any cage and any other structure for use in fish farming."
(2) This section does not apply to the placing or assembly of any structure before this section comes into force.'.
92 Clause 38, page 49, line 13, leave out from 'regulations' to 'any' in line 17 and insert 'under this Act shall make provision—
(a) as to the notice of any application for planning permission to be given to any person (other than the applicant) who at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application was —

(i) the owner of, or

(ii) the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in,

any of the land to which the application relates; and
(b) requiring'.
93 Page 49, leave out lines 23 to 30.
94 Page 49, line 31, after 'or' insert 'such'.
95 Page 49, line 36, after 'or' insert 'such'.
96 Page 50, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert:
'(8) In this section—
"agricultural holding" has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991; and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

(a) under the Lands Clause Acts would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and includes any person entitled to possession of the land as lessee under a lease the unexpired period of which is not less than seven years; or

(b) in the case of such applications as may be prescribed by a development order or by regulations, is entitled to an interest in any mineral so prescribed,

and the references to the interests in the land to which an application for planning permission relates includes any interest in any mineral in, on or under the land.'.
97 Page 50, line 24, after 'regulations' insert 'under this Act'.
98 After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
Assessment of environmental effects
'. After section 26 of the 1972 there is inserted—
"Assessment of environmental effects.
26B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations under this Act make provision about the consideration to be given, before planning permission for development of any class specified in the regulations is granted, to the likely environmental effects of the proposed development.
(2) The regulations—

(a) may make the same provision as, or provision similar or corresponding to, any provision made, for the purposes of any Community obligation of the United Kingdom about the assessment of the likely effects of development on the environment, under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972; and

(b) may make different provisions for different classes of development.

(3) Where a draft of regulations made in exercise both of the power conferred by this section and the power conferred by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, no statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment by virtue of subsection (2) of section 273 (regulations and orders) of this Act.".'.
99 Insert the following new clause:
Agreements relating to Crown land
'.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 50 (agreements regulating development or use of land) of the 1972 Act, after "Sasines" there is inserted "or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland,".
(2) In subsection (1) of section 254 (agreements relating to Crown land) of the 1972 Act—

(a) after "agreements" there is inserted "(a)": and

(b) after "thereto" there is inserted—

"and
(b) for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land,
either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement."
(3) After subsection (1) of that section there is inserted—
"(1A) Subject to Subsection 1B of this Section an agreement made under subsection (1) (b) of this section may, if it has been recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland, be enforceable at the instance of the planning authority against persons deriving title to the land from the appropriate authority.
(1B) An agreement made under subsection (1) (b) of this section shall not be enforceable against a third party who has in good faith and for value acquired right (whether completed by investment or not) to the land prior to the agreement being recorded or, as the case may be, registered as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such a third party.".'.
100 Page 51, line 40, after 'materials' insert 'and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'.
101 After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
Old mining permissions
'. After section 49G of the 1972 Act there is inserted
"Old mining permissions.
49H.—(1) In this section and Schedule 10A to this Act, "old mining permission" means any planning permission for development—

(a) consisting of the winning and working of minerals, or

(b) involving the depositing of mineral waste, which is deemed to have been granted by virtue of paragraph 77 of Schedule 22 to this Act (development authorised under interim development orders after 10th November 1943).

(2) An old mining permission shall, if an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined, have effect as from the final determination as if granted on the terms required to be registered.
(3) If no such development has, at any time in the period of two years ending with 16th May 1991, been carried out to any substantial extent anywhere in, on or under the land to which an old mining permission relates, that permission shall not authorise any such development to be carried out after the coming into force of this section unless—

(a) the permission has effect in accordance with subsection (2) above; and

(b) the development is carried out after such an application is finally determined.

(4) An old mining permission shall—

(a) if no application for the registration of the permission is made under that Schedule, cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which such an application may be made, and

823

(b) if such an application is refused, cease to have effect on the day following the date on which the application is finally determined.

(5) An old mining permission shall, if—

(a) such an application is granted; but

(b) an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is required to be served before the end of any period and is not so served,

cease to have effect on the day following the last date on which the application to determine those conditions may be served.
(6) Subject to subsection (3) above, this section—

(a) shall not affect any development carried out under an old mining permission before an application under that Schedule to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject is finally determined or, as the case may be, the date on which the permission ceases to have effect; and

(b) shall not affect any order made or having effect as if made under section 49 or 49A to 49F of this Act (discontinuance, etc., orders).".'.

102 Insert the following new clause:
Transitional provision as to compensation regulations
'. Without prejudice to section 17(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made, or having effect as if made, by virtue of section I 67A (regulations as to mineral compensation) of the 1972 Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of paragraph 10A of Schedule 7 to this Act, have effect as if made under section I 67A of that Act as substituted by that paragraph.'.
103 Clause 42, page 53, line 15, leave out 'and 164'.
104 Page 53, line 22, leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
105 Page 54, line 30, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
106 Page 54, line 31, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 32 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
107 After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
Status of development plans
'At the end of Part II of the 1972 Act (development plans) there is inserted—
"General Status of development plans.
18A.—Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.".'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. Unless there is an objection from any Member of the House, with the permission of the House I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 107 en bloc.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection whatever.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 107 en bloc.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
108 Clause 51, page 60, line 4, leave out from 'for' to end of line 6 and insert 'use for or in connection with the construction of a highway, or
(b) the use of the relevant land for or in connection with the construction of a highway is being considered by a highway authority,'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
824
Amendment No. 108. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 to 116, 119, 242 to 244, 246 to 253, 275 to 278, 280, 281 and 290.
These amendments relate to the land compensation and compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill. Many of them are of a purely technical nature. For example, Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 and 113 to 115 clarify the provisions in Clauses 51 and 59 in respect of the assumptions to be made in valuing land acquired for highway purposes. Amendments Nos. 248, 249, 252 and 253 add further items to the list of compensation provisions which will in future attract interest. I shall be happy to explain any of those amendments in more detail if noble Lords would find it helpful. I would, however, particularly like to draw the House's attention to the amendments that we have brought forward in respect of home loss payments.
When the Bill was previously before your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, moved an amendment to extend entitlement to a home loss payment to include a deserted spouse with a right of occupation under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. The noble Lord argued that to deny a payment in the event of the spouse being displaced is unfair, since in such circumstances the property must be regarded as a genuine home, even though the occupant has no legal interest in it.
We gave an undertaking to look into this matter further and, having done so, came to the conclusion that the noble Lord's point was a very fair one. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are accordingly designed to bring the deserted spouse case within the scope of the home loss payment scheme.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 116 and 199 is to permit the extension to Northern Ireland, by the negative resolution order in council procedure, of the home loss payment provisions in the Bill. This will be the quickest means of ensuring that people in Northern Ireland are treated no less favourably than those in Great Britain in the matter of home loss payments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I always thought that we had a stronger case about deserted spouses than the Government have admitted. I always felt that there was a measure of misunderstanding rather than when our amendments were not successful in this House. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. I am glad that the Government have been able to do justice in this case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
109 Page 60, line 10, leave out from 'that' to end of line 15 and insert 'if the relevant land were not so used, no highway would be constructed to meet the same or substantially the same need as the highway referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (5) of this section would have been constructed to meet'.
110 Page 60, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert:
'(8) The references in subsections (5) and (6) of this section to the construction of a highway include its alteration or improvement".'.
111 After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
Home loss payments: spouses having statutory rights of occupation
'.After section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 there is inserted—
"Spouses having statutory rights of occupation.
29A.—(1) This section applies where, by reason of the entitlement of one spouse ("A") to occupy a dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which section 29 above applies, the other spouse ("B") acquires rights of occupation (within the meaning of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983).
(2) So long as—

(a) those rights of occupation continue,

(b) B is in occupation of the dwelling and A is not, and

(c) B is not, apart from this section, treated as occupying the dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which that section applies,

B shall be treated for the purposes of that section as occupying the dwelling by virtue of such an interest (but not an owner's interest within the meaning of section 30 below).
(3) References in this section to a dwelling include a reference to a substantial part of it.".'.
112 After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
Home loss payments: spouses having statutory occupancy rights
'. After section 27 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 there is inserted—
"Home loss payments: spouses having statutory occupancy rights.
27A. (1) This section applies where, by reason of the entitlement of one spouse ("A") to occupy a dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which section 27 above applies, the other spouse ("B") acquires occupancy rights (within the meaning of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981).
(2) So long as—

(a) those occupancy rights continue;

(b) B is in occupation of the dwelling and A is not; and

(c) B is not, apart from this section, treated as occupying the dwelling by virtue of an interest or right to which that section applies,

B shall be treated for the purposes of that section as occupying the dwelling by virtue of such an interest (but not an owner's interest within the meaning of section 28 below).
(3) References in this section to a dwelling include a reference to a substantial part of it.".'.
113 Clause 59, page 71, line 28, leave out 'the purpose of and insert 'use for'.
114 Page 71, line 31, leave out 'its use for that purpose or' and insert 'that use, or its use'.
115 Page 71, line 36, leave out from 'that' to end of line 41 and insert 'if the relevant land were not so used, no public road would be provided, altered or improved to meet the same or substantially the same need as would have been met by the provision, alteration or improvement of the public road referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (5) of this section.'.
116 After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
Home loss payments: Northern Ireland
An order in Council under paragraph 1(1) (b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (exercise of legislative functions for Northern Ireland) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of sections 55 and 56 of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution procedure and procedure in cases of urgency), but

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

117 Clause 67, page 75, line 44, at end insert ', or under section 299A of the Act of 1990'.
118 Page 76, line 3, after '1991', insert 'or to section 299A of the Act of 1990'.
119 Clause 68, page 76, line 24, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections (Home loss payments: Northern Ireland) and'.
120 Page 76, line 26, leave out subsection (10).
121 Schedule 1, page 77, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 39 and insert 'For section 105 (duty of mineral planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—
"Reviews by mineral planning authorities.
105.—(1) Every mineral planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals and the depositing of mineral waste in their area.
(1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A), the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—

(a) to review every'.

122 Page 77, leave out line 43.
123 Page 78, line 1, leave out 1(1) and insert '(1A)'.
124 Page 78, line 10, at end insert:
'(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed".'.
125 Page 78, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 17 and insert 'For section 116 (special basis for compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) there is substituted—
"Modification of compensation provisions in respect of mineral working etc.
116.—(1) Regulations made by virtue of this section'
126 Page 78, line 20, at beginning insert 'consisting of the winning and working of minerals or'.
127 Page 78, line 22, at beginning insert 'winning and working or'.
128 Page 78, line 41, leave out from 'Part IV)' to end of line 42 and insert 'for "under paragraph 1 of Schedule 11" there is substituted "by virtue of section 116".'.
129 Page 79, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).
130 Page 79, line 8, leave out 'definition' and insert 'definitions'.
131 Page 79, line 9, leave out 'is omitted' and insert 'and "mineral compensation modifications" are omitted'.
132 Page 79, line 11, after "'substances"' insert:
'(da) the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted'.
133 Page 82, line 21, leave out paragraph 16 and insert:
'16.—(1) Schedule 11 (compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) is omitted.
(2) Without prejudice to section 17(2) (b) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made or having effect as if made by virtue of Schedule 11 to the principal Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of this paragraph, have effect as if made under section 116 of the principal Act as substituted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule.'.
134 After Schedule I, insert the following new Schedule—
'SCHEDULE
Registration of Old Mining Permissions Application for registration
1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority for the permission to be registered.
(2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.
(3) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.
(4) On an application under this paragraph, the mineral planning authority must—
(a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

827

(i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and

(ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

and grant the application, and
(b) in any other case, refuse the application.
(5) Where—

(a) application has been made under this paragraph, but

(b) the mineral planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

the application is to be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.
Determination of conditions
2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—

(a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,

(b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above, and

(c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

(2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.
(3) The application must set out proposed conditions.
(4) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority—

(a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and

(b) except where section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

(5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

(a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the mineral planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and

(b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

(6) On an application under this paragraph—

(a) the mineral planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject, and

(b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

(7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1) (c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 72(1) (b) of the principal Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).
(8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph 1 above was granted.
Registration
3.—(1) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 69 of the principal Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above.
(2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.
(3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.
General provisions about applications
4.—(1) An application under paragraph I or 2 above is an application which is—

(a) made on an official form, and

(b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(3) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application under paragraph I or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgement of the application.
(4) Where the mineral planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.
(5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

(a) as would be required under the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) or, as the case may be, (7) below to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or, as the case may be, involving the depositing of mineral waste, but

(b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph 1 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

(a) sections 66 to 68 of the principal Act (notification of owners and agricultural tenants) and any provisions of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or

(b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, any provision, corresponding to the provisions referred to in paragraph (a) above, of section 65 of that Act (notice etc. of applications) and of a development order made by virtue of that section.

(7) For the purposes of paragraph 2 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

(a) sections 65 to 68 of the principal Act (publicity for applications) and any provision of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or

(b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, section 65 of that Act and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section.

(8) Section 68(I) or, as the case may be, 65(5) of that Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.
Right of appeal
5.—(1) Where the mineral planning authority—

(a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or

(b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the mineral planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.
(4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (I) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5) (b).
(5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.
(6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

(a) is made on an official form, and

(b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(8) Paragraph 4(5) to (8) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.
Determination of appeal
6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

(a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or

(b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the mineral planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.
(2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

(a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and

(b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

(4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.
Reference of applications to Secretary of State
7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any mineral planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
(2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
(3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—
(a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4)
below, the following provisions of this Schedule—

(i) paragraph 1(1) to (4),

(ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6) (a), (7) and (8),

(iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and

(iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the mineral planning authority,
(b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and
(c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.
(4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".
Two or more applicants
8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

(a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and

830

(b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

(2) Where—

(a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and

(b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.
Application of provisions of principal Act
9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 69 of the principal Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.
(2) Where the mineral planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the mineral planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.
(3) Sections 284 and 288 of the principal Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 284(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.
Interpretation
10.—(1) In this Schedule—
"official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

(a) is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple, or

(b) is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired.

(2) For the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—

(a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 288 of the principal Act, have been determined, and

(b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.'.

135 Schedule 2, page 85, line 2, after second 'may', insert 'on such terms, if any, as the Court thinks fit (which may include terms requiring the local planning authority to give an undertaking as to damages or any other matter)'.
136 Page 86, line 32, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
137 Page 86, line 36, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 37 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
138 Page 87, line 33, at end insert:
'13A. After section 26(2) of that Act (transitional exemptions) there is inserted—
"(2A) This section shall have effect until the end of the transitional period".'.
139 Page 89, line 3, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or chattels'.
140 Page 89, line 7, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 8 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
141 Page 89, line 31, leave out '38A'.
142 Page 90, line 22, leave out from '5' to first '(b)' in line 24.
143 Schedule 3, page 103, line 34, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35 and insert '45 (approval of proposals by Secretary of State), in subsection (3) (a) after "with" there is inserted "the".
(2) After subsection (4) of that section there is inserted—
"(5) Subject to section 287, proposals approved by the Secretary of State under this section shall become operative on such day as he may appoint.".'.
144 Page 105, line 8, after 'section', insert "'repeal and" is omitted and'.
145 Page 105, line 12, leave out 'and'.
146 Page 105, line 17, at end insert 'and
(c) in paragraph (b) "and they may do so as respects any part of that area to which the proposals relate" is omitted.'.
147 Page 105, line 32, at end insert 'and for "38" there is substituted "39".'.
148 Page 105, line 34, leave out from 'operation' to 'shall' in line 36 and insert:

'(a) of proposals for the alteration or replacement of a structure plan prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities; and

(b) of a local plan or proposals for its alteration or replacement so prepared.'.

149 Page 113, line 42, at end insert:
'Joint plans
48A.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions applying with modifications the provisions of this part of this Schedule to cases where—

(a) any plan has been or is being jointly prepared; or

(b) any proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of such a plan have been or are being jointly prepared.

(2) Any such directions may be of a general or particular character.'.
150 Schedule 5, page 118, line 7, leave out paragraph 11.
151 Page 121, leave out lines 20 to 22.
152 Page 121, line 23, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990'.
153 Schedule 6, page 122, line 3, at end insert:
'Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c.80)
3A. In section 33(4) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 for the words from "section 63(2) (b)" to the end there is substituted "section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".'.
154 Page 122, line 41, leave out '56(3)' and insert '56, in subsection (3)'.
155 Page 122, line 41, at end insert:
'(2) In subsection (4) of that section after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".'.
156 Page 122, line 42, leave out 'In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or"' and insert 'Section 63'.
157 Page 123, line 1, at end insert:
'11A. In section 69—

(a) in subsection (1) "made to that authority", and

(b) in subsection (3) "made to the authority", are omitted.'.

158 Page 123, line 6, at end insert:
'13A.—(1) After section 73 there is inserted—
"Planning permission for development already curried out.
73A.—(1) On an application made to a local planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to development carried out—

(a) without planning permission;

832

(b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or

(c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

(3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'.

159 Page 123, line 8, leave out 'and (2)" there is substituted "70"' and insert 'and (2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A".
160 Page 123, line 12, leave out '71(2)" there is substituted "70"' and insert '71(2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A".
161 Page 123, line 15, at end insert:
'16A. In section 91(4) (b), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "granted for development carried out before the grant of that permission".
16B.—(1) In section 102, for subsections (4) and (5) there is substituted—
"(4) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under section 103.
(5) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; Or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'.

162 Page 124, line 10, at end insert:
'(2) For section 177(3) there is substituted—
"(3) The planning permission that may be granted under subsection (1) is any planning permission that might be granted on an application under Part III."
(3) In section 177(5) for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'.
163 Page 124, line 13, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 31 and insert 'Where, after the service of?

(a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or

(b) a breach of condition notice,

planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission..
164 Page 124, line 41, leave out '181(5) (b)' and insert '181—

(a) in subsections (1) (a), (4) (b) and (5) (b) for "demolition", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removal";

(b) in subsections (3), (4) and (5) for "demolished", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removed"; and

(c) in subsection (5) (b)'.

165 Page 125, line 4, after 'relevant activity"' insert:
"(aa) in subsection (1) (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted;'.
166 Page 125, line 10, at beginning insert 'and'.
167 Page 125, line 37, at end insert:
'29A. In section 216(6) for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
168 Page 125, line 39, at end insert:
'31A. In section 224(3) for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
169 Page 127, line 27, at end insert:
'(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings or works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and filling in of trenches"; and

833
(ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—
"building operations" has the meaning given by section 55;".'.
170 Page 127, line 30, leave out 'and'.
171 Page 127, line 33, at end insert 'and
(e) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'.
172 Page 128, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 5 and insert 'For paragraph 8 there is substituted—
"8.—(l) A local planning authority who have the function of determining applications for planning permission".'.
173 Page 128, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert:
'(1E) A development order may require a local planning authority which is dealing with an application of which a council is entitled to be notified—

(a) to give the council an opportunity to make representations to them as to the manner in which the application should be determined;

(b) to take into account any such representations;

(c) to notify the council of the terms of their decision or, where the application is referred to the Secretary of State, the date when it was so referred and, when notified to them, the terms of his decision.'.

174 Page 128, line 42, leave out 'For paragraph 20(3)' and insert 'In paragraph 20, in sub-paragraph (1), for "100(3), 104(3) or 202(1)" there is substituted "100(3), 104(3), I96A(3), 202(1) or 214B(6)".
(10) For sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph'.
175 Page 128, line 44, leave out from 'into' to 'may' in line 45 and insert 'a planning obligation under section 106 or 299A'.
176 Page 129, line 22, leave out "'64" there is substituted "63"' and insert "'to 64" there is substituted "and 62"'.
177 Page 129, line 25, at end insert:
'(bb) after the entry relating to section 72(1) to (4) there is inserted—
"Section 73A."'.
178 Page 130, line 22, at end insert:
'Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)
51.In section 59(4) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".
52. For section 67(8) of that Act there is substituted—
"(8) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act."—
53. For section 73(2) of that Act there is substituted—
"(2) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act."
54. For paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to that Act (distribution of functions: National Parks) there is substituted—
"3. Where an application for listed building consent under section 10 relating to land in a National Park falls to be determined by a county planning authority, that authority—

(a) shall send a copy of the application, as soon as practicable and in any event not later than seven days after they have received it, to the district planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; and

(b) shall before determining the application consult the district planning authority.".'.

179 Schedule 7, page 133, line 28, leave out paragraph 10 and insert:
'10. Sections 153A, 159A and 159B are omitted.
10A. For section 167A there is substituted—
"Regulations as to compensation in respect of orders relating to mineral working.
167A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury provide, in relation to orders made under—
834

(a) section 42 of this Act modifying planning permission for development consisting of the winning or working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; or

(b) section 49, 49A or 49B of this Act with respect to such winning and working or depositing,

that sections 153, 159, 167, 226 and 227 of this Act shall have effect subject, in such cases as may be prescribed, to such modifications as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, regulations made by virtue of this section may make provision—

(a) as to circumstances in which compensation is not to be payable;

(b) for the modification of the basis on which any amount to be paid by way of compensation is to be assessed;

(c) for the assessment of any such amount on a basis different from that on which it would otherwise have been assessed,

and may also make different provision for different cases, and incidental or supplementary provision.
(3) No regulations under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Before making any such regulations, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be representative—

(a) of persons carrying out mining operations;

(b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals;

(c) of planning authorities.".

10B. Sections 167B and I67C are omitted.'.
180 Page 134, line 3, at end insert:
'10A. In section 251(1 A) (power to modify Act in relation to minerals) the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals" is omitted.'.
181 Page 134, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 6 and insert:
'11. For section 251A (duty of planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—
"Reviews of mineral workings by planning authorities.
251A.—(1) Every planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals, and the depositing of mineral waste, in their area.
(1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of section (2A) of this section, the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—

(a) to review every'.

182 Page 134, leave out line 10.
183 Page 134, line 11, leave out '(1)' and insert '(1A)'.
184 Page 134, line 20, at end insert:
'(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed.'.
185 Page 134, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
186 Page 134, line 29, at end insert:
'(ca) the definition of "mineral compensation modifications" is omitted;'.
187 Page 134, line 31, after '"substances";' insert:
'(da) the definitions of "relevant order", "restrictions on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted;'.
188 After 7, insert the following new Schedule—
'SCHEDULE
Registration of old mining permissions
The following Schedule shall be inserted as Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act—
"Registration of old mining permissions
Application for registration
1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the planning authority for the permission to be registered.
(2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.
(3) The application must be served on the planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.
(4) On an application under this paragraph, the planning authority must—
(a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section 49H(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

(i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and

(ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

and grant the application; and
(b) in any other case, refuse the application.
(5) Where—

(a) application has been made under this paragraph, but

(b) the planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

the application is to be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.
Determination of conditions
2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—

(a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,

(b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above, and

(c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

(2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.
(3) The application must set out proposed conditions.
(4) The application must be served on the planning authority—

(a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and

(b) except where section 49H(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

(5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

(a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and

(b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

(6) On an application under this paragraph—

(a) the planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject,
and

836

(b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

(7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1) (c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 27(1) (b) of this Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).
(8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph 1 above was granted.
Registration
3.—(l) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 31 of this Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4) (a) above.
(2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.
(3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.
General provisions about applications
4.—(1) An application under paragraph I or 2 above is an application which is—

(a) made on an official form, and

(b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(3) Where the planning authority receive an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgment of the application.
(4) Where the planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.
(5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

(a) as would be required under sections 23 or 24 of this Act to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; but

(b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

(6) Sections 23(3) and 24(6) of this Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.
Right of appeal
5.—(l) Where the planning authority—

(a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or

(b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.
(4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5) (b).
(5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.
(6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

(a) is made on an official form, and

(b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

(7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.
(8) Paragraph 4(5) and (6) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.
Determination of appeal
6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

(a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or

(b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.
(2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

(a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and

(b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

(4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.
Reference of applications to Secretary of State
7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.
(2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.
(3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—
(a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4) below, the following provisions of this Schedule?

(i) paragraph 1(1) to (4),

(ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6) (a), (7) and (8),

(iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and

(iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the planning authority,
(b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and
(c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.
(4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".
Two or more applicants
8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph I or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

(a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and

838

(b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

(2) Where—

(a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and

(b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.
Application of provisions relating to planning permission
9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 31 of this Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of regulations under this Act or a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.
(2) Where the planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.
(3) Sections 231 and 233 of this Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 231(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.
Interpretation
10.—(1) In this Schedule—
"official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
"owner" in relation to any land means any person who under the Lands Clauses Acts would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and includes any person entitled to possession of the land as lessee under a lease the unexpired portion of which is not less than seven years.
(2) For the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph I or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—

(a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 233 of this Act, have been determined, and

(b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.".'.

189 Schedule 8, page 135, line 2, after 'both' insert '; and in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence.'.
190 Page 135, line 14, leave out from 'effect' to end of line 16 and insert 'and, subject to section 93(3) of this Act, shall take effect on that date, and'.
191 Page 138, line 5, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
192 Page 138, line 6, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 7 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
193 Page 138, line 9, at end insert '; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'.
194 Page 139, line 40, leave out 'land is damaged' and insert 'damage is caused to land or moveable property'.
195 Page 139, line 41, leave out from 'compensation' to 'from' in line 42 and insert 'may be recovered by any person suffering the damage'.
196 Page 139, line 44, at end insert '; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'.
197 Page 140, line 25, leave out '92A;'.
198 Schedule 10, page 144, line 14, leave out paragraph 8.
199 Page 144, line 27, leave out 'VII' and insert 'XII'.
200 Page 145, line 1, leave out 'section', and insert 'Act'.
201 Schedule 11, page 149, line 35, at end insert:
'2A. In subsection (3) (a) of section 5 (preparation of structure plans), after "measures for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".
2B. In subsection (3) (a) of section 9 (preparation of local plans), after "fit for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".'.
202 Page 50, line 11, after 'regulations', insert 'under this Act'.
203 Page 150, leave out line 16 and insert:
'4. In section 23 (publication of notices of applications—
(a) in subsection (1)'.
204 Page 150, line 18, at end insert:
'(b) at the end there is inserted—
"(4) A planning authority shall not entertain any application for planning permission unless any requirements imposed by virtue of this section have been satisfied.
(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought at any time within the period of two years following the commission of the offence.".'.
205 Page 150, leave out lines 19 to 21.
206 Page 150, line 29, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert 'such regulations or the order'.
207 Page 150, line 32, leave out paragraph 7 and insert:
'7. For section 29 there is substituted—
"Planning permission for development already carried out.
29.—(1) On an application made to a planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section applies to development carried out—

(a) without planning permission;

(b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or

(c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

(3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

208 Page 150, line 40, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert 'such regulations or the order'.
209 Page 150, line 42, leave out 'by regulations or an order' and insert 'by such regulations or the order'..
210 Page 150, line 45, after '26' insert '(1) to (3A)'.
211 Page 150, line 46, leave out 'and 28A"' and insert', 28A and 29".
212 Page 151, line 9, after 'omitted' insert:
'(ia) for "26(1) and (3)" there is substituted "26(1) to (3A)";
840
(iia) for "and 27A" there is substituted ", 27A and 29"'.
213 Page 151, line 19, leave out 'any' in both places where it occurs.
214 Page 151, line 22, at end insert:
'10A. In subsection (3) (c) of section 38 (limit of duration of planning permission), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "for any development carried out before the grant of planning permission".'.
215 Page 151, line 24, at end insert:
'11A. In subsection (2) of section 40 (provision as to date when development begun), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".
11 B. In section 49 (orders requiring discontinuance of use etc.), for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under this section.
(3A) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

(a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

(b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

216 Page 151, line 25, at end insert:
'13A. In subsection (3) of section 55 (acts causing or likely to result in damage to listed buildings), for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
217 Page 151, leave out line 26.
218 Page 151, line 26, at end insert:
'14A. In section 84A (power of regional planning authority to take enforcement action) in subsection (2) for the words "84 (except subsection (1," there is substituted "83A, 83B, 84 (except subsection (1, 84AA, 84AB,".'.
219 Page 151, line 28, after '(4)' insert '(i)'.
220 Page 151, line 28, after '(a)' insert 'in subsection (2B) (d) for the words from "being" to "situated" there is substituted "to such persons as may be specified"; (b)'..
221 Page 151, line 34, after 'authority;";' insert 'and
(ii) in paragraph (b) for "84(5)" there is substituted "84(2)".'.
222 Page 152, line 18, at end insert:
'(ca) in subsection (6), for the words from "and any planning permission" to the end there is substituted—
"(6A) The planning permission which may be granted under subsection (5) of this section is any planning permission which might be granted on an application under Part III of this Act.
(6B) Where the Secretary of State discharges a condition or limitation under subsection (5) of this section, he may substitute for it any other condition or limitation."
(cb) in subsection (7), for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'.
223 Page 152, line 23, after 'activity";' insert:
'(ba) in subsection (6) for the words "activities which constitute or involve the breach of planning control alleged" there is substituted "the relevant activity specified".'.
224 Page 152, line 25, after 'notices),' insert 'for the words "waste land notices" there is substituted "notices under section 63 of this Act" and'.
225 Page 152, line 29, leave out paragraph 20 and insert:
'20. In section 89 (enforcement notice to have effect against subsequent development)—

841

(a) in subsection (1), for "demolition" there is substituted "removal"; and

(b) in subsections (3) and (4) for "demolished" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "removed".

20A. For section 89A there is substituted—
"Effect of planning permission, etc., on enforcement or breach of condition notice.
89A.—(1) Where, after the service of—

(a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or

(b) a breach of condition notice,

planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission.
(2) Where, after a breach of condition notice has been served, any condition to which the notice relates is discharged, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as it requires any person to secure compliance with the condition in question.
(3) The fact that an enforcement notice or breach of condition notice has wholly or partly ceased to have effect by virtue of this section shall not affect the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a previous failure to comply, or secure compliance, with the notice.".'.
226 Page 152, line 36, leave out 'subsections (2) and (3)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
227 Page 152, line 37, after '90A";' insert:
'(aa) subsections (3) and (5) are omitted;'.
228 Page 152, line 42, at end insert:
'20A. In subsection (2) of section 101 (enforcement of control as to advertisements), for "£40" there is substituted "one-tenth of level 3 on the standard scale".'.
229 Page 153, line 12, after 'section' insert '—(a)'.
230 Page 153, line 19, at end insert; and
(b) in paragraph (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted.'.
231 Page 153, leave out from beginning of line 32 to '(2) (a)' in line 33.
232 Page 153, line 39, after '(1) (c)' insert:
'—(i) after "Part IV" there is inserted "other than sections 58 to 60"; and
(ii)'. .
233 Page 153, line 43, at end insert:
'(f) in subsection (6) after "other than section" where it first occurs there is inserted "163 or".'.
234 Page 154, line 11 at end insert:
'(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings and works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and filling in of trenches";
(ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—
"building operations" has the meaning given by section 19 of this Act;'.
235 Page 154, line 12, leave out 'and'.
236 Page 154, line 15, at end insert 'and
(d) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'.
237 Page 154, line 20, at end insert:
'(1A) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule, in subparagraph (2), after "85(2)" there is inserted "to (2D)" and after "93(2)" there is inserted "and (2A)".'.
238 Page 154, line 22, at end insert:
'(2A) In paragraph (3A) of that Schedule, in subparagraph (2), for "26(3) (a)" there is substituted "26(3A)".
34A. In paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 (control of works for demolition etc), in subparagraph (1)—

(a) for the words "or other of those described in section 24(1) (a) to (d)" there is substituted "prescribed under section 24"; and

(b) for the words "24(2) to (4) and 26(3)" there is substituted "24 and 26(3) and (3A)".'.

239 Page 155, line 7, at end insert:
842
'(3) In subsection (5) of section 179 (reference of applications to regional planning authority), for the words "23(1) (f) and (h), 24(2B), (2C), (2D) and (4)" there is substituted "23, 24".'.
240 Page 155, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'the following' in line 10 and insert:
'40. In subsection (3) of section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (fees for planning applications), for the words "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted—

"(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under subsection (7) of section 85 (appeals against enforcement notice) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; and

(b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".

40A. In Part I of Schedule 30 to that Act.'.
241 Page 155, line 11, leave out 'and 87AA' and insert ', 87AA and 260A'.
242 Schedule 13, page 166, line 33, after 'management"' insert:
'(aa) in subsection (2) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",
(ab) after that subsection there is inserted—
"(2A) Notice under subsection (2) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'.
243 Page 166, line 39, after 'land"' insert:
'(aa) in sub-paragraph (3) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",
(ab) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—
"(3A) Notice under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'.
244 Page 168, line 16, at end insert:
'21A.—(1) Section 29 of that Act is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (ii) "passed the resolution" is omitted;

(b) "and" following paragraph (iii) is omitted;

(c) after paragraph (iv) there is inserted "and"; and

(d) in paragraph (v) after "(e)" there is inserted "above".

(3) In subsection (3A) the words from "of the service" to "(1) (b) above" are omitted.
(4) In subsection (4)—
(a) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) a right to occupy the dwelling—

(i) as a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Rent Act 1977, or

(ii) under a contract to which section 19 of the Rent Act 1977 (restricted contracts) applies or would apply if the contract or dwelling were not excluded by section 19(3) to (5) or 144 of that Act", and

(b) for paragraph (e) there is substituted—
"(e) a right to occupy the dwelling under a licence where—

(i) it is a right to occupy as a protected occupier within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976,

(ii) Part IV of the Housing Act 1985 (secure tenancies) applies to the licence, or

(iii) the licence is an assured agricultural occupancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988."

21B. In section 32(7B) of that Act for "the person giving up possession" there is substituted "any person giving up possession or occupation".'.
245 Schedule 15, page 178, line 12, leave out 'then' and insert 'and'.
246 Page 178, line 13, at end insert:
'2A. In paragraph 11 of that Schedule (purchase of open space)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to"; and

(b) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—

843
"(3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct.".'.
247 Page 182, line 6, at end insert:
'18A.—(1) Section 27 of that Act is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (ii), "passed the resolution" is omitted;

(b) "and" following paragraph (iii) is omitted; and

(c) after paragraph (iv) there is inserted "and".

(3) In subsection (4), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) a right to occupy the dwelling-house—

(i) as a statutory tenant within the meaning of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984; or

(ii) under a contract to which Part VII of that Act applies or would apply if the contract or dwelling-house were not excluded by section 63(3) to (5) or under section 64(3) respectively of that Act; and".'.

248 Page 183, line 15, at end insert:

'Section 9 of that Act

Date works ceased to be authorised'.

249 Page 183, line 17, at end insert:

'Section 31(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1961

Date of withdrawal of notice to treat'.

250 Page 184, line 32, after 'case', insert 'of loss or'.
251 Page 184, line 34, after 'the', insert 'loss or'.
252 Page 184, line 36, at end insert:

'Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 20 to that Act

Date of claim

Paragraph 8(2) or (3) of that Schedule

In the case of loss or damage sustained by reason of expenditure, the date on which the loss or damage is sustained; otherwise the date of claim

Paragraph 8(4) of that Schedule

Date loss is caused or damage done.'.

Page 186, line 9, at end insert:

(1)

(2)

'section compensation (Scotland) act 1963

Date of withdrawal of notice to treat'

254 Schedule 17, page 188, line 25, leave out 'section 12(3) "other" and, in'.
255 Page 188, line 42, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (4) and'.
256 Page 188, line 44, leave out 'and'.
257 Page 189, line 2, at end insert 'and in paragraph (b) "and they may do so as respects any part of their area to which the proposals relate".'.
258 Page 189, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert 'Section 63.'.
259 Page 189, line 19, at end insert:

'In section 69, in subsection (1) "made to that authority" and in subsection (3) "made to the authority".'

260 Page 189, line 29, at end insert 'In section 186(1) (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'.
261 Page 189, line 50, leave out '284(3) (g)' and insert '284, in subsection (1) (a) "repeal" (in both places) and in subsection (3) (g)'.
262 Page 189, line 53, after '285', insert 'in subsection (1) "Subject to the provisions of this section".'.
263 Page 190, leave out line 2.
264 Page 190, line 11, leave out 'and'.
265 Page 190, line 13, after 'certificate"' insert 'and "mineral compensation modifications"'.
266 Page 190, line 16, after '71)"', insert 'in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end, the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations"'.
267 Page 190, line 20, column 3, at end insert 'In Schedule 2, in Part I paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, and in Part II paragraphs 3 to 16 and 18'.
268 Page 190, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert: 'Schedule 11'.
269 Page 190, line 36, column 3, at end insert 'In Schedule 13, Notes (2) and (5) to paragraph 2, in Note (3) to paragraph 2 "also", in Note (1) (b) to paragraph 3 "or under section 22", in Note (2) to paragraph 3 "13(7) or", in Note (1) (b) to paragraph 4 "or under section 22" and in Note (2) to paragraph 4 "13(7) or".'.
270 Page 191, line 11, leave out 'and 35(1) (b)' and insert '35(1) (b) and 38. In Schedule 4, in paragraph I, in the Table the entry relating to section 9(4) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 2 of the Schedule, and paragraph 2 of the Schedule.'.
271 Page 191, column 3, leave out line 24.
272 Page 192, line 13, at end insert 'and'.
273 Page 192, line 33, column 3, at beginning insert 'In'.
274 Page 193, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert 'In section 5, in rule (3), "the special needs of a particular purchaser or".'.
275 Page 193, line 6, column 3, leave out 'Section 29(5)' and insert:

'In section 29, in subsection (1) "passed the resolution" in paragraph (ii) and the "and" following paragraph (iii), in subsection (3A) the words from "of the service" to "(I) (b) above" and subsection (5).'.

276 Page 193, line 9, at end insert:

'1973 c. 56.

Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973.

In Part II of Schedule 2, the entry for section 33(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973.

1980 c. 65

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

Section 114(2).'.

277 Page 193, line 11, at end insert:

'1985 c. 71.

Housing (Consequential paragraph Act 1985

In Schedule 2, paragraph 24(2) (c).

1986 c. 63.

Housing and Planning Act 1986.

Section 9(3) (c).'.

278 Page 193, line 14, at end insert:

'1990 c. 11.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 29(4).'.

279 Page 193, line 20, column, 3 leave out 'customer' and insert 'purchaser or'.
280 Page 193, line 28, column 3, leave out 'Section 27(5)' and insert:

'In section 27, in subsection (1), the words "passed the resolution" in paragraph (ii), and the word "and" following paragraph (iii); and subsection (5).'.

281 Page 193, line 30, column 3, at end insert:

'In Part II of Schedule 2, the entry for section 33(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973.'.

282 Page 194, leave out line 6.
283 Page 194, line 39, at end insert:

'Section 153A.'.

284 Page 194, line 53, at end insert:

'Section 159A.Section 159B.'.

285 Page 194, line 54, at end insert:

'In section 166(2) (c), the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'.

286 Page 194, leave out lines 55 to 57 and insert:

'Section 167B.Section 167C.'.

287 Page 195, line 15, column 3, at end insert:

'In section 251(1A), the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals".'.

288 Page 195, line 31, after 'certificate', insert: 'and'
289 Page 195, line 32, leave out 'and' and insert:

'; in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end; and the definition of '.

290 Page 195, line 47, at end insert:

'1980 c 65

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Section 114(2).

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether I dare challenge the indulgence of the House and suggest that Commons Amendments Nos. 109 to 290 are taken en bloc. If there is any objection I shall go through them individually. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109 to 290 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109 to 290 en bloc.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Mining Subsidence Bill
5.26 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 28 [Subsidence damage to which Act applies]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 21, line 27, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) below")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10.
British Coal introduced compensation for tenant farmers in its 1976 code of practice. Where the owner of land receives a depreciation payment British Coal will pay the tenant compensation based on Section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. Section 12 provides that, in the event of compulsory purchase, the tenant will receive four times his annual rent by way of compensation. In the case of subsidence damage, British Coal pays a proportion of this based on the degree of depreciation. For example, in the case where the holding suffers 25 per cent. depreciation, and the tenant is not responsible for making good the damage, British Coal would pay the owner 25 per cent. of the value and the tenant 25 per cent. of his entitlement under Section 12; in other words, the equivalent of one year's rent.
There are two points to note. First, payments to tenant farmers apply only when British Coal makes a depreciation payment to the owner of the land in question instead of undertaking full repairs. As noble Lords will be aware, the main thrust of the Bill is to encourage repairs, and depreciation payments in respect of land will only be possible in exceptional circumstances. In fact, I understand from British Coal that it can only recall about 10 or so payments to tenant farmers in the past 10 years.
The second point to note is that in the majority of cases what happens is that the holding overall suffers a degree of depreciation. So, in the case of 25 per cent. depreciation, this is unlikely to mean that 25 per cent. of the farm is rendered unusable and the remaining 75 per cent. is untouched. It is more likely to mean that all of the farm suffers some degree of damage to the extent that the value of the whole is depreciated by 25 per cent. In other words, with subsidence damage it is quite possible that the overall acreage remains unchanged. This is clearly different from the compulsory purchase situation where land is completely lost. This is one of the reasons why it is not always sensible to try and treat subsidence damage as exactly analogous to compulsory purchase situations. The amendments I now propose go as far down this route as we feel is realistic.
These amendments do three main things. First, they move the basis for compensation from Section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 to Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
Let me say a few words about the way that Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 operates. Under Section 20, as read with Section 12 of the 1968 Act, the tenant gets a minimum of four times his annual rent. This is a non-taxable payment. However, should the value of the tenant's unexpired term or

847
interest be greater than four times annual rent payment, the Section 12 payment will be "topped up" to reflect the added value of his security of tenure. What this means for the purpose of this Bill is that the tenant will get at least as much as he does at present and the possibility of more, depending on the precise circumstances of the case.
The second improvement achieved by these amendments is to remove the old Clause 28(2) which prevented a tenant farmer from receiving a Clause 28 payment if he had received any of the depreciation payment. As amended, the tenant will be able to receive both a depreciation payment (based on the extent of his liability to make good any damage) and a Clause 28 payment.
Thirdly, the new clause now entitles the tenant farmer to compensation for loss or injury in the event that he is displaced from the whole or sufficient part of his land. "Sufficient part", noble Lords will note, is no less than 0.5 hectares, and that figure can be varied by order of the Secretary of State.
In summary, Clause 28 will improve the present arrangements in three ways. The tenant may receive more compensation than before and, as I have indicated, cannot receive less than he would have done under the present arrangements. He will now be eligible for compensation for loss or injury in certain circumstances and will not be prevented from receiving a Clause 28 payment just because he received a depreciation payment in respect of the same damage.
It is also important not to consider the clause in isolation. I remind noble Lords that the Bill enacts British Coal's provisions for compensation for loss of crops (Clause 27) and also introduces new provisions for consequential loss. These provisions will also operate to the benefit of tenant farmers whose farms are affected by subsidence damage.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for raising the question of compensation available to tenant farmers by tabling an amendment at Committee stage which he graciously withdrew when I undertook to consider the matter further. I hope that he will agree that the amendments that I now propose will achieve much the same effect as his would have done and represent a helpful improvement in the terms of compensation available to tenant farmers. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I rise briefly to express support for the amendment. In the formula in Clause 28 as drafted no account is taken of the value of the tenancy to the tenant. The amendment rectifies that and will result in a much fairer settlement to tenant farmers affected by coalmining subsidence. The amount able to be claimed under the clause as amended should be a fair reflection of the tenant's losses as the established principle of the statutory compensation code of compulsory purchase is taken on board to a degree.
At Committee stage, in response to the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Stanley, the Minister gave an undertaking to consider again the
848
matter of compensation to tenant farmers affected by subsidence. If he thought that the Bill as drafted did not adequately compensate tenant farmers he stated that he would bring forward an amendment. That he has done. We are grateful to my noble friend for doing so and for the sympathetic way in which he has recognised the problems suffered by owners and occupiers of land when affected by subsidence damage. I hope that the amendment will find favour with your Lordships.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may also briefly say how pleased we are that the Government have been able to move in this direction. The NFU is obviously greatly interested and is now much happier with the outcome.
As I understand it, the essential compensation point is the inclusion of "S" as part of the formula; that is, the additional contribution. Clearly "S" cannot be a negative number. As the Minister points out, either farmers do as well or, more likely, do better. We are happy to support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief in view of the acclamation that the amendment has already received.
Compensation is a difficult and complex subject. I believe that the Government and the Minister ought to be congratulated upon having made a difficult assimilation between the statutory provisions on compensation and the way in which, under Clause 28 as amended, they propose to deal with coal subsidence damage to tenant farmers. That was not an easy thing to do. The two concepts do not totally equate for reasons which your Lordships well know. By and large it is a fine piece of work and one on which I believe the Minister is to be congratulated.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank noble Lords. I believe that my noble friend Lord Wise spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who could not be in his place.
It was indeed difficult to draft the amendment. I am very pleased that we have been able to achieve the right balance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 21, leave out lines 31 to 47 and insert—
("P = (C+S) x D/V
where—
P is the amount payable under this subsection;
C is the compensation which, on the assumptions mentioned in subsection (2A) below, would have been payable to the tenant for the value of his unexpired term or interest in the land;
S is the sum which, on those assumptions, would have been payable to the tenant under section 12 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (additional payments on compulsory acquisition of agricultural holdings);
D is the amount of the depreciation payment made to the owner of the land;
V is what would have been the value of the land at the relevant time if it had not been affected by the subsidence damage.
(2) Where the Corporation make a payment under subsection (1) above to a tenant who has been displaced from the whole or a sufficient part of the land affected by the subsidence damage, they

849
shall also make to him a payment equal to the compensation which

(a) on the assumptions mentioned in subsection (2A) below; and

(b) on the further assumption that the displacement had been caused by the compulsory acquisition mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection,

would lave been payable to him for any loss or injury sustained by him.
(2A) The assumptions referred to in subsections (1) and (2) above are —

(a) that the land had been compulsorily acquired at the relevant time;

(b) that the tenant had no greater interest in the land than as tenant for a year or from year to year; and

(c) that the land had not been affected by the subsidence damage.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lard Cavendish of Furness Lard Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No: 3:
Page 22, line 8, leave out ("for the purposes of paragraph 3 of that Schedule").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.4:
Page 22, line 10, at end insert—
("(4) In this section—
"the relevant time" means the relevant time for the purposes of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act;
"sufficient part" means not less than 0.5 hectares or such area as the Secretary of State may by order specify;
and any reference to compensation is a reference to compensation
under section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or section 114 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 145 (compensation to be made to tenants for a year
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 4 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Land drainage systems]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 30, line 30, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are many places in the Bill where the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations or give directions. These are discretionary powers. Where matters can proceed sensibly without regulations I can see no need to make them. Should arrangements cease to work well, then it is important that the Secretary of State should have a reserve power with which to remedy matters. In my view, the existence of a reserve power will allow sensible and flexible arrangements to develop.
The only exception to this general approach is in this clause, and the only reason for that is that we have carried over the corresponding provision from the 1957 Act. In fact, so far as we are aware, British Coal and tie drainage boards have evolved sensible and equitable working practices over the years. Rather than make regulations for the sake of it, we should prefer to see these arrangements continue to evolve sensibly. We therefore propose making the regulation power in this clause discretionary, as is the case everywhere else in the Bill. I can, however, assure
850
noble Lords that this power will be used should it prove necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Reimbursement of successful claimants' expenses]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 32, line 23, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7.
During Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Peston, sought to increase to six years the period prior to the making of a claim within which it would be possible for a claimant to recover the costs associated with the preparation and prosecution of that claim. In reply, I agreed to consider this further on the grounds that, at least where records of condition are concerned, three years might be considered ungenerous. Having done so I am now bringing forward two government amendments which I hope it will be agreed fairly address this point.
The effect of Amendment No. 6 is to increase the period to four years. As I indicated in Committee, the problem is that beyond a certain point records of conditions will be too out-of-date to be of any use in the resolution of a claim. I have also explained that, because the standard of repair is to the claimant's reasonable satisfaction rather than the pre-damaged condition, such records of condition are by no means essential. Nevertheless a prudent householder may well commission such a survey on receipt of a Section 46 notice and, because of the delay in damage occurring, find himself unable to recover the costs. As I have indicated, Amendment No. 6 will increase the time period to four years, which I believe should be adequate in the vast majority of cases.
Amendment No. 7 enables the Secretary of State to go further than that should it prove necessary. It would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe different time-scales for different types of expenditure. For example, it would be possible to allow expenses for expert advice to be recoverable in the period three years prior to the making of claim, while at the same time allowing the claimant to recover expenses associated with a record of condition incurred at any point after the receipt of a Clause 46 notice related to the mining which caused the eventual damage. For the moment, however, a single four-year period would seem to be the least confusing for all concerned and this would be the immediate effect of these amendments, which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for fulfilling his promise to consider whether he could move in my direction. Four years is better than three years and I thank him for that amendment.
It is always difficult to understand such complicated clauses but I gather that in principle the Secretary of State could vary the number further. One hopes that that would be upwards rather than downwards.

851
Should the Secretary of State make such an order, your Lordships would have an opportunity to talk about the issue because I understand that these orders are debatable. I repeat my thanks to the Minister for amending the Bill in this way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 32, line 28, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) substitute for the period specified in subsection (4) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) such other period as he thinks fit; or

(b) direct that that subsection shall not apply in such circumstances as may be specified in the order.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Service of documents]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.8:
Page 39, line at beginning insert ("Except as otherwise provided by regulations made by the Secretary of State,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 9. It is a minor amendment which benefits the claimant. As presently drafted the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying how a notice should be served. The amendment sets out on the face of the Bill how a notice should be served. We have deliberately allowed the claimant to serve a notice on any British Coal office. Should there be an exchange of correspondence I should imagine that in practice the claimant would simply send notices back to the British Coal office that originated the matter. However, I would not wish to have a situation in which the claimant lost the original correspondence and was penalised for writing back to the wrong office. Hence the onus will be on British Coal rather than the claimant to ensure that notices reach their proper destination. Amendment No. 8 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations amending these arrangements should it prove to be necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.9:
Page 39, line 3, leave out from ("Corporation") to end of line 4 and insert ("by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, any office of the Corporation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Farm Loss Payments]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No.10:
Page 53, line 40, leave out ("has received") and insert ("is entitled to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I wish to thank noble Lords for the careful consideration given to this Bill and for the constructive spirit with which it has been debated. I thank my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Wise and Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Peston, for making the conduct of my first Bill through your Lordships' House a pleasant experience.
The Bill is the culmination of a long process of review and consideration which properly began with the report of the Waddilove Committee in 1984. I should like again to pay tribute to Lewis Waddilove and all the other members of his committee. Since its report we have had many discussions with outside bodies and have listened carefully to the comments made here and in another place. As a result, the Bill has been amended, most noticeably to improve the provisions dealing with blight, stop notices and consequential loss. Further changes have been made today, the most important of which concern compensation for tenant farmers and the claiming of expenses. As a result of these changes I believe that what started out as a good Bill is now a better Bill which will make a significant difference to those people whose properties and lives are affected by coal mining subsidence damage.
It is important to recognise that subsidence affects people. Where there are people there are sure to be problems. It is simply not possible to legislate for every single eventuality. This is where attitudes matter. I am pleased to say that British Coal has adopted a positive and constructive attitude to the formulating of this Bill and I am sure that this new attitude is as important as anything that can be achieved through the Bill. An example of this is British Coal's decision to introduce voluntarily a low-cost, speedy arbitration scheme for householders which will, I hope, satisfactorily resolve the great majority of disputes which arise. British Coal has also undertaken to make the operation of the new regime as open and transparent as possible.
I do not wish to sound complacent—attitudes can, after all, change—and I would remind noble Lords that we have taken regulation-making powers in many key areas and will use them if necessary. However, I am confident that the provisions of the Bill, together with the positive attitude of the corporation, will mean that subsidence damage will be dealt with sympathetically and, above all, fairly.
It has been rightly said that this is a well thought out and well drafted Bill. My final thanks go to the parliamentary counsel and the officials in the Department of Energy for their work on the Bill and for the help that they have given to me.
There is one final point that I should like to make. This Bill is in many ways a tidying up and consolidating measure. There is therefore one loose end which ought to be addressed. It is an issue which crosses party lines and on which individuals seem regularly to change their minds. I am talking of course about the vexed question of pronunciation: is it sub sidence or sub sid ence? I have consulted widely on the issue and noble Lords will be

853
pleased to know that I have the final, definitive answer. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that both are right. It is on that note of consensus that I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am able easily to join the Minister in the atmosphere of consensus. It is a rare occasion, because all noble Lords liked the Bill and enjoyed the proceedings. No animosity needs to be expressed during this stage of the Bill. I too thank the Waddilove Committee and its chairman. The Bill was a model of consultation and shows what can be done. I agree with the Minister that both here and in another place a good Bill has been made better. Search as I might, I can find no party political side to it.
I agree with the Minister that attitudes are important and I am pleased that British Coal has strongly indicated that it will act sympathetically in all cases. As the Minister said, placing oneself in the position of a person who has suffered from subsidence, one realises that there is a great sense of personal loss and that something has gone wrong which needs to be put right. The Bill will help to achieve that. This might be the only occasion during my career in this House that I warmly support a Bill. I am glad to know that the Bill will soon pass.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Bill ought not to pass without a word of appreciation for the quality of the draftsmanship. It has been mentioned but it is so greatly appreciated that it should be marked specifically. In addition, there has been a wide measure of co-operation and open-mindedness from my noble friend. As a result, two precedents have been set. First, care was taken not to over-legislate. I hope that the precedent will be followed in future Bills. The second is Amendment No 9, which relates to the sending of notices. I hope that in other Bills the interests of the subject will receive similar consideration. I thank my noble friend for his conduct of the Bill.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when I was at the Coal Board over a decade ago, the largest amount of correspondence which I received was on the subject of subsidence. Incidentally, as regards pronunciation, I am glad to learn that both pronunciations are correct. But I find that on these Benches we tend to say sub sidence and on those Benches they tend to say sub sid ence. I do not know whether there is significance in that. However, most of the correspondence which I received was on the question of subsidence. I do not believe that that was due to any reluctance on the part of the Coal Board, as it then was, to deal with the matter but due more to a number of uncertainties in the legislation. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to see this measure going through after a good deal of thought has been given to the subject not only by the Waddilove Committee but also by British Coal, whose code of practice is largely incorporated in this new provision.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in saying that the Bill has been handled extremely effectively.
854
There has been a rare degree of consensus. That is due not only to the way in which it has been presented but also to the way in which it has been handled by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. He has shown courtesy and a painstaking concern for the issues throughout.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who admitted that he came to the subject knowing nothing about it. When he started to move amendments in Committee it seemed to me that he had now become an expert on subsidence. If he is looking for another job, no doubt a consultancy is awaiting him.
We have done a useful job of work. I hope that those in the future who may unfortunately suffer from subsidence will find that their redress is more effective than it has been in the past.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank noble Lords most warmly for their remarks, and commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1991
5.52 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. In presenting the draft order to the House I owe the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year, including the progress made in seeking a way to end the need for direct rule and to return a wide degree of responsibility to local elected representatives for their own affairs.
I should like first to turn to the security situation. The bald figures of death from terrorism are that last year 76 people were killed and this year to date the number is 40. However, the terrorists will not succeed because of the resolve of the majority of decent people in Northern Ireland and because of the Government's determination to maintain the rule of law. Once again I should like to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to the security forces, who, with continuing courage and professionalism, face the unremitting threat to their lives in order to protect the people of Northern Ireland. These men and women deserve the support of everyone in the Province, particularly now when terrorists wish to disrupt the efforts being made to achieve political progress.
The Government will do all in their power to assist and support the security forces. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which was recently debated in this House and is now on the statute book, creates a number of new offences and additional powers which will materially assist in the defeat of terrorism. As safeguards for individuals, the Act provides for statutory codes of practice on the exercise

855
of its powers, and creates the new office of Independent Assessor of Armed Forces Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland to help enhance public confidence in the way non-criminal complaints are dealt with.
The Government also remain determined to improve security co-operation with the Irish Government. Much has been achieved since 1985, but more needs to be done if both Governments are to defeat the terrorist threat to the entire island of Ireland.
Before leaving security related issues, I should like to say a few words about a development in the prison service, which of course has to deal with convicted terrorists. The primary function of the prison service in Northern Ireland is to protect the community from those who have offended against it; but the service recognises also the need to balance security with humanity of treatment and the need to prepare prisoners for return to the community.
During the past 12 months, the prison service engaged in a major consultation exercise involving staff at all levels and representatives of groups with a particular interest in prisons and prison issues. This resulted in the production of a new strategic plan which I was pleased to launch on Friday last. The plan consolidates and builds on the significant progress which the service has made in the past few years and the title of the document—Serving the Community—establishes clearly the wider context within which the service will work to the end of the century.
The debate on the Northern Ireland Appropriation Order last week provided the House with an opportunity to discuss economic matters and I do not propose to repeat now what I said then. At this stage I simply stress the importance of economic development as a factor in promoting a stable society in the Province.
In that, education has a significant role to play. Education standards in Northern Ireland are commendably high. A-level results are better than those in England and Wales and a higher percentage of Northern Ireland pupils achieves good GCSE results. In fact, participation rates in higher education are higher. In the past, an unacceptably higher proportion of school leavers has left with no qualifications but this gap has closed significantly.
The Northern Ireland common curriculum arrangements will ensure that all pupils from five to 16 years old have a broad and balanced curriculum which includes science and technology. There must, however, be clear routes of progression to post-16 opportunities, whether they are in schools, colleges or recognised training organisations. I will be bringing forward proposals later in the summer aimed specifically at curricular provision for the 14–19 age group.
Community divisions are one of the obstacles to establishing a peaceful and stable environment in Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to eradicating the inequality and disadvantage which
856
foster these. To that end, targeting social need is now one of the Government's principal priorities for their expenditure in the Province.
In practical terms, the level of funding for Making Belfast Work—a major initiative which we launched in 1988—has been increased by 22 per cent. to £27.5 million in this financial year. The total allocated to the project over six years will be £123.6 million. This funding is additional to the extensive resources which Northern Ireland departments continue to put into these areas through their normal mainline programmes.
The programme of community relations work undertaken by the Central Community Relations Unit and the Department of Education is another example of our commitment to tackle Northern Ireland's problems. The Government have increased support for community relations through those two channels from £4 million last year to £5.5 million in this financial year for projects designed to create equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all parts of the community, to promote cross-community contact and to increase mutual respect and understanding of the different cultures and traditions in Northern Ireland. Those policies and many other practical measures will, over time, I believe help both to ensure Northern Ireland's prosperity and to reduce community divisions.
I should now like to turn to the issue of political development. As noble Lords will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been engaged in consultations with the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government for some 18 months. Plenary discussion between the British Government and the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland got under way in Parliament Buildings, Stormont on Monday 17th June. I know that your Lordships will want to join me in welcoming this important development. It is far too early to start making claims about where this process might lead us, but the mere fact that, for the first time in 16 years, the main parties in Northern Ireland have come together around the same table to discuss their common future, represents an important step forward.
The talks are designed to focus on three main relationships: those within Northern Ireland, those among the people of the island of Ireland and those between the two Governments. This will ensure that all the relevant issues are properly aired. Strand One is under way. It is also a pleasure for me to confirm in the House that Sir Ninian Stephen, an eminent Australian with a distinguished history of public service in that country, including as Governor General, has agreed to chair the discussions in Strand Two.
I can assure your Lordships that substantive work is being conducted and that all the participants remain fully engaged in the process. It will be self evident that, although it has taken an immense effort on the part of all concerned to reach the current stage, many different issues remain to be addressed. The Government's main preoccupation will be to continue to work towards consensus in the hope that agreement

857
will emerge. In the meantime, the business of government must go on and it is inescapable that the present arrangements for direct rule must be renewed. The order before your Lordships is therefore essential and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
6 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the meaning and significance of this thinnest of orders would not be apparent to the casual reader. But the Minister explained it fully. It renews the arrangement for the government of Northern Ireland by direct rule for the next 12 months.
Direct rule was introduced to the Province by the Northern Ireland Act 1974; it was introduced initially for an interim period of 12 months beginning with the passage of the Act. At that time hardly anyone would have envisaged that the interim period would extend for 17 years, and for the people of the Province they have been long years.
It is common ground that direct rule is unsatisfactory. It is not good enough for the government of England, Wales and Scotland respectively and should not be good enough for the government of Northern Ireland. Direct rule usually means government by edict which is unamendable by Parliament. It is also unsatisfactory because it means government by a regional executive doing the best it can but nevertheless not accountable to a locally elected representative body.
With reluctance we must accept that at least for the time being there is a need to renew the current arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. The whole House will be grateful to the Minister for his review of the background and the main policies pursued by the Government during the past 12 months. As the Minister explained, they are designed to defeat terrorism, to strengthen the economy and, particularly last year, to find a sound basis for political agreement. I shall come to the latter in a moment.
During the past 12 months there have been a number of cross-community achievements which I was glad to acknowledge and welcome in the course of the appropriation debate last week. There have been general improvements in Belfast and Londonderry, and the Minister referred to those in the debate last week. I was glad to hear from the Minister this afternoon that the Government propose to pay special attention to those young people in Northern Ireland who leave school without obtaining qualifications. That has been a problem area and I am glad that it is now receiving the attention of the Government.
On the other hand, it is fair to say that there have been disappointments. For my part I was saddened that the Government found it necessary to introduce one or two of the new emergency powers without stronger safeguards. It is also bitterly disappointing that the grim catalogue of violence, suffering and disrupt ion of family life mentioned by the Minister continued throughout the year.
858
We are always conscious of the contribution of the security forces. On behalf of the official Opposition I want to join with the Minister in paying a special tribute to the courage and determination shown by members of the security forces in the discharge of their duty. I pay tribute also to the civilians of Northern Ireland, who have suffered grievously, and I express sympathy for the families of soldiers and policemen who have been lost, and the families of the victims of violence. There has been immense suffering, which, sadly, is being added to as each week goes by. It is therefore not lost on us that the renewal of direct rule, notwithstanding the best efforts of the security forces, has not led to normalisation.
The Minister dwelt at some length on the current political talks in search of a workable and durable political framework. We recall that the talks were launched in the face of suspicion and scepticism. The fact that they have survived is due primarily to the present Secretary of State, his determination, patience, hard work and profound desire to help the people of Northern Ireland. But I believe we all agree with the Minister that the fact that the talks are continuing is itself a sign of progress.
We should be foolish if we did not recognise that the going may get even tougher as further unforeseen questions and problems surface—as they almost certainly will. Some may do so before this week is out. Yet it is barely conceivable that the talks should be allowed to collapse. I echo the hope expressed by all right-thinking people that the leaders of all the constitutional parties will ensure that the talks go forward to a successful conclusion.
I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom, the Republic and throughout the world want the leaders of the constitutional parties to go a long way to meet the Secretary of State and to make accommodation. We hope that, with the support of the two governments and with the guidance of the eminent Sir Ninian Stephen during the Strand Two talks, they will do so.
It has often been said in your Lordships' House that the only people who would gain from the failure of the talks are the paramilitary organisations. In every passing week they have shown their ruthless determination to undermine and subvert the talks. We must show that terrorism will be denied its victory.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I warmly thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the order. He is never less than careful and courteous to the House, but today his exposition of the need for the order was particularly interesting and welcome. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It is my misfortune to follow him from these Benches, in that he often says before me what I had planned to say rather better than I had planned to say it. I shall content myself with what is left after his exposition.
Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have gone out of their way—as is quite right—to thank the security services. From these Benches I should like to say how strongly we associate ourselves with the thanks that are due to the soldiers and policemen in Northern Ireland, who, in extremely

859
difficult and dangerous conditions, pursue their lonely duties in an extremely steadfast way. The vast majority, for the greater part of the time, show the greatest possible patience and control in a difficult situation, and they have our gratitude.
On this occasion I wish to say something about the question of human rights in Northern Ireland. We all know and acknowledge that the Government have an extremely difficult balance to strike between the claims of security on the one hand and the maintenance of a civil society based on liberty and a respect for human rights on the other. We are fortunate indeed in the thoroughness and vigilance of Northern Ireland's watchdog, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and its chairman, Sir Oliver Napier. Most of the time the Government listen when the dog barks, but not invariably. We have just received the report of the commission for 1990–91.
In most areas the Government have followed the recommendations of the commission, but in some we have yet to see what their attitude will be. It is a pity that the Government have dismissed the commission's views both on the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects and on the new clause in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act on directing activities against terrorist organisations. Both those points were made in the debate in this House from the Labour Benches and from these Benches.
I particularly commend to your Lordships Chapter 4 of the excellent report from the Standing Advisory Commission on the problem of disclosure of confidential information obtained under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. I look forward very much to seeing the Government's amendment to the Act, which I gather they propose to bring forward as an order in council.
Over and above the work of the standing commission there is the question of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. I hope that this question will form part of the talks and that any new constitution Act for Northern Ireland will include some provision for an enduring canon of human rights in Northern Ireland. In that respect I commend the appendix to the report and Sir Oliver Napier's paper. Why should we not consider the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law? I understand it is one of the matters on which all parties in Northern Ireland agree.
That brings me to the question of the talks themselves. I join in the congratulations to the Secretary of State. He brings to these talks qualities which might be described as both imaginative and phlegmatic. That is a useful combination when dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland. He deserves our thanks and congratulations for having got so far and our good wishes for what lies ahead.
I wish to make two points about the talks. The Minister is right to say what an historic step forward is the mere fact of the talks. I believe that in many ways it is the role of public opinion operating on the parties in Northern Ireland which is the key to the parties staying in the room and moving ahead
860
constructively with the process that has started. It is public opinion not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic also which shows a new determination for peace and a new flexibility as to the means of achieving it. I hope that public opinion will be enabled by these talks fully to express itself so that those who take a more traditional and rigid view than the parties can feel the hot breath of public opinion down the back of the neck.
As regards the terrorists and paramilitaries, they will intensify their efforts. The more they see the possibility of constitutional and peaceful resolution to the problems of Northern Ireland the more they will intensify their wretched efforts. I believe that they will be seen increasingly to be spitting into the wind of history as the agenda moves away from any possibility of violence providing a solution.
As the British general election approaches we must be vigilant to see that the domestic concerns of a Westminster election do not spill over into the delicate process of the talks. There is multi-partisanship both in another place and in this House on these issues. However, in 1974 we saw the effect that a British general election can have on the parties in Northern Ireland. The greatest possible effort is demanded from all of us in order to make sure that that is not repeated.
In the context of economic development, about which the Minister spoke—he talked wisely about that and also about education and skills—the whole of the island, including the Republic, is part of the European Community and 1992 approaches fast. In planning the economy, which is an option open to the Government in Northern Ireland in a much more proactive way than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom, I hope that they will bear in mind how greatly the transport and telecommunication needs of Northern Ireland require attention as we move closer to economic integration in Europe. Northern Ireland must not become one of the less developed outlying parts of the European Community. It must be given every help to become firmly integrated with the right infrastructure into the European dream.
I hope that the day will come before too long when the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, can do for themselves what we in this House and the Government are now doing on their behalf.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their response to what is a crucial order. If your Lordships and the other place agree to it, it is the order which will continue direct rule in Northern Ireland. Both noble Lords are assiduous in always being here when the considerable amount of Northern Ireland legislation is taken. I am extremely grateful to them for the way in which they have responded to the order. I say that not out of mere politeness. Both noble Lords have made extremely pertinent points this evening.
In a gentle way the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said what a pity it is that we deal with legislation in this way and also what a pity it is that we have direct rule

861
in Northern Ireland. I thoroughly agree with him. These arrangements are temporary and therefore each year the Government have to return to Parliament for their renewal. As regards the orders they are laid in draft there is considerable consultation in Northern Ireland so that politicians there can give their views before they come to both Houses of Parliament. That does lot alter the fact that the noble Lord is quite right in the points that he made.
Both noble Lords were extremely generous in their remarks not only about the security forces but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, about the long-suffering general public of Northern Ireland. When one looks at society in general there, it is quite remarkable how much generosity of spirit there is in Northern Ireland. Let us hope that it will be rewarded in the end.
Both noble Lords were extremely generous to my right honourable friend concerning his efforts in the talks. In different ways both noble Lords made the point that public opinion is having its effect. I thoroughly agree; public opinion in different ways and in different parts of the islands of the British Isles is having its effect on the thoughts process. I join with the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, in hoping that that will have its effect in a fruitful ending to the talks.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made points about the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. There are issues which still arise from the report of my noble friend Lord Colville which still need looking at for the future. We continue always to keep under review even things which we have already looked at in the House. I say that in the context that I know that there was no agreement between the Government and the noble Lord on the two issues that he raised concerning the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The noble Lord said that he would be interested to see the next move on the fair employment aspect of the draft order. We hope to lay this before Parliament as soon as possible.
What has been particularly helpful and valuable about the short exchange which we have had this evening is that both the noble Lords who responded have given support and encouragement in the talks. This is also a clear signal to people outside this Chamber—in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—that there is a common resolve underlying a shared commitment to the democratic process. I hope that that will bring home to those who use other means to try to impose their opinions and aspirations how brutally wrong they are. The right way to influence people is by persuasion and not by coercion.
Today we have been considering government stewardship of Northern Ireland over the past year. Our aim, as has been the aim of other governments who have formed direct rule in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years, has been to try to provide good, fair and effective government for all people in Northern Ireland. It is widely understood, however, that the best government of all will be delivered when the local people play a leading part in their own affairs. It has been with that thought in mind that successive
862
governments have tried to return greater accountability to political representatives in Northern Ireland and why we all hope that the current talks will continue to make progress. For the present, however, direct rule has to continue. The order before your Lordships' House will give effect to that. I therefore once again commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Detention) (Scotland) Bill
6.24 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was steered through the other place by my honourable friend Sir Russell Johnston, the Member of Parliament for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. He asked me whether I would introduce the Bill in this House with the assurance that the Government backed it, and that the legal luminaries in Scotland were all in favour of the Bill, although they might criticise small points.
The Bill makes a number of desirable amendments to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. It seeks to overcome a gap in the 1984 Act highlighted in an appeal case heard in this House. The Bill introduces provisions which permit a patient's further short detention in a mental hospital in certain circumstances until a full application for admission can be determined by the sheriff. The Bill further amends existing applications for admission procedures in the Act effectively to require the sheriff to deal with all applications promptly.
Before describing the provisions further, it might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to say something about the existing law and the appeal case which identified the gap, which I have already spoken about. Briefly, Sections 24 and 26 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 provide for the detention of mentally disordered persons who are in urgent need of hospital treatment for their own health or the safety of other people. Detention under Sections 24 and 26 can last for three days and 28 days respectively, but to prevent any abuse of the system the Act stipulates that on expiry there can be no immediate reimposition of either Sections 24 or 26. Instead, in cases where it is necessary to detain a patient for a longer period, Section 18 has to be invoked.
An application for admission to hospital under Section 18—the person may already be in hospital if under Sections 24 and 26—has to be made by the person's nearest relative or a mental health officer. The application has to be accompanied by two medical recommendations in prescribed form and submitted to and approved by the sheriff. This procedure works satisfactorily in the vast majority of cases, but occasionally a patient detained under Section 26 may initially make good progress then suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorate towards the end of the 28-day period. This is what happened in the case of B v. Forsey. In such cases there may be insufficient time for the parties concerned to obtain a

863
Section 18 approval from the sheriff before the 28-day detention expires. This leaves the hospital with no authority to detain the patient in the interim, yet he may be very much in need of treatment in hospital and may be unwilling to remain a voluntary patient.
In the case of B v. Forsey, (B was a patient in the Argyll and Bute Hospital at Lochgilphead) the doctors involved took a deliberate decision to continue the patient's detention after the expiry of the 28-day period of Section 26. They made recommendations and reports which purported to authorise further the detention of the patient under Sections 24 and 26. However, this was contrary to the provision in the 1984 Act that there should be no immediate reimposition of Sections 24 and 26. They also prompted an application to the sheriff for B's admission under Section 18. This was not authorised until almost three weeks after the expiry of the original 28-day period. The subsequent appeal which B made to the Outer House of the Court of Session brought a finding that the doctors were covered by the common law. However, when B then appealed to the Inner House, all three judges found in his favour stating that his purported detention at the end of the original 28 days was illegal.
The health board next appealed to this House who upheld the decision of the Inner House but accepted that there was a gap in the legislation. This House expressed the hope that Parliament would make good that gap. This short Bill now seeks to do so and to make some minor associated amendments to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. It was included as a clause in a very similar form in the Government's Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill last year and as such was accepted by this House. However, it subsequently foundered in another place through lack of parliamentary time.
Clause 1 of the Bill inserts a new Section 26A into the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 which will enable a medical practitioner to lodge with the sheriff clerk a report on the patient's condition, in the circumstances of a late relapse or no change, which I have described, indicating that in his opinion the patient requires to be further detained. Once lodged, such a report will have the effect of extending detention for a further three days from the date of lodging to enable a Section 18 application for admission to be made. There are a number of safeguards included in the clause including the provision that such a report should not be lodged unless where practicable the consent of the nearest relative or a mental health officer has been obtained. The patient also has a right of appeal against the continued detention.
The clause described is not, however, quite enough to cover the full potential gap. For example, it might have been possible for the parties to have lodged an application under Section 18 before the expiry of the 28 days allowed by Section 26, or before the three days allowed by Clause 1, that is the new Section 26A, but not for the sheriff to have determined the application before the end of the 28-day or three-day period. Clause 2 therefore makes certain minor amendments
864
and additions to the 1984 Act which will rectify this further potential gap and tighten up procedures in general. It specifies that all Section 18 applications for admission to hospital, whether or not the person is already in hospital, must be determined or heard by the sheriff within five days of being lodged. It also provides that where a patient is already detained under Section 26 or 26A the application will be sufficient authority to continue to detain him for the five days, and that where the sheriff adjourns a hearing the authority will be further continued until the application is finally determined.
Clause 3 makes a number of necessary consequential amendments to the 1984 Act as a result of new Section 26A and the further amendments that I have described.
This is a necessary and important measure. I hope that it will receive the support of the House. We all know of unfortunate instances of this kind. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Mackie of Benshie.)
6.31 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for reintroducing this provision which, as I think he indicated, was a casualty of the negotiated settlement in another place of the provisions of the ill-fated Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
There never has been any dispute about the need for this reform. It came from the other place with only one amendment, which related to the timescale for dealing with applications under the new clause. The Bill has the effect of legitimising further detention of a patient who may require to be kept in hospital due to relapse or deterioration in his or her condition close to the time of release. We all recognise that mental illness is a volatile area of life which causes great strain and stress to all persons involved—patients, families, doctors and carers —and one in which compassion and protection are the two key ingredients. The protection is what one might call a two-way street, involving the individual patient on the one hand and the public on the other.
We all accept as a matter of principle that unwarranted detention of any individual in any place, whether in prison or hospital, is not to be condoned. This short and valuable measure achieves the purpose of having the issues judicially determined with, wherever possible, the involvement of relatives of the patient. It will eliminate the premature release of patients, as in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred, who may be a danger not only to themselves but to their families and in the wider aspect to any member of the public with whom they may come into contact after release.
As the case referred to demonstrated, doctors faced with the responsibility of dealing with such a situation may be placed in what was described in another place as moral, legal and ethical dilemmas and may take decisions in the public interest which in law they are not allowed to take. These dilemmas should in the main be removed and resolved by the use of this

865
clause. It is welcomed from this side of the House as a progressive measure which will no doubt be found to be a useful process for those involved in this difficult area of medical practice. The provisions provide for interaction between the patient, the doctor, the local authority, relatives and the courts in an effort to create a balance of the interests, private and public, involved in determining a patient's future in this area of medicine.
Mental illness has acquired the reputation in the public mind of being the poor relation of the medical family. It is locked away from the public gaze. It is a subject which not many of us, fortunately, have to face up to. It has none of the so-called glamour or magic of the heroic surgery and advances in other medical fields. To be brutal, while it is away from the public gaze, not many people care. This Bill will give the patient who is suffering mental illness or disease a medical, legal and social status which perhaps, unfortunately, he or she has not enjoyed to date. It has all-party support and from this side of the House we wish it well in its progress.
6.34 p.m.
Lard Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on introducing it. I tabled an amendment to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Thereafter the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate took it over, redrafted it to suit the parliamentary draftsman and it was approved by this House. The only reason that I can see for it eventually being dropped from the Bill is that no one was against it and that therefore it did not fit with the rest of the Bill. It was a pity that it was dropped and it is good that a provision is now to be put through.
My only regret about this Bill is that it does not include the other amendment which I moved to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act and which the Government accepted. It would have dealt with the problem of the function of the nearest relative being carried out by someone else when the nearest relative of the person suffering from mental disease is unsuitable to act, as, for example, where he is implicated in the abuse of the patient. That amendment was included in the Bill as it left this House.. It was then dropped along with a good many other non-contentious and useful measures. It is unfortunate that, because of the procedures of the House, it is not possible to add the provision to this Bill without killing it off. With that regret, I support the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his willingness to take the Bill through your Lordships' House after its progress through another place. I congratulate him on the skilful way in which he handled this small, important and really quite complex measure. He has provided the House with a full and lucid explanation of the background to the Bill and of its provisions. It is clear that there is a gap in the law which ought to be rectified. As the noble
866
and learned Lord, Lord Morton, pointed out, your Lordships indicated support for the measure on a previous occasion. It is a pity that the provision has not yet reached the statute book.
With those antecedents, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will not be surprised to hear that the Government support all the provisions which he seeks to introduce and would welcome the Bill's enactment. I thank him for bringing the Bill before the House and I, too, commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this Second Reading debate. In some of the material that I read I picked up the point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, referred of the nearest relative perhaps being unstable himself. The Bill as it stands has been supported by three of the noblest legal eagles in Scotland as well as by the medical profession. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill
6.40 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I shall explain later something of the background and the purpose of the Bill. But, before doing so, I should like to pay tribute, first, to the honourable Member for Perth and Kinross in another place who introduced the measure and skilfully steered it through its various stages in that place, subject to proposed amendments which he countered with answers that were accepted by the Members who put forward the amendments. Secondly, I should like also to pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Law Commission, the work of which goes very much unrewarded in the legislative sense in some cases. The commission has no constituents and acts in the best interests of the community and the legal system of Scotland.
The main purpose of the Bill is to simplify the existing law of Scotland on the legal capacity and responsibility of young people. In introducing the Bill, I believe it is important, for the avoidance of doubts, that we should look to the Long Title. I say that because a great deal of misapprehension has been brought about by persons who have, perhaps not looked to see what the Bill says it will do. I make no apology for reading to your Lordships the Long Title:
"An Act to make provision in the law of Scotland as to the legal capacity of persons under the age of 18 years to enter into transactions, as to the setting aside and ratification by the court of transactions entered into by such persons and as to guardians of persons under the age of 16 years; to make provision in the law of Scotland relating to the time and date at which a person shall be taken to attain a particular age; and for connected purposes".
That Long Title clearly indicates that the Bill relates to issues arising in the field of private law and transactions, with one or two other provisions. The provisions are concerned primarily with the capacity

867
of young people to enter into contracts; for example, to make a will, to take part as litigants in court proceedings and to give valid consent to medical treatment.
The Bill also provides for an adjustment to the rules relating to the time and the date at which a person is regarded as having attained a particular age. That provision deals with the question of someone who was born at the end of February in a leap year. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, may have something to say about the way in which the work of the Scottish Law Commission is dealt with legislatively. I do not intend to enter into that field at this particular stage.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill clearly indicates the purpose of the legislation. The measure has eight clauses. Clause 1,
"replaces the existing classification of young people under the age of 18 as pupils and minors with a new 2-tier system whereby young people under 16 years of age will generally"—
I emphasise the word "generally"—
"have no legal capacity while those aged 16 and 17 will have full capacity, subject to certain safeguards.
Clause 2 sets out the exceptions to the general rule of incapacity of those under 16 and the legal consequences of it.
Clause 3 gives a right to a person under the age of 21 to apply to the court to have set aside prejudicial transactions entered into when 16 or 17 years old.
Clause 4 provides for judicial ratification of transactions proposed to be entered into by 16 or 17 year olds".
Clause 5,
"makes a number of consequential changes to the law of guardianship, abolishes"—
for the purposes of this Bill, and under reference to the Long Title—
"the concept of curatory of a minor and prohibits future appointments of factors loco tutoris".
Clause 6,
"relates to the time of attainment of a person's particular age in years".
Clause 7 deals with the acquisition of "an independent domicile"; Clause 8 makes "transitional" provisions; and then there are two schedules to the Bill.
I believe it is fair to say that over the years probably even lawyers, who like to say that they understand the law, have had difficulty with the concept of pupils and minors and tutors and curators. The existing rules governing the legal capacity of young people under the age of 18 are at present complex. They represent an historical and outmoded concept, dating back hundreds of years, and are based on a distinction between "pupils" and "minors". In the law of Scotland, pupils are girls under the age of 12 or boys under the age of 14. Minors are girls aged 12 to 18 years or boys aged 14 to 18 years.
Broadly speaking, pupils have no capacity to act for themselves and legal transactions must be entered into on their behalf by their tutor; that is, a "guardian" who will usually be the pupil's parent. The capacity of a minor—that is, a girl aged 12 to 18 years or a boy aged 14 to 18 years—varies according to whether he or she has a guardian who is known as a curator. If a minor has no curator (perhaps because both parents are dead, or the minor is married or living an independent life) transactions which he or she enters into will be valid and binding, except that
868
any transaction which is substantially prejudicial to the minor may be set aside by a court before the young person reaches the age of 22 by another antiquated process known as reduction on grounds of minority and lesion. If, however, he or she does have a curator, most transactions require the curator's consent; but even that consent does not prevent a prejudicial contract being set aside by a court of law.
Apart from its innate complexity, the present law may be viewed as unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First, it discriminates between the sexes by having different ages of minority for boys and girls. I believe it was stated in another place that there was some biological reason therefor. However, I did not intend to go into that aspect of the matter because, on any view, it is discriminatory. It may be argued that the present law gives too much capacity to children of 12 to 15 years, yet does not sufficiently recognise that in these modern times young people in the 16 to 17-year age group can be economically and, indeed, sexually active. It also seems out of touch with reality to apply the same rules to children of 12 and to young people of 17 years of age.
Therefore, the intention behind the Bill is to replace what is an extremely complex system with a more rational and simplified two-tier system. Under the Bills' provisions, which I outlined earlier, young people under the age of 16 will in general have no legal capacity, subject to certain specific exceptions; for example, the right to make a will and the right to consent to medical treatment. Those young people of 16 and 17 years of age will have full legal capacity to enter into binding transactions but, as a protection against their relative immaturity, they will enjoy the limited protection of being able, before they reach the age of 21 years, to seek a court order to set aside transactions which, in terms of the legislation, are prejudicial to them.
The provisions in the Bill are based on recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on the legal capacity and responsibility of minors and pupils. In preparing its report, the commission followed its customary procedure of issuing a consultative memorandum with provisional proposals in order to obtain views from interested parties. Additionally, the commission took into consideration the results of two opinion surveys: one covering adult opinion and the other covering the opinion of school pupils and school-leavers. If my recollection is accurate, the process involved interviewing about 4,000 people within the latter category. The commission's final recommendation that a two-tier system should be established is a departure, reflecting the weight of public opinion, from its earlier more radical preference for a clear-cut distinction between young people under the age of 16 who would have no legal capacity and those of 16 years and over who would have full capacity.
The modified recommendation recognises widespread concern (shared by many young people) that 16 and 17 year-olds need some protection from their relative immaturity, particularly as regards the possibility of their getting into debt by obtaining, for example, credit beyond their means. On the other

869
hand, the possibility of introducing a single-tier system to apply at the age of 18 years was rejected by the commission as being overprotective. In its view, it would require an extensive array of exceptions to prove workable.
I did not wish to suggest to your Lordships for one moment that the views of consultees were unanimous; indeed, it would be surprising if they were. Inevitably, when dealing with such complex issues a diversity of opinion arose. However, the majority of consultees favoured a two-tier system, and I believe that such a system, which recognises the importance of 16 as an age of some significance in young people's lives—it is for example, the age at which they can marry, leave school or take up full-time employment—and that they require some protection from their comparative immaturity, represents a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem.
I re-emphasise that, apart from its general provisions concerning the time and date of attainment of age, the Bill is limited to questions of capacity in the private law field. It deliberately leaves untouched statutory age limits—for example, the age at which one can be tattooed, if one fancies that type of thing; the law relating to firearms, driving licences and so forth. It also leaves deliberately untouched the question of delictual or criminal responsibility.
I should like to emphasise, because it is an area which has caused a great deal of comment, that the Bill does not affect parental rights. A parent would still be entitled to exercise parental rights in relation to any child of his or hers, and could be appointed guardian to the child by will or by court order.
The range of interests consulted was extremely wide. [t included legal, medical, educational, financial and trade institutions, local authorities, the voluntary sector and youth organisations. The Bill's provisions reflect a broad general consensus of opinion, and I hope that it will receive the support of the House. I hope that, before anyone comments adversely about the report, they will have taken care to read the paper upon which the Bill is based, because it closely argues and balances the various views expressed before reaching the preferred option in each area.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, took the trouble to write to me. He has raised an important point in relation to Clause 2(4), which deals with consent to medical treatment. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise the point. I apologise for not replying to him due to lack of time.
Before I attempt to answer the noble Lord's point I should like to say a few words about Clause 2(4) generally. The clause provides that a person under the age of 16 years shall have capacity to consent on his or her own behalf to any surgical, medical, or dental procedure or treatment where, in the opinion of a qualified practitioner attending him, he or she is capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the procedure or treatment. Of the commission's provisional proposals for reform, those concerning consent to medical treatment generated much the largest response and the most controversy.
The noble Lord is especially interested in abortion policy, religious education and family life. It is understandable that he should express reservations about the clause. The commission considered a range of possibilities which it discusses in detail in paragraphs 3.61 to 3.83. The commission concluded that the best solution was that which appears in Clause 2(4). That formula is sufficiently flexible to cater for the requirements of a very young child and, say, those of a 15 year-old.
The noble Lord is particularly concerned that the clause does not clearly distinguish between parental rights and children's rights, and that the Bill would give the right to a girl under 16 years to consent to the provision of contraceptives or to the termination of a pregnancy without consulting her parents, provided she was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the treatment.
It is of course true that the Bill leaves untouched the question of whether any treatment given with the effective consent of a child infringes on parental rights. The commission acknowledges (para 3.80) the relationship between a child's own capacity to act and that of his parents to act for him. However, that question is more consistent with the related topic of guardianship, upon which the commission consulted recently. Under the current law in Scotland, 16 has no particular legal significance in relation to consent to medical treatment. A minor already has capacity in Scotland to consent to his or her own medical treatment, at least where such treatment is accepted as therapeutic. It must also be borne in mind that a doctor's conduct is governed not by statute or the common law alone; it is governed by the General Medical Council's guidance on professional conduct and discipline. Following the case of Gillick, which was, of course, an English case, paragraph 4 of the General Medical Council's leaflet requires that:
"Where a child below the age of 16 requests treatment concerning a pregnancy or contraceptive advice the Doctor must particularly have in mind the need to avoid impairing parental responsibility or family stability."—
This is the nub of the matter—
"The Doctor should seek to persuade the patient to involve the parents (or guardians or other persons in loco parentis) from the earliest stage of consultation".
The Department of Health issued guidance after the Gillick case. Recognising the importance of parental responsibility and family stability, it requires a doctor to try to persuade a patient under 16 years to involve his or her parents when contraceptive advice or treatment is sought. The guidance made clear, however, that, exceptionally and in specified circumstances, advice on treatment may be given without parental knowledge and advice. I understand that the Scottish Office Home and Health Department has it in mind to issue a guidance note concerning the treatment of young people in Scotland.
The provisions concerning young people's ability to consent on their own behalf are without prejudice to the existing law on parental rights. Of course, the fact that effective medical consent is given by the child does not require a doctor to proceed with any treatment. The question was raised as to whether the test should be that the treatment was in the child's best interests.

871
That, as those of your Lordships who have read the commission's report will see, raised other problems. One doctor might say that it was in the child's best interests and another might say that it was not. That could lead to court actions and might put the doctor off treating the child in those circumstances in these modern times. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
6.58 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I speak on the Bill with great diffidence because I have never been a lawyer's clerkess let alone a lawyer and the Bill's promoters are distinguished lawyers. I should not be doing so were it not for the fact that my attention has been drawn to one or two aspects of the Bill which worry the Scottish Child Law Centre. Those worries seem to me to be well-founded. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who is unable to speak this evening owing to a previous engagement, shares those worries.
Since the present law seems to be working well, I wonder why it should be changed. The concept of pupillarity up to the age of 12 for girls and 14 for boys, followed by minority up to the age of 18, is eminently sensible and founded upon common sense. It recognises the desirability of introducing children to adult responsibilities gradually. I agree that it is discriminatory, but so was the good Lord when he made girls and boys different.
The Scottish Law Commission wants to make the law more comprehensible and to tidy it up. It seems to me to be comprehensible as it is and has been for hundreds of years. I was brought up with it, and so it is familiar to me. I suspect that tidying up really means bringing the law in Scotland as nearly as possible into line with the law in England. I can see no reason for doing that, except to make it easier for the English to understand. That is not a good reason for changing the law of Scotland. Finally, the fact that the Law Commission for Scotland wants to change it is not necessarily a recommendation.
I am not saying that the Bill has no good points. It extends to children of all ages the right to enter into small transactions, for example to make purchases in shops, which of course pupils do, possibly illegally —I am not quite sure about that—as soon as they are old enough to receive pocket money. The Bill standardises at the age of 12 a child's right to make a will or consent to adoption. It provides that at any age a child may consent to surgical, medical or dental treatment provided he is capable of understanding what is involved. I believe all those provisions are good provisions. However, there are areas where the Bill is unclear as regards what a child's rights will be, or where it erodes existing rights.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a few questions. It seems to me that the Bill abolishes the status of minority. Is that the case and, if not, what will the implications of minority be? At present a minor can apply for legal aid in order to consult a solicitor. If this Bill is passed, will it still be
872
possible for him to do so? Under the Bill a child can consent to medical, surgical or dental treatment, but could he refuse it?
It is possible in Scottish law to steal a pupil child. That crime is called plagium. Will the Bill have the effect of extending up to the age of 16 the application of the law of plagium? If it does, it will erode the right which a minor has at present to decide within reason with whom to reside without having to be adopted by that person.
At present a minor has freedom of religion, but what will be the position under this Bill? At present a minor has freedom of association, but what will be the position under the Bill? How will a minor's right of access to information be affected? Am I not correct that all guardianship will cease at the age of 16, leaving 16 to 18 year-olds bereft of the protection they now enjoy against entering into contracts contrary to their best interests? The answers to those questions will determine what amendments, if any, I table in Committee.
I wonder why we are in such a hurry over this matter. The Scottish Law Commission has produced a discussion paper on parental responsibilities and rights, guardianship and the administration of children's property. I believe the law regarding children in Scotland needs to be looked at very carefully for in some particulars the Children Act does not apply in Scotland, and recent events have pointed to the need for a review of some aspects of the situation. Would it not be better to discuss this Bill, to amend it and then to put it aside and incorporate the best of its recommendations with amendments in a government Bill which will deal with all the problems?
I remind your Lordships that in another place the Bill received only a formal Second Reading and a brief Committee stage in which a few amendments were moved, none of which were accepted or pressed. Many of the amendments were probing amendments. There was a formal Report stage and Third Reading. Therefore the Bill has received little real scrutiny so far. I rather suspect that that is because it is a Private Member's Bill concerning Scotland and therefore it has not been of much interest to the majority of Members in another place. However although it is a small Bill, it is an important one which would enact fairly far-reaching changes in the legal status of children. This is too important a matter to be the subject of a Private Member's Bill. I implore the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider these matters and to consider withdrawing the Bill.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, on bringing forward this Bill. It is one of many produced in draft by the Scottish Law Commission, whose report on this subject was published in 1987. The commission produced its report after its usual careful research and after producing a consultation paper and consulting as widely as possible.
I wish to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to question the apparent inability of Parliament

873
nowadays to take the work of the Scottish Law Commission and its English equivalent the necessary final step into legislation. In the great majority of situations the Law Commissions produce reports and recommendations as a result of having matters referred to them by the Government. Usually the subject matter is not an issue of party political moment and is a matter of bringing the private law or legal procedure up to date to take account of changes in the way we live and the way we earn our livings. The reports of the Law Commissions, both Scottish and English, are. as one would expect, invariably well researched and well thought out. They are generally welcomed, even by the government of the day. I wish to make it clear that I am not criticising this Government but the governments that have been in office since the Law Commissions were set up.
Having reported and having produced a draft Bill, all too often nothing then happens, except on a few occasions such as this one when someone introduces a Private Member's Bill in this House. It is said that no action is usually taken on these draft Bills because of lack of parliamentary time and the pressure on the Government to get their own legislation through. I emphasise again that I am not criticising this Government but rather all governments. I suspect that there is also an inherent Civil Service inertia in that if the Civil Service feels that the Government do not want to change something there is no incentive to bother with such a measure. Surely, it is a complete waste of time to have what is in effect two Royal Commissions sitting permanently, considering matters that are referred to them by governments and other bodies, only for the Government in the majority of cases to forget all about the results. It is also a waste of the time of judges, law societies, consumer bodies and others who respond to consultation papers and believe the measure they are considering is serious as the Government have referred the matter to them if nothing then happens.
Could not this House give some consideration to whether these draft Law Commission Bills from both Law Commissions should follow a different procedure? For the past couple of years I have been present in this House on fewer occasions than I would wish. However, in the short time I have been in the House I have noticed that there are times when this House does not appear to be fully occupied, especially at the beginning of a parliamentary Session. There are occasions when Bills that are non-contentious from a party political point of view could be seriously considered by this House line by line and then sent to another place. Surely it is not beyond the wit of this House and the Members of another place to find some procedure to deal properly with the useful work that the two Law Commissions carry out in order to bring into effect reforms of the law that are non-contentious in a party political sense. It is a great pity that so many Law Commission reports produced by the Law Commissions both north and south of the Border simply sit gathering dust on some ministerial shelf.
I have little to say on this Bill. I, and no doubt other noble Lords, have received the comments of the Scottish Child Law Centre. Until this country, or
874
these countries—whichever one prefers—the United Kingdom, takes into account what I understand is now to be called the doctrine of subsidiarity, time in Parliament is restricted. It is not possible as a matter of practicality, however much one would welcome a general all-embracing children's Bill, for it to be the answer to the problem. It is necessary for Scottish legislation, however unfortunate this may be, to proceed step by step and little by little. I am not convinced that a total children's Bill is the answer. One would require to put into such a Bill what is already in or should be amended in the social work legislation, the education legislation and the family law legislation. It would cause as much confusion to take all the children provisions out of that legislation and put them into one Bill as to do it step by step as is suggested.
On the points that my noble friend Lady Saltoun raised, I suggest that nothing in the Bill would disqualify a minor from applying for legal aid. The question of theft of a child would not arise at all. One is either in the state of theft of a child because the child cannot make a decision of his or her own—that is the case of a child under five or six—or the charge is one of kidnapping. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows this perfectly well and has taken steps before. He does not consider that somebody cannot be kidnapped merely because they are over 16. One could well see that the crime element in what would otherwise be plagium involving a very young child could be dealt with perfectly easily, whichever way the House takes the Bill.
There is a difficulty about Clause 2(4) in regard to medical treatment. The Law Society of Scotland has suggested that the Bill should be amended to include a reference to the child's best interests. I should be very sorry indeed to believe that any doctor could ever under his professional rules feel that he was recommending any operation or medical treatment for anyone if he did not consider that it was in the child's best interests. I suggest that that argument is unnecessary. On the whole, I commend the Bill to the House as another example of the useful work of the Scottish Law Commission.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I hesitate to speak on a Bill that is concerned with Scottish law when I am neither a lawyer nor a Scottish Peer. However, I served for 20 years in a Scottish regiment and that is my excuse for speaking. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for answering the points on which I wrote to him. I apologise if I appear to ignore them; I have not had time to rewrite my speech accordingly, and I hope that I shall not make any unnecessary comments.
My reason for speaking is to ask for clarification of the effect of Clause 2(4), which gives a child of any age the capacity to consent to medical treatment provided that the doctor is satisfied that the child understands the nature and the possible consequences of the treatment or surgery. In particular, I feel that clarification is required of the relationship between a child's capacity to act for itself and the right of its

875
parents to act for it. This vital question had apparently not been studied by the Scottish Law Commission before it issued the report which is the basis of the Bill. I understand that it has studied the question since then.
My understanding of the Bill is that it seeks not only to change the law on the various ages of capacity but also to clarify it. The Law Commission report certainly indicates that the law on the age of consent to medical treatment badly needs clarification. Paragraph 3.65 of the report of the Scottish Law Commission quotes some doctors as believing that the age of consent to medical treatment is 14; some believe it is 16; some 18. And the figure of 12 has been used in other connections.
Unfortunately, Clause 2(4) raises more questions than it answers. Taken literally—and we have to take Bills literally—it appears to allow doctors to carry out hazardous operations or non-essential treatment like cosmetic surgery on children of any age without the parents even being consulted. This reduction of parental rights is extraordinary, especially at a time when the Government have been rightly anxious to get parents to take more, not less responsibility for the upbringing of their children.
What worries me most is how the Bill will affect important ethical matters on which parents and children sometimes disagree, such as contraception and abortion. On the face of it, the Bill would allow a girl, however young, the right to consent to receiving contraception or to have an abortion without reference to her parents. It merely requires the doctor to satisfy himself that the child,
"is capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of the procedure or treatment".
How can a child possibly understand the nature of an abortion, let alone the possible consequences? They can be physical, psychological or spiritual. Furthermore, is it right to burden the medical profession with such a great responsibility?
Your Lordships' House will know of the recent case in England where Mr. Justice Hollis reached a decision that a 12 year-old girl should have an abortion, against the wishes of her mother. I do not agree with that decision, but I am glad that the important arguments involved were settled in a court of law rather than at the discretion of an individual doctor. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, what the position in Scotland will be in relation to a case of this nature if the Bill is passed. Will a 12 year-old be able to consent to a termination of her pregnancy against her parent's wishes without the parents having any recourse to a court of law?
There appear to be conflicting views on how the Bill will affect parental rights. Paragraph 3.81 of the Scottish Law Commission's report states that the legal proposals do not,
"affect the right of a parent or guardian to consent to medical treatment on behalf of a child or to be consulted about proposed treatment".
The Bill seems to be inconsistent with this and the discussion on this clause in the other place implied that parental rights could be overridden.
876
The sponsor of the Bill in the other place went even further when he indicated that if the doctor decided that the child needed treatment of any kind then it would not matter what his parents thought. That is a drastic statement and it would be interesting to know from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether this view is in line with government policy.
My own view is that the parents' right to act in the interests of their child should be paramount. However, my view is not important. What is vital is that the law should be made clear on an important point of principle—too important and perhaps too controversial to be dealt with in a Bill such as this. I felt it was right that it should not pass through your Lordships' House unnoticed.
I should be most grateful therefore if the noble Lord could make a clear statement on what the impact of the new clause will be so that parents, children and the medical profession in Scotland will know where they stand in relation to each other.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening without putting down my name. I had a particularly disagreeable forenoon today and by the time I had extricated myself from a series of boring meetings the list had closed. I therefore telephoned the Lord Advocate's Office and told him of my intention to intervene. He was gracious enough not to rise to his feet too speedily, thus allowing me in, as it were. For that I am most grateful.
I share the hesitation of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in speaking in a debate on a Scottish Bill, particularly as I have not even had the benefit of serving in a Scottish regiment. However, I believe the matter is so significant that a brief intervention is called for. In spite of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I too am concerned about the implication of Clause 2(4) of the Bill. Arrangements for consent to medical treatment, especially when they involve the treatment of children, are very important. It is essential that the law and procedures are clear. I do not think it is good enough to leave it to the judgment of doctors alone. Like the rest of us, a doctor can make a mistake and there will be the occasional bad apple in the barrel. Surely, the clause should at least make some mention of consulting parents. In this day and age when the Government are trying to promote the taking by parents of more responsibility for their children, it seems strange to me that the clause is silent on the matter.
It may be that the rights of parents are protected by some other piece of legislation. If so, should there not be some reference to it? The clause as drafted is too vague and open to misinterpretation. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to think again about this aspect of the Bill and either drop Clause 2(4) or amend it to spell out more clearly the role of parents.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, responds to the many questions put to him it may be helpful if on behalf of

877
the Government I indicate our stance on the Bill. Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord for his part in bringing this legislation before us. As he made clear, it is a useful measure which we hope will clarify and simplify the law on the legal capacity and responsibility of young people in Scotland. Like the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I should also like to congratulate my honourable and learned friend the Member of Parliament for Perth and Kinross upon his introduction and skilful handling of the Bill in another place.
As your Lordships will have appreciated, the Bill is based upon a report by the Scottish Law Commission. I believe I am right in saying that the order for publication of that report goes back to December 1987. Thus, it does not come fresh from the press and has been available for some time to be carefully considered by those concerned about this very important part of our law.
The report which has been prepared represents the first stage of a major project by the commission on the law on children. In due course there should be reports on the, related topics of custody and guardianship and, more generally, the scope of parental rights and duties, which are the matters that most obviously concern the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Your Lordships will be reassured to know that the Government consulted various interests on the commission's proposals and found substantial support from those interests for the recommendations in the report.
In view of a number of the questions posed, it may be helpful if I indicate answers as best I can on behalf of the Government. First, perhaps I may take up the interesting set of observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. I understand what he is driving at but am bound to say that I think he will find on reflection that a number of the reports of the Scottish Law Commission, which he might rightly indicate carried no particular overtones of party political controversy, engendered a certain amount of heat when they came to this House. Perhaps I may take one short but recent example. During the passage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Government included a provision on divorce based on a proposal emanating from the Scottish Law Commission which at the time when it was first made apparently attracted no interest or controversy whatsoever. However, it was very clear not only in this House but in another place that once the proposals came before the legislature attitudes might change suddenly and dramatically.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I believe that the heat generated by that particular amendment was mere tepidity compared with some of the other measures contested in that Bill. It was merely tepid on divorce compared with some of the other measures for which the noble and learned Lord was trying to argue.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord must take his bath hotter than I do. I felt there was quite a lot of heat generated on the matter of divorce. I do not wish to re-run that debate but, after
878
all, the Churches in Scotland suddenly appeared to be taking an interest and expressing concern about it. They had not done so hitherto.
However, I understand that the Scottish Law Commission may from time to time feel a sense of frustration, in that they have no very clear idea whether what they have suggested is acceptable to government. It is my intention to talk to the chairman of the commission this summer to give him some indication of those Bills which I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland think should be implemented if an appropriate time can be found. While I understand their frustration, I believe the law commissioners themselves appreciate that it is for this House and another place to determine, however well thought out their proposals may be, whether or not to accept the policy that lies behind the proposals they have put forward.
I am not sure I can answer all the questions which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put to me. I believe the first question she asked was whether, if the Bill was enacted, the status of minority in Scots law would be abolished. The status of minority as such will not be abolished. The Scottish Law Commission in its report took the view that in relation to capacity to enter into legal transactions there was no longer any significance in the common law ages of puberty (12 for girls and 14 for boys), which derive from Roman law. Scots law has seen the pre-Reformation significance of the age of puberty hugely altered. Where once minority (the age of puberty) was the age at which girls and boys could, among other things, get married, now both marriage and the age at which legal sexual intercourse may take place is 16 years. This has been achieved by express statutory provision. The process is a continuing one. The freedom open to a minor on becoming forisfamiliated—that is, the freedom to act on his own outwith his father's curatory—is further curtailed by other age limits: for example the law now requires him to remain at school until he is 16.
The Bill is in effect another step in that process. An age limit of 16 will be superimposed upon minority, and the freedom of a minor under the age of 16 to enter into contracts and other transactions having legal effect will be limited to actions through his guardian, with certain important exceptions, but minority itself will not be abolished.
The noble Lady then asked in a related way what would be the implications for minority following the passing of the Bill. The implications for minority will be that minority itself will have no continuing significance in relation to the capacity of minors to enter into legal transactions. After the Bill is enacted minors over 16 will have complete freedom to enter into contracts subject to the protection conferred by Clause 3.
The noble Lady was also concerned that without guardians there would be no protection whatsoever for an individual after 16. If she looks at the clause she will appreciate there are opportunities provided for that to be set aside.
Other questions were asked by the noble Lady in relation to the effect of the Bill on the availability of legal aid. I would advise her that current provision is

879
made which enables a minor child to be legally aided. The effect of the Bill is to require all children under the age of 16 to act through a guardian. That in any case will not be a problem where consent is readily available. Where the child does not have consent but needs to act with legal aid, the provisions of the Bill at Clause 1(3) (f) (i) ensure that any existing rule of law or practice whereby civil proceedings may be brought, defended or entered into by any person under the age of 16 is not to be affected by the Bill. So, if a young person under 16 requires to have legal aid to achieve that purpose, Clause 2(1) will assist him in respect of such legal aid applications as are commonly entered into in similar circumstances.
I appreciate also that another concern, which has been expressed in Scotland and reflected here by the noble Lady, is that the Bill might mean that the law of plagium or child theft would be extended up to 16. I can advise her that the crime of plagium relates to victims who are under the age of puberty only. This has been determined as including only girls below the age of 12 and boys below the age of 14. If the noble Lady looks at Clause 1(3) (c) of the Bill, she will find there that it is provided specifically that the delictual or criminal responsibility of any person shall not be affected by the provisions of the Bill.
A number of interesting questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, relating to the position of children in relation particularly to medical matters. The sponsor of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has already dealt with that matter. In a sense, I believe that it was apprehended that he had pre-empted the questions by answering them before they were asked, and perhaps I may leave the matter there. I have no doubt that very careful consideration will be given to what was said.
I hope that some of the answers I have given will be helpful to those who might consider tabling amendments. I appreciate that a number of other questions have also been asked and, if I can help in the interval before Committee stage, I shall be very glad to do so.
I conclude by saying to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that in a somewhat suspicious fashion she was concerned that what lay behind this provision was an effort to bring Scots law into line with English law. I suggest that if she would like to attend upon the Scottish Law Commissioners at Causeway Side in Edinburgh, she will find that, although they are always interested in securing the useful harmonisation of our laws, they are not now, and I suspect that they never will be, driven by the desire to see Scots law subjected to the law of England.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I am grateful to all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part. Many of the questions raised have been answered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate but perhaps I could add a word or two before we leave the subject.
880
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked why there should be change. The report of the commission sets out very clearly why we should change. The reason is that the law is out of date. It is little understood even by lawyers, as I mentioned when I spoke earlier. As regards consultation, the majority of persons and institutions which were consulted or made observations to the commission was in favour of change.
The noble Lady also suggested that the Bill had been brought forward in order to bring Scots law into line with the law of England. With respect, I do not think that on a fair reading of the Law Commission's approach to the matter that is a fair criticism. As has been pointed out more than once in correspondence and in the observations made on this Bill, it deals with a very limited area of the law. It deals with the question of transactions and one or two allied topics. It does not set out to reform the law of parent and child. That is a matter which is under active consideration by the Law Commission and a paper on guardianship has already been circulated. I understand that the consultation period is now over and in due course proposals will be brought forward by the Law Commission arising out of the view adopted as a result of consideration of the representations made.
The noble Lady also raised the matter of legal aid, a point which was answered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. On the 20th June 1991, the Scottish Legal Aid Board wrote to the Scottish Child Law Centre. I quote from the letter:
"If the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill becomes law, there will obviously require to be certain consequential amendments to the Legal Aid Regulations to take account of the abolition of the concepts of curators and tutors".
That would mean the substitution of guardians for the purposes of legal aid. The letter goes on:
"At present … for the purposes of legal aid, a child is a person under the age of 16 years. An application on behalf of a child is made by the parent or guardian or by any person in whose care the child is or by a person acting for the purposes of any proceedings as the child's tutor or curator".
The writer goes on to make other observations and I can let the noble Lady have a copy of the letter. Most importantly he says:
"For these reasons, I think it unlikely that the passing of the Bill will have any radical effect on legal aid".
In fact, at least one instance has been brought to my attention of a pupil child being involved in a court process in a sheriff court in Scotland. I do not believe that the fears about legal aid have any real foundation. Certainly the status of young persons affected by the Bill with regard to legal aid will not be diminished.
The House has already heard explained that the status of minority will not be abolished. It still exists. However, one has to turn to the Long Title and Clause 5(1) of the Bill to find the nub of this piece of legislation. It is not an all-embracing piece of legislation. It is the start of a review of the situation of children in modern society.
The noble Lady asked whether a child could refuse medical attention. Of course a child could refuse it. But what happens after the refusal? That is another matter. We are not dealing with refusal in this Bill; we are dealing with consent. It is a very difficult problem raised by the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Oakridge and Lord Ashbourne. It is a community

881
problem which we must all examine and ask whether that is the way in which society should be run. As an individual, look at it that way. My first reaction is to say that if any person is under 16 the parents must know before anything happens to the child. Unfortunately that is not the way of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, indicated in a letter to me that he had read very fully the section on this matter in the Law Society report. It is clear that detailed consideration was given to all the arguments for and against the involvement of parents. After detailed consideration the commission decided in favour of Clause 2(4). If a young girl of 15 is to have an abortion and her parents do not know, that is perhaps the way things are. If the parent finds out, the parent is still the guardian of the child and can take such action as the parent sees fit to deal with that situation. It is a difficult area of life these days. I am afraid that we have to face up to the realities of life and say that if the child consents and is capable of understanding the consequences, it is up to the doctor to consider what should be done.
Although the best interest test has not been adopted by the commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said, most doctors would look to the best interests of the child. A doctor would not sign a form authorising abortion unless it complied with the provisions set out in the Abortion Act.
The question of plagium has been raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. The issues of religion and freedom of activity—raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—have bedevilled consideration of this fairly simple piece of legislation arising out of detailed consultation. We are dealing with transactions that have legal effect. It does not involve a transaction having legal effect if one's 15 year-31d son or daughter says, "I'm going to be a Moonie as from tomorrow"—or a Catholic, Protestant, atheist, or whatever it may be. That could never be said to be a transaction. That is why I emphasise again that we must consider the skeleton of the Bill which deals with transactions having legal effect as defined in the Bill, and with the exceptions provided.
The same considerations apply to freedom of association. If a child says that he wishes to go to the youth club tomorrow night and sets off, the parent can either clip him round the ear if he considers it a not very good youth club, or he can do as he sees fit. But he cannot stop the child going unless he takes certain procedures perhaps involving the courts. However, such matters have nothing whatever to do with legal transactions. That is why I say—with great respect to those who have raised the issues—that they have gone off at a tangent and have not considered the core of the Bill as spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate. We are dealing with legal transactions as they affect minors under the provisions of the Bill.
I hope that with those explanations and those given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, we have covered the issues raised sufficiently to persuade any noble Lord who is considering putting an amendment down at Committee stage perhaps to think again and consider the greater good of the
882
young people of Scotland in connection with commercial transactions. We live in a changing world where people enter into commercial transactions at earlier ages. They become involved in social matters such as abortion and so on. We, as the senior people in Scotland and England, must consider the reality of life today and try to trim the legislation to protect young people from their own immaturity in an ever-changing world with all the pressures that are put on them by salesmen and so on. I do not need to go into that. No doubt all noble Lords have had good examples of such pressures.
With those observations, I commend the Bill to the House. I ask that the House give the Bill a Second Reading. In so doing, I again express my gratitude for the interesting contributions made by Members of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Smoke Detectors Bill
7.44 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [New dwellings to be fitted with smoke detectors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.1.
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("offence") to ("in") and insert ("in respect of each occasion on which the dwelling, or a part of the dwelling, is not fitted with a smoke detector").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we anticipated this amendment when moving a somewhat different amendment at Committee stage. I moved then that, instead of having the limit on scale 3, which is at present £400 but will increase to £500, fines for an offence against the Bill should be extended to scale 5. In response to my arguments, the sponsor of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, first reminded the Committee that the fine under scale 3 was to increase to £1,000. Secondly, he stated that there would be two fines for a house on two floors which, under the Bill, would have to have two smoke detectors, and fines of £20,000 to £30,000 relating to a housing estate. Unfortunately for the noble Lord, he was then contradicted by the Minister, who pointed out that the fine was per dwelling and not per smoke detector or per floor. The noble Baroness stated in a helpful letter to me—for which I thank her—that the fine is per dwelling and therefore there would be a fine for an offence on each dwelling in a housing estate. In that sense we are half way there.
We consider that for the provision to apply per dwelling is not good enough. We consider that there would be advantage in having a fine per detector. That is the unit of exchange in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that minor amendment. It is an amendment which helps the enforcement of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, in responding to the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord

883
McIntosh, I agree that I was a little misled, though I still contend that in a housing estate fines of several thousands of pounds could be involved.
The difficulty with the amendment is that there is nothing in the Bill which lays down how many smoke detectors are to be fitted or indeed where they should be fitted. That matter is left to the guidance document which the Secretary of State is to approve and issue under Clause 3 of the Bill.
The noble Lord's amendment refers to,
"a part of the dwelling … not fitted with a smoke detector".
There are many parts of a dwelling where it is unnecessary and even undesirable for a smoke detector to be fitted. I presume that the noble Lord has in mind that it should be an offence not to fit a smoke detector in those parts of the dwelling where the guidance in the approved document indicates that one should be fitted.
However, that would make the guidance in the approved document mandatory and that is the opposite of what is intended. Clause 3(3) states explicitly that,
"a failure on the part of any person to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any criminal proceedings".
The noble Lord's amendment runs counter to that important principle. I hope that on reflection he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Wade are entirely consistent with the manner in which the provisions of the Building Act 1984 relating to approved documents operate, and the Government support them.
I simply add that the amendment appears to be an attempt to increase in an indirect way the maximum penalties provided for under the Bill. It remains the Government's view that the penalty already provided —namely, a maximum fine level at level 3 for each dwelling which is not fitted with one or more smoke detectors—is the appropriate one. I should remind the House that level 3 is about to be increased from £400 to £1,000.
I support the reply given by my noble friend and hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept that the guidance will meet some of his anxieties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find that a rather legalistic and indeed contradictory response from the noble Lord and from the Minister. The noble Lord reminds us that Clause 3(3) states that:
"a failure … to comply with an approved document does not of itself render him liable to any criminal proceedings".
He did not remind the House that in any proceedings for an offence a failure to comply with an approved document may be relied on as tending to establish liability; and proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability. Clearly, approved documents have some significance.
I hope that there is no doubt that the approved documents will specify a smoke detector on each floor of any dwelling. Unless each floor has a smoke detector one might as well not have smoke detectors. The purpose of the Bill is that there should be a smoke
884
detector on each floor and that the alarm should be sounded not only on the floor on which it is located but on all other floors. If I am wrong about that, the Bill will be less effective than I had expected.
To rely on the lack of strict enforcement by criminal proceedings of the details of the approved document is to be less than confident in the good sense of those who will draw up the approved document and the effect of the amendment. I shall not pursue the issue. It is desirable that the Bill should proceed, if possible unamended or amended only by agreement. Failing that agreement I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Enforcement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert:
("(1A) Any person duly authorised in writing by the local authority may on any occasion when not otherwise empowered to do so for the purposes of building control at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of exercising his functions under this Act.
(1B) A person authorised under subsection (1A) above to enter any land shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering.
(1C) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1A) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to the issue of rights of entry as a result of what was said in Committee. It was then suggested that rights of entry for local authority officers should be as powerful in respect of the implementation of the Smoke Detectors Act, as it will be, as for building control. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said:
"After all, he is not likely to be making his inspection solely for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Bill".—[Official Report, 21/6/91; col. 409.]
I am sorry but I must disagree with the noble Lord. It is likely that the installation of smoke detectors will be one of the last acts in the construction of a dwelling. It may well be that on final inspection the building inspector will see that everything has been done except the installation of smoke detectors. It would be somewhat farcical if he were unable to regain entry to ensure that the smoke detectors had been fitted and that the provisions of the Bill had been complied with.
It is an anomaly that under the Bill there will be powers separate from the general powers of building control. However, it is desirable that the standard of enforcement for the provisions of this Bill should be as high as for any other aspect of building control. The only provision that would make me feel differently about the matter would be if the inspector were allowed to refuse the final building control certificate solely on the ground that the smoke detectors had not been fitted. I cannot see how that could be the case because, strictly speaking, all other building control regulations would have been complied with. Only this aspect would not have been complied with.
If the noble Lord chooses not to accept the amendment, I hope that he will persuade the Government that some provision must be made for a

885
final inspection, if necessary by using rights of entry to deal with a single outstanding issue—that of the installation of smoke detectors. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, when this matter was debated at Committee stage I expressed my reluctance to add a power of entry to the provisions of this Bill unless it was absolutely necessary to do so. I still do not believe that it is.
The Building Act 1984 contains powers of entry which can he exercised at any time by a local authority which believes that it is necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. These regulations apply where building work is being carried out. Building work is defined to include the provision of a dwelling either as a new const ruction or the reconstruction or conversion of an existing building. I cannot see any circumstances where a dwelling which is subject to the requirements of this Bill would not also be subject to requirements under the building regulations.
I am satisfied that for all practical purposes these closely related powers provide adequate rights of entry to enable the requirements of this Bill to be enforced. After all, these requirements have to be met by the time the construction of the dwelling is completed. Until that point is reached the authority will in practice still have a right of entry for building control purposes. It is theoretically possible that a local authority might be satisfied that the requirements of the building regulations had been met but not that adequate detectors had been fitted, although I have to say that it does not seem very likely. Even in this case, however, the authority would in practice ask the builder to install the necessary detectors before commencing legal proceedings under Clause 1 of the Bill. In such a situation I find it difficult to believe that the builder would refuse to allow the authority to verify that the work had been done.
The noble Lord's amendment is wide in its effect. It would enable local authorities to authorise those enforcing the provisions of the Bill to enter an occupied dwelling to see whether smoke detectors had been installed by the builder. That would worry me greatly. I know that from the beginning of our debates on the Bill it has been accepted that we do not wish to give rights of entry to occupied premises and clearly the responsibility became that of the builder. The amendment would widen that right and I believe that it is not necessary to do so. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have listened with care to the noble Lord's arguments but ask him to look at Clause 5(3) of the Bill. There provision is made for an approved inspector to be empowered not to issue a certificate unless a smoke detect or is in place. In other words, the powers of an approved inspector appear to be wider than the powers of a local authority inspector. Does the noble Lord consider that his arguments against, for example, inspecting premises that are occupied apply equally strongly to Clause 5(3)?
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, under Clause 5(3) action would still fall under the arrangements with the local authority regarding the building period during which the inspector would have the right of entry. The certificate would not be issued until the building had been completed and handed over. Those powers relate only to the period during which the building is taking place and not when the final certificate has been issued and the building handed over as complete to the owner to take occupation. There is nothing in Clause 5 that will give the right of entry when the occupier is in possession of the building. That is the purpose of the Bill and the reason why I asked the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the promoters of the Bill have clearly had to be selective in deciding which of the supporting provisions from the Building Act 1984 should be included in it. I can understand and sympathise with my noble friend's reluctance to create a new power of entry, particularly one which would extend to occupied dwellings.
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is technically correct. But for the reasons that my noble friend has given I do not believe that in practice there will be a problem. The powers already available under the Building Act 1984 will provide an adequate power of entry to enforce the provisions of this Bill.
I recognise that it is normally unacceptable to use a power of entry for a purpose which is different from the one for which it was granted by Parliament. However, the Bill is intended to operate in parallel with building control and it therefore does not seem to me to be objectionable to rely on the power of entry which is already available under the Building Act 1984.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is reassured that in practice it is not necessary to create a new power of entry to enable the provisions of this Bill to be properly enforced and that he will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the assurance that my amendment is right in principle. I have listened carefully to the argument that it will make no difference in practice. I do not understand the argument; I believe that at the final inspections under building control regulations it will be common to find that all the requirements of those regulations have been complied with but that the installation of the smoke detector is outstanding. Obviously the detector will be installed last; for instance, one does not install a smoke detector and then plaster around it. I believe that in practice the cases will be more common than the Minister believes. If we cannot amend the Bill, a solution will have to be found. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Effect of initial notice under Part II of Building Act 1984]:
8 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, cannot be present this evening and she has asked me to move this amendment on her behalf. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, which are consequential.
These amendments have been tabled because there is a danger that the Smoke Detectors Bill may interfere with the smooth running of the control system established by the Building Act 1984, referred to during our discussions on the previous amendment.
The amendments tabled are an attempt to reduce the scope for any fragmentation of the system by ensuring that the value of the Building Act's final certificate is not reduced. If that were done, it would reduce the anomaly which my noble friend Lord McIntosh mentioned as regards the general powers of building control, which are part of the Building Act 1984, and this new Bill.
As it stands the Bill places an obligation on an approved inspector to issue a second certificate for each house; that is, a certificate relating to the installation of smoke detectors. That is an unnecessary and cumbersome obligation which establishes a precedent for additional final certificates if further building regulation-type matters are covered by separate statutes in future.
By relying solely on subsection (3) to implement the terms of the Smoke Detectors Bill—and to my mind it seems that it could be quite easily adapted to do so —an efficient, cost-effective method can be achieved while maintaining the overall integrity of the Building Act's final certificate which would, therefore, include the requirements of this Bill with regard to the installation of smoke detectors. I shall be interested to hear the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wade on that suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for raising this point on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gardner. I fully share the desire to maintain the existing system of building control established under the Building Act 1984, and I should not wish to do anything which would make the work of an approved inspector more cumbersome.
Clause 5 is based on the existing legislative requirements relating to final certificates under Part II of the Building Act 1984. This is a complex but well understood procedure, under which approved inspectors inform the local authority that the building work under their supervision has been completed and that they have discharged their prescribed functions. The Bill does not contemplate a second final certificate but a simple statement which could be written or typed at the end of the Building Act final certificate. This statement would declare that the approved inspector had taken such steps as are reasonable to satisfy himself that the requirements of Clause 1 had been met. In my view it should be no more cumbersome or complex than that.
888
I do not believe, therefore, that there is any difficulty with Clause 5 as drafted. The amendments would give rise to some drafting problems, and, in view of what I have said, I hope that it will not be necessary to press them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's interpretation of Clause 5 as drafted. It may be helpful if I add that, if there should at any time be problems of inconsistency or duplication between the requirements of this Bill and the building regulations as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, Clause 6 is always available to enable us to deal with that situation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness. It still seems to me that these amendments would be logical and that Clause 5(4) is not necessary provided one or two words in subsection (3) are altered.
I do not wish to press the amendment. However, perhaps the noble Lord will ponder as to whether he may wish to bring back an amendment on Third Reading which gives effect to the proposed simplification, which will lead to a reduction in additional bureaucracy. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7.
Page 4, line 27, leave out first ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is a matter which we raised in Committee. I return to it in this form largely because of a very helpful response given to me by the Minister in a letter of which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has a copy. She clarified that in the Government's view a flat above a shop or office would be covered by the definitions in Clause 1. She went on to say:
"Caravans are another matter. They are not constructed in the same way as buildings, and we do not consider that they fall within the normal meaning of the term 'house or flat'. They are manufactured products and, in our view, it would not be appropriate or practical to use this Bill to control the way in which they are constructed".
Of course caravans are not the same as houses or flats in the ordinary sense. That is why we are proposing the amendment. If they were the same the amendment would not be necessary. The point about caravans is that people live in them. They are constructed in such a way that many of them are peculiarly vulnerable to fire and they are used by people whose cooking and heating methods are also peculiarly vulnerable to fire. In that connection I am thinking particularly of bottled gas and the way in which many bottled gas appliances, both for heating and cooking, are constructed and are included in caravans, very often in a confined space. That means that the risk of fire is much greater than it would be in a real house or flat. However, caravans are used as dwellings and this Bill should be about dwellings because it should be about protecting people at home.
My amendment deals only with caravans used as dwellings. They are perhaps more vulnerable than ordinary dwellings and I contend that they should be included within the scope of the Bill.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I have tremendous sympathy for everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said on this issue. I agree with him that a caravan is a very vulnerable place.
The difficulty with these amendments is that this Bill is intended to operate in parallel with the building control system, and caravans and mobile homes are exempt from the provisions of the Building Regulations 1985. While I sympathise with what the noble Lord has said, I have regretfully concluded that this Bill is not the right way to provide the additional protection which he seeks for those living in permanently sited caravans.
The advice which I have received—and because of my sympathy for what the noble Lord said I have taken a lot of advice—is that if the Bill were to be extended in that way, it would then also be necessary to extend the building regulations to cover caravans of this type. That would be a significant extension of regulatory control. If that were not done, we should finish up with a free-standing provision to which none of the procedural requirements which are set out in the Building Act 1984 and which are essential to make the building control system work would apply. I take just one example. There would be no requirement to notify the building control authority that a new non-mobile caravan was being brought onto a permanent site. But, unless the caravan can be inspected before the occupiers move in, we shall be back to the problem that enforcement could only be achieved through the building control officer entering a family's home to check that they are protected by smoke detectors.
As I have said, I sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment. But caravans are manufactured products and, if it is thought necessary to lay down requirements about how they should be constructed, I believe that that should be done through consumer protection legislation. It does not seem to me to be appropriate to use legislation whose purpose is to regulate the way that buildings are constricted on site.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take on board the points that both I and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised. I am sure that the Government will be able to consider ways in which our anxieties may be resolved, notwithstanding the difficulties at present before us.
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is raising an important issue. I accept that it is important for people who live in permanently sited caravans to have the protection which a smoke alarm provides, and the Government certainly do not take lightly the concerns he has expressed. But I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Wade that it would not be appropriate to try to deal with this issue in the present Bill. As he said, the Bill is about buildings, and is intended to operate in parallel with the requirements in the building regulations relating to how buildings are designed and constructed on site. A
890
caravan is not a building; it is not constructed on site; and it is not controlled under the building regulations. It is a manufactured product.
Clearly we would not want building control officers to have to go into factories to check the construction of caravans. If they were to be brought within the scope of the Bill, it would be necessary to regard the stationing of a non-mobile caravan on a permanent site as a building operation. But would the requirements relate solely to smoke detectors? Or would all the other requirements of the regulations have to follow? There is also the question of powers. Is a caravan a building for the purposes of the Building Act 1984? If not, this route would not be open to the Government and we could then be left with a requirement which could not be enforced because none of the machinery provided by the Building Act 1984 could be applied.
The Government recognise the importance of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord. I do not believe, however, that they can be met under this Bill. If we are to lay down standards for manufactured products such as caravans, the issue needs to be tackled in some other way, such as in consumer protection legislation.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that, for all the reasons given, this is not the right Bill for such an amendment and that the Bill should not be compromised or even delayed by looking for ways to accommodate these amendments. I can say to the noble Lord, because I share his anxiety, that on his behalf and on behalf of anyone else who is concerned about the issue, I shall make inquiries into whether there exists a provision in some other Act of Parliament which would allow the objects of the amendment to be achieved without the use of primary legislation. If that cannot be done, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this Bill is an inappropriate one in which to incorporate the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would be able to go further than that. I understand the restrictions placed on a Private Member's Bill. It must be fairly uncontroversial to go through both Houses, particularly the other place, without having government time. I realise that to extend the scope of a Bill of this kind often means to condemn it to death. I shall certainly not pursue the amendment.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will explore whether there is any scope under other legislation to achieve the objective that we all want to achieve without the need for primary legislation. Perhaps the noble Baroness can go a little further and say that if it is not possible, she will urge on the appropriate department that the objectives should be included in legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that it is difficult for me to be specific in that regard. I can say that his anxiety is properly registered. We share the concern that the objective of the amendment should be achieved. We will go as far as we can to achieve it without primary legislation. If that fails, it remains a candidate to be contained in some other legislation in the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that those words will be heeded by those who determine the Government's legislative timetable. I can imagine how sick we shall all feel if, in the coming months or even years, as is quite likely, children die in a fire in a caravan used as a mobile home. The caravan is by far the most dangerous kind of home; it offers by far the most dangerous conditions that can exist for risk of death by fire.
We are stuck with the restrictions of the Private Member's Bill procedure. However, that does not
892
mean that we should not use every effort available to government to try to do something about it quickly. I should perhaps say that it is not my intention to table amendments for Third Reading. With those not very hopeful words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eight o'clock.