Sitting of 29 July 1968

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

BELGRAVIA: TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND PROPOSED VICTORIA AIR TERMINAL
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any major road widening schemes are proposed in the Belgravia area; and, if so, what stage in the planning procedure has been reached.]
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON had given Notice of the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the increase of motor traffic resulting from the proposed new rail terminal for air traffic at Victoria, what will be the effect of that traffic on Belgravia and Pimlico, and whether this matter was examined before Victoria was chosen as the site for the terminal.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, with the leave of the
2
House and of both noble Lords concerned, I will answer this Question together with that down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon.
No major road widening schemes for the Belgravia area are included either in the current programme or in the preparation list. No decision has been taken to build a new rail terminal for air traffic either at Victoria or any other place. What has been decided is that there will be a pressing need in the 1970s to relieve traffic congestion on the road approaches to Heathrow Airport by providing a rail link, and that of all the possible ways of connecting Heathrow to London by rail a link using existing Southern Region lines from Victoria appears the most promising.
The immediate increase in road traffic which would result around Victoria from siting an air terminal there is estimated to be 7 per cent. on the volume at that time on the main roads only, rising by a further 4 per cent. by 1981. A study carried out last year showed that it should be possible to deal with an increase rather larger than this with certain road improvements which, though expensive, would be quite limited in scale. But a committee representative of the various authorities concerned is now considering in detail the various possibilities so as to put forward concrete proposals for public discussion. The importance of avoiding extra traffic through the residential parts of Belgravia and Pimlico, and if possible reducing the existing load, is being borne very much in mind.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, while not wishing to embroil the noble Lord in the details of this complicated far-reaching proposal, may I ask him whether he thinks it may be possible to avoid a repetition of the secrecy, expense, delay, order, disorder and counter-order which attached to the Stansted and Piccadilly Circus schemes, and, if he does think so, why?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think it is highly possible. If I may concentrate my answer on one point, secrecy, this really does not arise. When there is something to be opened to public discussion it will be fully opened to public discussion. At the moment there is nothing that could be discussed by the public. The Working Party I mentioned is seeing what can be advised which will be thrown open to the normal planning procedures and discussion by the public.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask what my noble friend means by public discussion?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I mean the making public of proposals which will then be visible by all members of the public and can be discussed by those members of the public through whatever medium they choose before any concrete planning permission is sought.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, this does not mean, I take it, that we shall be informed in the columns of that admirable newspaper The Times that such and such has been settled?
LORD KENNET: No, my Lords, not until it has been settled after public discussion.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in view of the possibility of extra congestion in the Victoria area, could the noble Lord say what consideration is being given by his Ministry to an alternative project for a monorail service between the Air Terminal at Hammersmith and Heathrow; and would he not agree that such a service is worthy of being very carefully considered also because, with a 2½ minute frequency and 60 m.p.h. speed, the journey would be done in 12 minutes?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the question of a monorail was gone into at an
4
earlier stage when all the alternative ways of relieving traffic congestion between Heathrow and London were considered, and it looked less good than a conventional rail link.
LORD MERRIVALE: Was that from Hammersmith?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not sure whether it was from Hammersmith or from elsewhere, but the consideration applies wherever it was from.

POWER TOOL WORKERS AND VIBRATION SYNDROME
2.36 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will secure that the Factory Inspectorate examine the condition known as vibration syndrome which has been experienced by power tool workers as reported by the B.M.A. occupational health committee.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the condition known as vibration syndrome is currently the subject of a fact-finding survey undertaken for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in connection with the possibility of prescription under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965. The opinions reported by the B.M.A. Occupational Health Committee were incorporated in written evidence submitted to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in connection with the survey. The Factory Inspectorate is being kept informed of the progress of the survey and will consider the implications of its findings when these are reported, probably later this year.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this will give great pleasure to those who hear the reply?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that remark. May I return the compliment and say that the way he constantly raises these matters of industrial health and welfare is much to be commended.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, could my noble friend say

5
whether the condition known as dupuytrens is being the subject of the same investigation?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord bowled that one to me very neatly. It deals with all the diseases known as vibration syndrome—disease of the bone, joints, muscles, blood vessels and nerves of the hand or shoulder caused by vibrating machines. Would it be included in that?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, from that reply I think dupuytrens would be included.

RHODESIA: MR. SMITH AND THE SIX PRINCIPLES
2.38 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble relative, Lord Rowley, through illness, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what direct intimation has been received from Mr. Smith that he accepts the Six Principles as a basis for a settlement of the Rhodesian problem.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I am sure we all regret the absence of our noble friend Lord Rowley and hope that he will soon recover from his illness. I am very sorry to tell your Lordships that the answer to this question is, "None."
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him further whether he can give an assurance to the House that if any such intimation is conveyed through unofficial channels it will not be ignored?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords. Any such intimation would be very carefully considered, but it will of course depend upon the source of such an intimation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, since the Six Principles included the delay of Independence until there was an assurance that there would be an advance to
6
majority rule, and in view of the fact that the Privy Council have now declared that legislation since U.D.I. is illegal, could the Minister confirm the statement in The Times this morning that the proposals which Sir Alec Douglas-Home brought back incorporated a refusal of the Rhodesian Administration to accept the authority of the Privy Council on constitutional matters?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my understanding is that the message that Sir Alec Douglas-Home brought back from Rhodesia was confidential, and therefore I think it would be wrong for me on that basis to comment in any way upon the report in The Times.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, does that apply also to the most interesting statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the special proposals which he had received from Rhodesia and which he had submitted to the Prime Minister?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am well aware of what my noble friend Lord Silkin said on July 18, that he had evidence that Mr. Smith accepted the Six Principles as a basis for a settlement of the Rhodesia problem. But whenever we have examined his ideas for a solution of the problem we find that they cannot be reconciled with these Principles. For instance, Mr. Smith has so far shown no signs of being ready to accept an adequate clocking mechanism. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, in winding up the debate on the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968, if Mr. Smith is in fact ready to accept an adequate clocking mechanism, let him say so.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is not this a matter that could usefully be discussed between this Government and the Rhodesian authorities? After all, there are various ways of satisfying this particular requirement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have made many efforts ourselves to find a solution with the régime in Salisbury, and so far, we must admit, with regret, that we have not been able to reconcile the Six Principles that have been accepted by the British Government. But if Mr. Smith believes that he has an answer to

7
these Six Principles, and that there could be meaningful talks, I am sure the House will appreciate that the Governor in Rhodesia would be only too ready to voice such overtures or such requests in talks to Her Majesty's Government.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the House will know, we did not complete the Committee Stage of the Race Relations Bill on Thursday last, and additional time has therefore been allocated on Tuesday of this week. In those circumstances, it has been thought after discussions through the usual channels, that it would be difficult to take the Report stage of the Race Relations Bill on Thursday of this week, only two days after Committee. It is intended therefore, again after consultations with those concerned, to take the Committee (on Recommitment) and Report Stages of the Gaming Bill on Thursday of this week. Dinners will be available to-night between 7 and 8.30 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making this Statement. I think it is undoubtedly for the convenience of the House that we should take these Bills in the manner suggested.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 149 [Interpretation—general]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM) moved Amendment No. 315:
8
Page 196, line 40, after ("means") insert ("save as otherwise expressly provided and in particular")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. It is little more than a drafting Amendment designed to clear up any possible doubt about the definition for the Bill of "the Minister". There are many places in the Bill where "the Minister" must be interpreted as meaning the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State, as appropriate, or both. Nevertheless, the definition in Clause 149(1) lists only five qualifications to the general rule that the expression means the Minister of Transport. These five references are all to subsections which attract the provisions of Schedules in which "the Minister" is similarly to be interpreted for the purposes of those subsections. In general, however, to avoid a long catalogue of references to places where "the Minister" does not mean necessarily or solely the Minister of Transport, we had been relying on the general qualification in the introductory words to Clause 149(1):
"In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires … the following expressions have the following meanings …"
Nevertheless, for the sake of absolute clarity, there would be advantage in repeating this saving expressly in the definition of "the Minister" in view of the rather exceptional circumstances surrounding the use of that expression. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 150 and 151 agreed to.
Clause 152 [Rating]:
On Question, Whether Clause 152 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ILFORD: Clause 152 deals with a number of consequential matters with which I need not trouble your Lordships, but the main purpose of the clause can be said to be to bring the Freight Corporation within the rating system which applies to the railways, to the London Transport Board and to the British Waterways Board. It applies also to a number of subsidiaries of all those bodies. As I say, the purpose is to bring the Freight Corporation within the system of rating which is applied to the railways and these other bodies.

9
As your Lordships know, the railways enjoy a privileged position as regards rating, as indeed do these other Boards. They are not assessed for rating in the usual manner. Instead, they make a payment in lieu of rates, the amount of which is assessed by reference to what is called a "standard amount". I need not trouble your Lordships with the processes by which the standard amount is calculated except to say that it is most favourable to the railways and to the other Boards and most unfavourable to the other authorities. This arrangement by which the railways escape, as the local authorities think, their fair share of the burden of the rates, was made to help the railways during the period of depression in the early 1930s. It amounts really to a concealed subsidy to railways, and it will now amount to a concealed subsidy to the Freight Corporation as well, when that body comes into being. No doubt it assisted the railways in the days of the depression, but it did so at the expense of the local authorities.
There is one aspect of this situation which the local authorities particularly resent. One of the factors in estimating the standard amount, which, as I said a moment ago, measures the contribution that they make towards the rates is de-rating. There is a de-rating element of something like 75 per cent. As your Lordships will recall, de-rating was introduced during the slump of 1929 and the early 1930's to relieve industry and transport hereditaments of the burden of rating, in the expectation that this would assist industry to recover its prosperity, by reason of the lower freight charges which industry would enjoy. Accordingly, the railways were all brought within the system of de-rating. No doubt it did contribute in those days to a revival of industry—perhaps to the recovery of traffics on the railways—but de-rating has long since disappeared from industrial rating. It is a good many years since industry had the advantage of de-rating. It has gone now, but it is still retained as one of the major elements in estimating the contribution which the railways and the other authorities are liable to make to the expenses of the local authorities.
De-rating is still one of the factors in assessing liability, and this illustrates the fact that this method of rating transport authorities is out of date, and is unfair
10
on the authorities. It should be put right. It should not be extended to the Freight Corporation and some of its subsidiaries. I put this Amendment down for the purpose of raising this point. I do not intend to put it to the Committee, but I hope the Minister will be able to say that the time has come when this system of rating the railways—and these other authorities, including how the Freight Corporation—will be reviewed, and that a system which is fairer and more just to the local authorities will be adopted.
There have been a number of cases in this Bill, and, indeed, in some other Bills passed through your Lordships' House recently, in which the choice arises whether a particular item of expenditure, or any particular expenditure, should rest upon rates or upon the revenues of some other body. When one is faced with that problem, the right answer is that the expenditure ought to rest upon somebody else and not upon the rates. Rates, it has been said many times, are what is called a "regressive tax"; that is to say, the higher they go the greater the hardship on the population that has to pay them. A proposal that some other authority should be relieved of its contribution to local expenditure at the expense of the ratepayers is wrong and ought to be checked. Of course, the ratepayers should make a contribution, but a reasonable one. It is not right that the rates should be used as a means of reducing the financial obligations of other bodies. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the whole of this matter will be reviewed and the methods of assessing the contributions of these transport undertakings revised.
2.53 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has asked whether I can give an undertaking that this present system of a central rating, a block rating sum, which is paid by the transport authorities to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, will be reviewed. The position is that a general review of the rating of all nationalised industries is at the moment taking place. I should like to repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in another place,

11
on October 20, 1966. The general principle stated at that time was this:
"A general review of the rating of nationalised industries, which was started under the last Government, is still actively proceeding, but there remain considerable differences between the Departments, the industries affected and the local authorities."
The noble Lord will not be surprised if this is the case.
"We are not ready yet to propose a fundamental change in the method of valuation and we do not think it is right just to do a temporary tinkering with the formula; there is need for more fundamenal study of it. That will become part of the general review of local Government finance, which is going on in readiness for the conclusions of the Royal Commission".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/10/66, col. 419.]
That was a Statement made in another place, approximately two years ago. Perhaps the noble Lord will be interested in discussions on this subject which have been taking place during the course of drafting this Bill. The framing of the Transport Bill gave rise to three questions in this particular field. I grant the noble Lord completely the point he made, that this is a form of hidden subsidy and the present rating system is of great benefit to the railway authorities. He is quite correct. The problems which arose when we started drafting this Bill, and the questions we had to ask, were these: first, in view of the likely increase in the use of subsidiaries by the Boards, how were properties which have hitherto been occupied by a Board for non-rateable purposes to be treated for rating purposes on transfer to a subsidiary? That is the first question, and I think that was the question asked by the noble Lord.
The second question is this. In view of the hiving off of a part of the British Railway Board's undertaking to National Freight Corporation subsidiaries, how are properties which have hitherto been occupied by the British Railway Board for non-rateable purposes to be treated for rating purposes on transfer to the National Freight Corporation subsidiaries? Thirdly, how were properties which are used for activities in exercise of the new manufacturing powers, given by Clauses Nos. 48 to 50, to be treated for rating purposes?
As the noble Lord may imagine, these were knotty subjects, which led to lengthy
12
negotiations with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The settlement reached on the three points were as follows. First, property occupied for non-rateable purposes, and transferred to a subsidiary, should be treated for rating purposes as still being retained by the parent Board and, consequently, falling within the parent Board's block payment. Secondly, property occupied by the British Railways Board for non-rateable purposes, and transferred to the National Freight Corporation, or one of its subsidiaries, should be treated for rating purposes as still being retained by the British Railways Board, and, consequently, falling within the British Railways Board block payment and—this is the important point—an obligation shall be placed on the National Freight Corporation to pay to the British Railways Board its appropriate proportion of the British Railways Board's block payment. Thirdly, property occupied for the purposes of the new manufacturing activities should in no circumstances be treated as non-rateable; that is to say, they are rateable.
Those points may not satisfy the noble Lord completely, but I hope I have shown that the present situation is not going to last in perpetuity, that it is under consideration, and that we have done what we have been able to do, without a more general review, to meet the local authorities' national interest in getting this block system altered.
LORD ILFORD: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Naturally, I should like to consider it before I make any comment upon it. May I conclude by saying that I hope the negotiators on behalf of the Government will be inspired by the same admirable principles that the noble Lord has just enunciated? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
3.0 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: Before it is withdrawn, may I say a word? The noble Lord who replied stated that the old basis had been of benefit to the British Railways Board. In actual fact, local government services and the charges have relation one to the other. If you have miles and miles of railway line and an odd station, then on the basis of local authority service the cost to the old Railways Board—or to the Transport Commission before them; and even to the

13
railway companies earlier—was really excessive having regard to what local authorities contributed in providing service for them. The revision which arose later during the time of the British Transport Commission's operation was, I think, justified. There is no real justification for asking any nationalised or even private enterprise authority to pay rates where in fact no service is rendered by the local authority. The only real service that is rendered by the local authority to many of the railway properties in particular arises from police and fire; no normal local authority service is rendered. If that is so, why should they be charged for?
LORD WADE: As I understand it, there is no Amendment here and therefore no Amendment requires to be withdrawn. I believe we are discussing the Motion that the clause stand part. I am not sure where we should get to if we adopted the principle that ratepapers could claim exemption if they could prove that they did not receive the services which they desired. May I put this question to the noble Lord: pending this review, can he give any estimate of the increase in the burden on other ratepayers as a consequence of the passing of this Bill? Because, as I understand it, this hidden subsidy will in effect he borne by the ratepayers generally. Somebody has to pay, either the Exchequer or the railway authorities or the general body of ratepayers, and if I have interpreted the clause correctly there will be some increase in the general burden on ordinary ratepayers. Is that so and, if so, how much will it amount to?
LORD LEATHERLAND: I merely wanted to say that the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Lindgren that if an undertaking or a hereditament does not receive any services from the local authority it should not be liable to pay rates is not a view shared generally by people in local government. If it were, surely you would exempt from maternity and child welfare rates the many middle-aged spinsters who are still very active members of our various communities. The rate is based on the general communal advantage which is rendered by the local authority, and is not charged out to a specific person in the way that
14
my noble friend suggests that it should be.
Just in case the opinion has got abroad that the railways pay hardly anything in the way of rates, may I say that the real facts are that they have to pay a basic figure amounting to just over £3½ million a year, and that is adjusted from time to time. The London Transport Board pay £1,200,000, again subject to adjustment, and a similar basic figure of a smaller amount is laid down for the British Waterways Board.
Now it is a fact that perhaps the railways do not pay quite so much in rates as they would if they were assessed like an ordinary household, but this system of the block payment of rates has many advantages. If you have two railway stations three miles apart and one of them is in one local government district and one in another, and you impose a rate upon those bricks and mortar buildings but ignore completely the metal railway line which connects them and which alone makes them viable, then I think there is a lot to be said for it, and I hope that when my noble friend comes to consider this question of local rating he will not necessarily put the whole of the rating burden on the particular pieces of bricks and mortar that are situated in some particular town. I have said that perhaps the railways do not pay quite so much as they would if they were rated in the ordinary way, but we have to bear in mind that the presence of a railway line linking two communities really brings some advantage to those communities.
What we have to face, if we are going to increase the rates on the railways, is that the railways, in due course, will have to put up their fares to workers who are travelling from one place to another, or the industrial concerns within those communities may have to put up the prices of their goods. It is a good thing that the whole rating system is being reorganised and it may well be that some change will have to be made with regard to these transport hereditaments, but I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that if he is going to approach this matter from the point of view that everybody must pay his full share of rates then the landowners, who are at present exempt to a considerable extent, should be very high up the list for that privilege.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Ilford on having started such an interesting debate, and I should like to put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, when he gives a further reply. I was surprised to hear him so readily concede the case to my noble friend that in fact the railways were under-assessed. I remember a few years ago the case put up by the Electricity Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board that the rate burden which they were paying through their block payment was unfairly high, and indeed they succeeded in their case that it was unfairly high. It surprises me, therefore, to hear of another nationalised industry with a not dissimilar national network—because, after all, the transmission lines of the C.E.G.B. are not dissimilar to the railway lines—which is evidently paying so very much less.
The figures the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, gave I am sure were of great interest to the Committee, and they indicate how much less the railways are paying than the electricity industry—I should think only about one-tenth of what the electricity industry was asked to pay. It surprises me to hear there is so much difference. On the whole, I have always favoured the block payment providing it is enough, because obviously there are enormous difficulties in making separate assessments in each area, and so long as the national block payment is sufficient and is allocated out fairly to the local authorities, that has always seemed to me to be the best way of doing it. I should be interested to hear a further comment from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, as to whether in principle he agrees with that, always assuming that the hereditaments are fairly assessed on a realistic basis. It sounds to me as if the railway hereditaments have not been.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is an interesting one. I think noble Lords will agree there are many interlocking factors in calculations of this sort and much history behind a sum such as this and a method like this. As the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, pointed out, de-rating was an attempt in the 1930's to assist the railways and industry as a whole at a difficult time. The Central Electricity Generating Board was perhaps unfortunate
16
in negotiating at a time when the negotiators may have been tougher than they were when the railways first turned to the State for assistance in this field. I would suggest to noble Lords that this is perhaps not the appropriate occasion to question this long-standing arrangement. The whole question of rating of premises of the nationalised industries—and that would include the Electricity Board and other nationalised industries, and other industries with extensive operational networks—is very complex, and we do not think it would be sensible to make any material changes, at least so far as transport is concerned, until conclusions have been reached about possible fundamental changes following the general view of the rating system that is likely to flow from the review of the local government system itself.
We believe that we must leave things as they are for the moment and get this aspect of transport costing right in a wider framework than just this particular Bill. Noble Lords may agree that since the railway negotiators at some time have struck a bargain with the central Government favourable to themselves, this would not be the moment to put an additional weight on their backs when we are trying to produce a situation where they can operate profitably and make a proper return on their existing, or their reduced, capital. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the assurance that as a result of the proposals in this Bill there will be no increase in the burden on the ordinary ratepayer. That remains as it was before. With this request to noble Lords to consider this point within the wider framework, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition.
Clause 152 agreed to.
Clauses 153 to 155 agreed to.
Clause 156 [Short title and commencement]:
3.12 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With permission, I will move Amendments 316A and 316B together. These are two substantive Amendments in a group of five (the others were to Clauses 112, 115 and 127) intended to modify and redraft the commencement provisions of the Bill. Their purpose was explained by me to your Lordships on Clause 112.

17
Briefly, it is to alter the identity of the Minister or Ministers who will make the commencement orders for some of the provisions of the Bill so as properly to reflect the Secretary of State's responsibilities. The amendments do not alter the principle that, with the solitary exception of Clause 92, the Bill's provisions are to come into effect on days appointed by Ministers by order. Nor do they alter the timing of the commencement of the Bill's provisions. Nor do they affect their application and administration.
If the amendments are accepted, Clause 156 will bring together all the commencement provisions of the Bill in one place. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 203, line 39, leave out from ("to") to ("the") in line 40 and insert ("subsection (3) of this section")
Page 203, line 42, at end insert—
("(3) The reference to the Minister in subsection (2) of this section shall be construed—

(a) in relation to—

(i) the provisions of Part II of this Act; and

(ii) any of the following provisions of this Act, namely, sections 34, 36, 37, 44, 56, 112 to 115, 117, 118 and 122 to 126; and

(iii) the bringing into force with respect to the Scottish Group of any provision of this Act which refers to that Group, as a reference to the Mnister and the Secretary of State acting jointly;

(b) in relation to section 127 of this Act and to any section of this Act which relates only to Scotland, as a reference to the Secretary of State.").—(Lord Winterbottom.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 156, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Supplementary or consequential provisions]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 316C:
Page 257, line 43, after ("Corporation") insert ("in relation to railways of theirs").
The noble Lord said: I am not certain whether this Amendment is necessary. I hope that it is not—and in view of the indication I am now getting from noble Lords opposite I gather that is so. Therefore I can state the point very briefly. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 16 gives the Freight Corporation power to make by-laws in relation to all railways of the
18
Freight Corporation. Presumably, these will be railways under the Corporation's control in connection with freightliner services. I had hoped that paragraph 4, which does not specifically limit the power to make by-laws to the railways, would by implication do so. In order to make the point clear, I am moving to insert the words "in relation to railways of theirs". I think that the point is quite clear. I am sure that it is not the intention that the Freight Corporation, which is in competition with private road hauliers, should have powers to make by-laws, fine people and all the rest of it in relation to road services. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is clairvoyant. He must have read my brief across the Table. He is quite correct. It would be highly undesirable to give the National Freight Corporation a by-lawmaking power which could not be applied by their commercial competitors. This is certainly not the intention of the Bill. It is a valid point which we accept. But the Amendment is unnecessary because its effect is already achieved. The power to be given to the N.F.C. to make by-laws is confined to "their railways"; that is to say, to the railway premises which they will be taking over—for example, the sundries depots—and nowhere else. We agree that this feature must be watched.
But the Amendment also has one negative and undesirable feature. It could, as it stands, have the untoward effect of giving the Railways Board and the London Board power to make by-laws affecting N.F.C. railway premises. But this is probably not intended; and it is certainly not intended by the Minister.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Application to Northern Ireland]:
LORD STONHAM: Amendment No. 317 is a drafting correction. There is no reason why the present Clause 49(5) should not apply to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 262, line 2, leave out ("49(5)").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment 318 and Amendment No. 319. These are both drafting corrections, following the transfer of functions of the Minister of Labour to the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity earlier this year. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 262, line 27, leave out ("Minister of Labour") and insert ("Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity")
Page 262, line 40, leave out ("Minister of Labour") and insert ("Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Repeals]:
3.18 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 319A:
Page 263, line 32, at end insert—
("In section 53(2) in paragraph (a) the word "and" and paragraph (b).
In section 53(4) the words "paragraph (b) of subsection (2), or"").
The noble Lord said: Amendment 319A looks insignificant, but its effect is of very great significance to the coastal shipping industry. The purpose of the Amendment is to continue in existence the safeguard against unfair under-cutting by the railways, a safeguard which has existed in one form or another for the past forty or fifty years. The justification for a safeguard rests, on the one hand, on the value of coastal shipping to the national economy, and, on the other, to its special vulnerability to competition by rail. Rail has a national network of routes compared with coastal shipping which, naturally, is limited to a relatively small number of routes between the existing ports. Obviously, it would be possible for rail to quote uneconomically low rates between the ports in order to undercut coastal shipping and win the traffic and, of course, carry the loss on the rest of its nation-wide system.
The 1962 Act, which at present governs the position, continued the safeguard which coastal shipping had enjoyed for
20
the previous forty years. The safeguard consists of a right of appeal to the Minister where the coastal shipping industry considers that rail competition amounts to unfair competition. In practice, this right has been very rarely invoked; its presence on the Statute Book has been a sufficient safeguard. But Section 53 of the 1962 Act, which contains the safeguard, includes a condition that the safeguard can be invoked only if the railways are in deficit. Although this Transport Bill now before us continues the provisions of Section 53 of the 1962 Act, by subsection (8) of Clause 41 it specifically terminates the making of deficit payments. Thus, as the Bill now stands—I heard a note of approval from the opposite Benches—the coastal shipping industry would be deprived by this technicality of its right of appeal to the Minister. The effect of my Amendment is to remove from Section 53 of the 1962 Act the condition requiring the railways to be in deficit before an appeal can be made, and thus to restore to the coastal shipping industry the safeguard that it has had in the past.
I referred to the ending of deficit financing as a technicality, because, in fact. British Railways continues to be dependent on public funds to a massive extent, as is provided in this Bill. Therefore, I suggest it would not be a good argument for the Government to advance that, since the railways are now not to be dependent on deficit financing, there is no case for this safeguard for the coastal shipping industry to continue. I suggest that the true perspective is that this Bill is providing very large sums of public money to put the railway finances in a healthy condition, and that for the railways then to use their strengthened position to undercut coastal shipping would clearly be against the interests of the national economy. I further suggest that, even if this safeguard had not existed in the past, it would be justified and necessary now.
The case does not rest alone on the need for a fair deal for the interests of coastal shipping, although, in my judgment, that would be a strong enough case; it rests squarely on the interests of the national economy. The Government White Paper, The Transport of Freight, recognises in paragraphs 70 and 71 the importance of coastal shipping in

21
the national economy. I should like to quote the last few words of paragraph 71:
"The Government recognises the contribution which coastal shipping can make to the national transport system and accepts the principle that competition between coastal shipping and the railways must be fair."
Fair enough. All that my Amendment would do would be to make sure that that intention was carried out.
I should like to say just one word about the value of coastal shipping to the national economy. It is set out in some detail in the White Paper. Coastal shipping carries a significant part of the total freight on the longer hauls; altogether some 16 per cent. of the total freight carried in this country on a ton-mile basis, compared with 22 per cent. carried by rail. Secondly, coastal shipping provides an invaluable alternative form of freight transport, especially for the long hauls, when rail transport is upset as it was recently during the work to rule. During that period, the coal freights carried for the C.E.G.B. were largely transferred to coastal shipping and were safely delivered to the generating stations; and, similarly, for the cement industry in the South of England. This is typical of the flexibility of the coastal shipping industry; that it is always available in an emergency.
Lastly, our coastal shipping industry carries a significant part of the cargoes between these Islands and the neighbouring ports in European countries, in direct competition, of course, with the European shipping lines. In this way it contrives to earn for us a quite significant amount of foreign exchange, amounting to something of the order of £5 million a year. So I suggest that this is the picture of a national transport industry in private hands not only working successfully in our domestic economy without the help of public funds, but also earning a useful contribution in export earnings. Incidentally, of course, out of its profits it is making its contribution to the refinancing of our railways. At the present time, when the Government are straining every nerve to get the national trading balance out of deficit and to begin to repay our massive overseas borrowings, to refuse to continue this modest safeguard for this admirable industry would really be the economics of suicide. I
22
feel, therefore, that the case is so strong that it will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, quoted from the White Paper The Transport of Freight, and he was quite correct when he said that it is Government policy that competition between coastal shipping and the railways must be fair. That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But when it is said that competition between two units of industry must be fair, it means that it must be fair to both sides. He put forward an excellent case for being fair to coastal shipping, but did not give any indication that his proposals would be unfair to the railways.
Under present arrangements, complaints by the shipping interests of undercharging by the Railways Board are investigated by a suitable person appointed by the Minister, and the Minister may, after considering the investigator's report, give directions to the Board about their charges which were the subject of the complaint. The noble Lord did not mention that the overcharging provision—that is, the one that operates when traffic is going by rail to a port—will remain in force if this Bill is passed in its present form. It is only the undercharging provision which will—in my view, quite properly—lapse with the deficit grant. Since the 1962 Act was passed, only two complaints have been made about undercharging by the railways. One was in 1964, and was about the transport of china clay between Cornwall and Kent. That was when Mr. Marples was Minister, and he directed the Board to increase their rates slightly so as to cover the full cost. The other was last year, when there was complaint about the transport of coal from Yorkshire to Plymouth, and the then Minister, Mrs. Barbara Castle, decided to make no direction. So I think the noble Lord was setting it rather high to suggest, as it seemed to me he did, that there has been a great deal of unfair competition.
I want to make the point that when, under existing arrangements, the demand is made that British Railways must charge the full cost, it is always taken to cover interest as well as direct and indirect costs. Through the undercharging

23
provision, the Railways Board have been obliged to cover the full costs, which includes the apportionment of indirect costs, overheads and interest, of every individual contract and consignment which they have been carrying in potential competition with coastal shipping. This restriction was perfectly justified when the Railways Board were able to cover undercharging out of deficit financing. But with this Bill they cannot do so, because the new financial discipline placed upon the Board will remove the possibility of deficit financing. This will ensure that the Board will not charge uneconomic rates, and will make it essential that the Board should be free from artificial constraint, just as the shipping interests are free from artificial constraint. This is what I mean by "being fair". When this Bill is passed, we shall have two industries which will not he able to rely on deficit financing: first, the shipping industry, and, secondly, the Railways Board; and in those respects they will be operating in competition. In this matter there are no constraints placed on the shipping industry, but the noble Lord is insisting that they should be placed on the Railways Board.
I have found an extraordinary dichotomy among noble Lords opposite when considering matters affecting the railways. The other evening we had the fascinating spectacle of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, coming down and taking part in a debate which took about three hours. That was on the vital question as to whether the Railways Museum should or should not be moved from Clapham to York. In any case, it would have cost the Railways Board money; and noble Lords opposite are absolutely passionate in their demands that any burdens involved should be placed on the Railways Board. But I have noticed that, while they are constantly urging the British Railways Board to act in accordance with normal commercial practice, they are just as constantly moving Amendments to prevent them from doing so. This is another of those Amendments. So when we are talking about being fair, let us be sure that we mean fair to both sides.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has pointed out, the Government intend to be fair; but we also believe that, with the new financial
24
situation, there will be no unfair competition with coastal shipping. There are, of course, no constraints on the shipowners, who may themselves on occasion (this is normal commercial practice) find it good business to accept traffic at less than full cost, just as road hauliers do—and there are no constraints on them. The Railways Board are not in a monopoly position. The noble Lord referred to the coastal shipping traffic. In terms of ton-mileage, 22 per cent. was carried by the railways in 1966 and 16 per cent. by coastal shipping. The railways are not in any way in a monopoly situation. I ask quite fairly: why should we place on the Board restraints which are not placed on their competitors? I would ask, too: how can noble Lords countenance, let alone advocate, such an injustice?
In opposing this Amendment I want to make it clear that the Government appreciate the importance of coastal shipping to the economic life of the nation, and understand the strong feelings of the shipping industry on this subject. The industry have indeed made strong representations to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Minister of Transport, and it has been agreed by Ministers that, although it is not possible to accept an Amendment to the Bill designed to continue the provisions of Section 53 in relation to under-charging, I can give a firm assurance on behalf of the Government that the Minister will not hesitate to intervene in the future if the Railways Board are clearly introducing completely uneconomic charges in order to damage coastal shipping unfairly.
From the end of this year the railways will be on a real commercial basis at last. The interest burden will be reduced to a realistic level by a revaluation of their assets. It is true they will receive grants for unremunerative passenger services which they are forced to retain on social grounds, but otherwise they will have the very difficult task of conducting their operations on a fully profitable, commercial basis; and on the Board's freight operations there will certainly be no scope at all for uneconomic charging.
In view of what I have said, I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that it would be wrong to continue with this constraint. The Railways Board and the coastal shipping industry have two things in common. They are both in a very

25
difficult competitive situation, and they are both of great importance to the nation. It is the Government's sincere view, after the most thorough consideration of all the arguments which have been put so eloquently on behalf of the shipping industry, that it would not in the long run be right to do anything which prevented these two industries from competing keenly and vigorously, and giving to the country as a whole the full benefit of the lower charges which will undoubtedly follow from modern methods of handling and operation. The paragraph of the White Paper immediately following on that which the noble Lord quoted says:
"Coastal shipping is included in the scope of the Committee of Inquiry which the Government has set up under the Chairmanship of Lord Rochdale to review the efficiency and competitiveness of the shipping industry, The Government will give close attention to any recommendations about coastal shipping the Committee may make".
I should like to make two further points backing what I have just said. First of all, I think the fears expressed on behalf of coastal shipping are exaggerated. The Railways Board will simply not be in a financial position to undertake any uneconomic practices in the field of freight. Moreover, they estimate that, at most, only a quarter of the traffic currently carried by coastal shipping could be regarded as potentially suitable for rail. It is highly unlikely that in fact the railways would be able to secure anything like this proportion—that is, 25 per cent. of the traffic. So much obviously depends on the customers; on their willingness to modify their facilities and equipment.
Secondly, if the Amendment now proposed were accepted it would inevitably result in some goods being carried at prices higher than would otherwise be the case, and I am sure no Member of your Lordships' Committee would wish this to happen. If this Amendment were accepted, and the Board were forced on every individual consignment of this kind to charge the full economic cost, including all the factors that I have mentioned, then they would be restricted, they would be unfairly handicapped, and noble Lords might well come back and say, "This is a publicly owned industry, and it is not doing as well as its competitor". The reason for that would then be, "It is because it is not allowed to do as
26
well as its competitor". I ask your Lordships to agree that the set-up must be absolutely fair—and that means fair to both sides; that they should be on equal terms. Once this Bill becomes law, the Railways Board will no longer be allowed to have deficit financing; and I hope that the Committee will accept that the Government's policy on this important and difficult subject is the right policy and a fair policy.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I am not going to delay the Committee, but I should just like the noble Lord the Minister to admit that, for the second time within a week, the Government have acknowledged that competition is better than nationalised, non-competitive industry.
3.38 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: Having an interest in shipping, I must declare an interest in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said that competition between the railways and coastal shipping must be fair. But surely if the railways, in order to make a contribution towards their overheads, are allowed to quote freights at rates which do not cover their full costs, this can scarcely be called fair. It seems quite ridiculous that they should be allowed to make contributions to their overheads and yet not cover the expediture which they are incurring.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the relative absence of complaints under Section 53 of the 1962 Act. There were only two. Surely this is every justification for preserving that protection. The fact that the sanction existed has ensured a reasonable balance of fair competition between rail and coastal shipping. To remove that safeguard must surely leave the railways in a position where, if they are going to do their job properly, they should try to destroy the coastal shipping industry, in order to secure for themselves the whole of that 16 per cent. of bulk freight, and, in destroying it, to destroy not only our coastal shipping but our short sea-route shipping. The essence of this Amendment is clear. It is that either we want a coastal shipping industry or we do not. I urge the Committee to adopt this Amendment and to support the coastal shipping industry which has saved us in times of war and of rail strike and which will save us

27
again. It is a major contributor to the balance of payments.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to suggest not only that coastal shipping has saved us in time of war and rail strife but that the converse also has been true.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It seems to me that there is a possibility of the railways seeking to get themselves into a monopoly position in certain areas. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, it would be quite possible for them to quote rates that the coastal shipping services could not meet by simply quoting rates which make no allowance for their overheads, or a very small contribution to overheads—certainly nothing at all for the margins which the coastal shipping would require in order to survive. If, by doing that, they were able simply to secure a monopoly position in a certain area, they would have contributed to what I imagine would be the purpose of this Bill, up to a point, which is to transfer freight to the railways; but they would be doing it at the expense of the coastal shipping industry and they would be doing it in a way which would achieve a monopoly position for themselves and which would enable them in future to quote higher rates. So it is not sufficient to say, as the noble Lord has said, that the effect of the Amendment would be that some goods would be carried at prices higher than otherwise. He should have added "for a time". After that, if the railways were in a monopoly position, that would come to an end.
There is another point which struck me about what the noble Lord said. He sought to reassure the Committee by saying that the Government appreciated the importance of coastal shipping services in the economic life of the nation and that the Minister would not hesitate to intervene if the railways quoted uneconomic rates. But how is the Minister going to intervene? Section 53 of the Transport Act gives the Minister power to intervene on the condition that a subsidy is being paid to the railways. Section 53(4) says:
"Provided that this subsection"—
that is, the one that gives the Minister Power to appoint an investigator—
28
"shall not apply to a complaint if it appears to the Minister that he has no power to give a direction upon the complaint by reason of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) …"
So he will not be able to appoint an investigator. He will not be in a position to intervene. The noble Lord has not explained this sufficiently. All that we ask is that the Minister should have the power to intervene and to investigate and, if necessary, to put the matter right. Nothing more is being asked. There is no question of discrimination or of more favourable treatment being asked for one side than for the other. All that is being asked is that the railways, which are in this unique position, because in some cases they may have a monopoly of the carriage to the port to which the goods are to be transferred by sea—
LORD STONHAM: Why should it be a monopoly?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I said that they "may have" a monopoly. This is one of the points which Section 53 envisages. The noble Lord says that this side of it will remain in operation. But once the Freight Corporation comes into effect, that monopoly may technically not exist, because the goods could be transported by the Freight Corporation which would have the option of transporting the goods either by rail or by road. Therefore that part also of Section 53 might not operate. The other side of it is the charges for the carriage of goods by rail made by the Railways Board in competition with coastal shipping. There it is a condition of the Minister's being able to entertain a complaint,
"that a grant out of money provided by Parliament has been or is likely to be made under this Act to the Railways Board to meet a deficit on revenue account for the year in which those charges are made".
Now that no overall grant is to be made, that falls; it is going to be impossible for the Minister to intervene.
I would add this. As a matter of equity, the amount of railway capital that is being written off in this Bill must be taken into account. That is, after all, the counterpart of an annual subsidy. I do not know how one can calculate it: but £705 million of suspended debt is being written off. Admittedly, no payment is being made at the present time, but if the railways become more prosperous then, but for this Bill, those payments would become due again. Then

29
one must add the £75 million that is being written off in this Bill. If you take the two together and calculate it at 5 per cent., you get something like £40 million of annual subsidy. This is a matter which ought to be considered. A very large sum is being written off with one stroke of the pen, with the obligation to pay the interest on it being written off at the same time from year to year. The railways, to that extent, are being put into a better position than they are now to compete with coastal shipping.
Let us suppose that they were to use that, as they could, in a discriminating manner to quote lower rates to secure a monopoly on certain services. The noble Lord said they could do that on only a quarter of the coastal shipping traffic; but the loss of a quarter of the traffic carried by coastal shipping would be severe. If they were to do that, then, surely, in those circumstances it would be reasonable for the Minister to intervene. The noble Lord said that he will intervene. We ask: How can he intervene effectively and why should not the present provisions of Section 53 of the 1962 Act remain?
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just proved what I have suspected all the time: that he has a very weak case and that therefore he has to dredge up from the depths of the early 1950's the question of railway losses and the interest they ought now to be paying. The noble Lord is shaking his head; but if I wanted to delve back to that, I could point to acts of the Party opposite when in power which contributed directly and immediately to building up the railway losses—for example, hiving off the profitable parts of the industry—which were done by Acts of Parliament by noble Lords opposite. It does not lie in the noble Lord's mouth now to say that we ought to charge the railways all over again because of the follies of the Party opposite.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, had spoken for a little longer, because I should have liked to learn whether he had any evidence of the past which would point to the likelihood in future of the railways acting in the manner he fears. When I said there were only two examples, he agreed with me, but said, "Ah yes, but think in how many cases the Railways Board might have undercharged
30
if they had not had these restrictions. "If that were so—and now we are talking about the position which has been operating in the past—you would expect the shipping services of British Railways to be showing a loss; certainly not to he showing a profit. But nothing could be further from the truth. The trading results of the shipping services of British Rail, which are published separately in the Annual Report and which noble Lords can see for themselves, show that they operate on a profitable basis. There is no question here of cross-subsidisation or of British Rail embarking on any shipping activities at uneconomic rates. Indeed, the general manager of the Shipping and International Services Division of British Rail has made clear that the rates which are being charged, in particular for the new container services, are in no sense uneconomic; they are extremely keen rates.
LORD GEDDES: May I interrupt the noble Lord a moment to qualify a point? The noble Lord is talking of the shipping services of British Rail; we have been discussing coastal shipping. I think the accounts of the Coastal Shipping Service relate almost entirely to their cross-Channel services and very largely to their passenger services. We are discussing the coastwise movement of freight in Great Britain.
LORD STONHAM: I am talking about the accounts of British Rail, and of course I know that we are comparing the coastal shipping traffic of British Rail with coastal shipping services which are not owned by British Rail; that is the comparison we are making and I am perfectly well aware of it. In British Rail shipping services the coastal traffic is included. That is why I said there is no suggestion of cross-subsidisation. The noble Lord is aware that new container services are included in the British Rail shipping services. Therefore it is perfectly fair for me to say that these are British Railway shipping services. They are making a profit; they are being run economically and on proper lines. Therefore, what grounds are there for suggesting that they are not likely to cover their proper costs, since they have already been doing so and are doing so, and because they have this compelling need to make their services pay? The noble Lord also

31
said—I took his words down—that either we want a shipping industry or we do not. We very much want a shipping industry, and Government policy has constantly been directed to that end. Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt me?
LORD GEDDES: If I did not say "coastal shipping industry" it was a slip of the tongue. We were discussing coastal shipping and I thought that I said coastal shipping industry, not shipping industry.
LORD ST. OSWALD: You did.
LORD STONHAM: It is a distinction without a difference. We have been talking about coastal shipping all the time—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD STONHAM: All right; I will amend it. If the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, did not say it I will say it for him now. Either we want a coastal shipping industry or we do not, and we very much do want a coastal shipping industry.
To come back again to the point which I made. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that we wanted to be fair. I want to be fair. I have been in private industry all my life. I have been in industry for forty years and always I have wanted it to be fair. But always, when I get any kind of insight into complaints by private enterprise industry about something done or about allegedly low prices quoted by something to do with public industry or some Government Department, I find that industry itself is sinning very much in this way. I put it to the noble Lord Lord Geddes, as a commercial proposition. There are in respect of all industries many times when on some contracts you quite deliberately do not recover the full costs according to the definition I gave. Sometimes that is quite sound business because it may help with overheads in other ways. This is what privately-owned coastal shipping can do now. All we are saying is that British Railways, which no longer will be able to rely on the Government to finance any deficit and will have to make a profit, should have the same commercial freedom as coastal shipping.
32
Your Lordships will know that, under the Home Secretary, I am responsible for prison industries. There we get just this kind of thing. I will not have a prison industry contract or accept one unless it is at a fair market price. But over and over again we get accused of selling at under the price. Quite recently I received a trade union deputation from one of the largest trade unions in the country which was led by a very famous trade union personage. They complained about a particular contract which the Prison Department had been awarded because it was under-price and an uneconomic price had been quoted. The complaint came from a particular firm, and after I had been talking with the delegation for two minutes I said, "The Prison Department did not get the contract. Our price was too high; we were undercut by the same private enterprise firm that registered the complaint." The interview was very brief and it ended with the great trade union official promising full support and understanding. I could duplicate that again and again. This is the kind of example we find is put forward.
All I am saying to the Committee is this. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as he was perfectly entitled to suggest, said there was a possibility of the railways trying to get themselves into a monopoly position in certain areas by quoting unfair or grossly unfair rates and that later on they might be able to quote higher rates. It is a possibly conceivable hypothesis, if nobody did anything about it and if everything was equal. It is because British Railways, as is part of their job, have made an estimate of the likely total volume of potential traffic which might be available to them (that is, the 25 per cent. of the coastal shipping traffic I mentioned) that they think that they would not get a lot of it. I cannot therefore see that there would be any areas where they would get themselves into a monopoly position.
Suppose they did. Here I take up what I said about the Minister intervening. The noble Lord is quite right: there is no specific subsection relating to this matter in the Bill, under which the Minister could exercise statutory powers and say, "You cannot do this." But I gave the assurance, and it was a studied and proper assurance, that if this should

33
occur (it is a very important matter because coastal shipping is important; we could not have this sort of thing happening) and if he had any real evidence, which would stand up—not of the kind I mentioned in the example I gave—showing that this sort of thing was happening, and it had the effect of creating the unfair competition which is feared, while the Minister could not call on a particular statutory provision he will, as the noble Lord is aware, have very great influence with the Board in many ways and he would exercise it to see that unfair competition was stopped.
There is perhaps an ideological conflict between us on some matters, but there should be no ideological conflict here. I know that noble Lords opposite can outvote the Government if they make up their minds to do so, but the case is not proved on justice. All we are asking for here is that when this Bill is passed the British Railways Board should no longer be placed in an unfair position with regard to this kind of competition but that it should be fair to both sides, coastal shipping and the railways, and that they should go forward in competition together.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for exerting himself to answer the debate in the way that he has; and I must congratulate him on the ingenuity of his arguments, trying to put us in a position where it looks as if we are putting constraints on British Railways, a nationalised industry, which we should not accept for a private industry. However, I do not think the charge sticks. This is, of course, a matter of balance. Whereever we sit in the Committee, we well know this. We on this side of the Committee support British Railways, and have supported the measures which the noble Lord wishes to put on the Statute Book to put their finances in a healthy position, because we know that it is in the national interest that they should succeed.
We feel, however, that there is some continuing obligation on the railways to recognise the position of coastal shipping, because of the massive public finance which the railways are receiving, and because of the peculiar position of coastal shipping. Here I would say that the 25 per cent. which the noble Lord says is all that is at risk could, I imagine,
34
be absolutely crippling if it were lost to coastal shipping. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance to coastal shipping. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of what has been done to refinance the railways. In the 1962 Act (the noble Lord was hardly being fair to us) the position was that we wrote off £400 million of capital debt: we wrote off an additional £300 million for deficit financing; that is, a total of £700 million. In addition, we suspended another £700 million. So that our record for setting out to help to put the railways in a healthy position is not a bad one.
Now this Bill removes the suspended £700 million completely, plus another £500 million-odd; in other words, £1,300 million is taken off the railways' back by this Bill making altogether getting on for £2,000 million of public money. There must be some obligation on an industry receiving this amount of public funds to see that its trading arrangements are not damaging to some other industry which is in competition with it. I should have thought that any fair man would say that there should be some form of appeal. After all, what we are asking for is not something that will be a serious restriction. It is only a right of appeal to the Minister at the end of the day; and the Minister will not agree to that appeal unless he thinks there is a sound case.
When the noble Lord says that the Minister is willing to act if coastal shipping is in a dangerous position, I should have thought that the right thing to do was to put it in the Bill. The noble Lord has had to admit that the Minister has no statutory power to act. All he can do is to exert his influence, and if the Chairman of British Railways told him to "Go to Hell!", there would be nothing that the Minister could do about it. And it is not a bad thing sometimes for chairmen of nationalised industries to tell Ministers to "Go to hell!", and to say to them: "If you want to interfere with my business, put an Order on me, and let everybody see it. But I am going to run my business in the way that I think is best for the business".
What the noble Lord is saying is that the Minister of Transport should twist the arm of the Chairman of British Railways and tell him to refrain from some action that he wants to take. This, in

35
my opinion, is not the right way to run a nationalised industry. However, the noble Lord is there, and it is for him to decide. The record will show whether or not it is the right way. But all that is by the way. The point is that we feel quite strongly that this should be in the Bill. There always has been some arrangement of this kind. It is, in our
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.14 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 320:
opinion, the right balance, and therefore I am afraid we must press our Amendment and ask noble Lords to accept that it he put in the Bill.
4.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 319A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Denham, L.

Monsell, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Airedale, L.

Dudley, L.

Northesk, E.

Albemarle, E.

Effingham, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Amulree, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Gage, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Atholl, D.

Geddes, L.

Rea, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sackville, L.

Audley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Barrington, V.

Gridley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Belstead, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Blackford, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Salisbury, M.

Bledisloe, V.

Howe, E.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ilford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Buckton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Jessel, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Clitheroe, L.

Lambert, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Colgrain, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Swinton, E.

Conesford, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Teviot, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Crathorne, L.

Meston, L.

Wade, L.

Mills, V.

Wolverton, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hunt, L.

Royle, L.

Archibald, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L.[Teller.]

Kirkwood, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brown, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strang, L.

Faringdon, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gardiner, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Walston, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Williamson, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Page 265, line 1, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 5.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 320. The effect of this part of Schedule 18 is to give local authorities power to impose speed limits on all

37
roads in their areas other than trunk roads. At present the law under the 1967 Act requires a local authority proposing a speed limit to obtain the consent of the Minister, and also to consult the chief of police. These existing safeguards have always been considered desirable in the interests of uniformity and of practical enforceability. In all localities there is always a good deal of local pressure for more and tighter speed limits—and I certainly remember that that was so during my days in the Ministry of Transport. Local authorities may well find it difficult to resist these pressures without the police and the Minister behind them.
If we are to avoid the development of a network of new and differing speed limits, most of them unenforceable, some safeguard is needed here. If this happened, it would be confusing to drivers, and, in my judgment, more likely to increase the dangers of the road than to reduce them. My Amendment would leave the existing safeguards of ministerial approval and consultation with the police. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: I fully appreciate that motoring organisations are afraid that local authorities will not be able to resist considerable local pressures for low-level speed limits. I do not share those fears, but even if they were justified I should not have thought it was any reason for this Amendment. After all, people in the localities, in the villages—and here we are talking particularly, not about principal roads, but about secondary roads—are the ones who are most concerned about the dangers of too much speed. They are the ones who are likely to be killed or injured on the roads, and I think that in such circumstances local authorities ought to be in a position to take action in this connection, and also—because not only speed limits are concerned—in other traffic and engineering matters without the over-long delays which often arise under the present system. However, I rather think that the noble Lord did not give enough emphasis to the fact that what he is proposing is to retain these procedural provisions in duplicate. After all, Sections 73 and 74 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 are already in effect in the proposed new Sections 84A to 84D which are set out in Schedule 14 to the Bill.
38
So far as provisions for ministerial consent are concerned, we are proposing that local authorities must still obtain ministerial consent to orders connected with speed restrictions on principal roads, and they must also still obtain the Minister's consent when they wish to impose speed limits of less than 30 miles an hour. It is proposed that ministerial control over speed limits should be relinquished only on roads for which local authorities are responsible. That seems to me eminently sound it every way.
There are three main reasons for giving up this degree of ministerial control. First, it fits in with the general Government policy of giving more responsibility to local authorities—that is what noble Lords opposite were asking for or Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and I do not know why we should suddenly get a different set of circumstances to-day—I suppose that it does not fit the particular shoe; or perhaps the shoe pinches on a different toe on a different day of the week. Secondly, the present arrangements result in what we regard as cumbersome centralisation and administrative delay in approving speed limits. It has often been condemned here—indeed, I have condemned it myself—and these delays could be reduced if part of the work were taken over by local government.
The third reason for relinquishing ministerial control in part is that it is difficult to pretend that speed limits differ very greatly from other measures of traffic regulation, which are often quite as contentious.
But we have still retained a number of important safeguards and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, would consider them. First, we are restricting the proposal to non-principal roads. Limits on all main roads will still need the Minister's consent.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Would the noble Lord make clear if he means trunk roads when he says "all main roads"?
LORD STONHAM: All principal roads; apart, of course, from the limits of less than 30 miles an hour, where the Minister's consent will still be required. Public notice must still be given. That

39
will be specified in Procedure Regulations. The police must be consulted—that is another safeguard. The Minister retains default powers which he could use in the case of any councils who may take an unreasonable line on speed limits, either by setting them too high or too low. Again, the Minister's powers will be relinquished only in respect of those local authorities who at present make speed limit orders. These are the larger authorities, for example the Greater London Council, county councils, county and London borough councils and other councils with a population of 20,000 or over. Even within the present structure of local government, such councils should be able to withstand any local pressure for unduly low limits and the Government are sure that they will exercise their new powers responsibly. We expect, as a result of proposals still to come forward, that the tendency will be to yet larger local authorities, which will be even better able to withstand pressures of that kind.
I feel we are right here and that this is a sensible division of responsibility between the Minister and local authorities, but it is a new departure and I assure the noble Lord that we intend to keep the operation of these new arrangements under very close scrutiny and the Minister will use his default powers if the need arises.
I might also point out to the noble Lord, although he is probably aware of it, that the new Clause 84B provides the Minister with full power to vary the categories of order for which his consent will be required. This could be used if it is found in practice that local authorities generally are introducing unrealistic speed limits. The Minister will be able, by order under subsection (3) of Clause 84B to reimpose the requirement for his consent to new speed limits, either generally or on classes of roads other than principal roads.
I hope with these safeguards the noble Lord will feel that this system should be given a fair and extended trial.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: This is a mild form of devolution that is being proposed by the Government, hedged around with all sorts of safeguards and powers for it to be repealed without coming back to Parliament. It is
40
a very tender plant. It is rare for the Government to produce plans for devolution, and I hope the Conservative Front Bench will not smother this small one which might lead to bigger things in the future.
LORD SOMERS: I sincerely hope the noble Lord will change his mind and, if possible, change the mind of his right honourable friend, because I feel this is a question which has caused a great deal of danger on the roads for some time.
When this question was discussed, a good many years ago now, I pointed out the absurdity of the possibility of having a railway which had a different system of signalling for each county through which it passed. The same applies to the roads: we must have uniformity. As to the matter of speed limits—and I may say I am not at all against speed limits—I agree that they are entirely necessary and we must, by some means or other, see to it that they are more strictly observed. But the question as to whether or not one should have a speed limit on a certain stretch of road is one for the experts to consider.
We must get away from this entirely amateur view of road regulations which one is likely to get from local government, with due respect to them, because they are not expert motoring authorities. It is no use just saying that because one has had an accident at a certain spot the cure for it is to impose a speed limit. The cause may not be speed at all: it may be the construction of the road, it may be the meeting of two streams of traffic. It is not necessarily speed and only the expert motoring authority can say whether it is or not, and what the speed limit should be. Therefore I feel it is essential that we should have uniformity of traffic regulations throughout the country.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Is he aware, first, that this change affects only the lesser roads and that the principal roads will still be under the jurisdiction of the Minister so far as consent is concerned, so that any overall comments which the noble Lord has made in that regard do not arise.
Secondly, on the lesser roads with which the local authorities would be concerned, surely injury or death at particular spots on the road or at particular

41
junctions are matters in regard to which the local authority should take notice of the views of local residents? Although speed is not the only thing which causes accidents it is a factor in a great many of them.
LORD SOMERS: One may be a resident in a place all one's life and still not know anything about the fundamental causes of road accidents. When the noble Lord says "principal roads" is he referring to all A class and B class roads and that the local authorities will only be responsible for the unclassified roads?
LORD LEATHERLAND: I hope my noble friend will not allow himself to be wooed by the seductive appeals of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who pleads for uniformity. What does that mean? It means 70 miles an hour everywhere, and surely we do not want that?
LORD SOMERS: I cannot let that pass. I did not mean anything of the sort. I meant uniformity of choice, and of regulation as regards speed limits.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord wants uniformity, the Minister's consent will be required for all trunk roads and also for the very important principal roads. The trunk plus principal road network is a very large one, roughly equivalent to the old A class roads, to which the noble Lord referred. There will be uniform standards on all those. It is the lesser roads below that level about which we are now talking. The roads where there will be uniformity will be roads of the greatest interest to "through" motorists. The noble Lord must make that distinction.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not like this word "uniformity". It sounds too much like what the Russians call "democratic centralism" where you get all your instructions from above. We have the Conservative Peers telling us once again, years after it was originally said, that "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best". Some of us who are involved in local government know that is not always true. Over the last three months I have been involved in an effort to get a 30 mile art hour speed limit imposed for a mile or so on a fairly important road—not a trunk road—in order that we might protect the children who have to cross that
42
road on their way to school, and we think we know far more about it than any Minister who may be sitting comfortably in Whitehall.
I am very glad indeed that the Minister is suggesting that local authorities should have more discretion than they have at the moment. I have been involved in many such incidents as the one I have just described. We found that there has been unanimity in the neighbourhood about the dangerous nature of some particular spot, either because of a cross-road or a school or a hospital or something like that, and we have put our unanimous view forward to the Ministry; the try has sent down an inspector from foreign parts who knows nothing about the neighbourhood or the amount of traffic or the number of pedestrians, and he has just turned us down out of hand. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will get the support of the Committee on this occasion.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: This relatively small point has developed into quite a debate. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having taken such care in answering the points. I thought he was on rather shaky ground in teasing us for keeping ministerial control over local government here, when he was advocating the reverse process. He reminded us that on previous occasions we had asked for greater freedom for local government. It may be that we have changed our position on this, but so has he. But if he is willing to trade the freedom of the Passenger Transport Authorities against the freedom of the local authorities here, I will be very happy to do a deal and gladly give him this one; but I rather suspect that he will still wish to keep control over the P.T.A.'s by the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Somers is absolutely right; the setting of speed limits is an expert job, and while my noble friends and I certainly want to see local authorities playing a greater part in developing traffic engineering control over the roads of their counties, we also want to make sure that speed limits are fixed by experts. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said passionately that the local people know best. How often I have said that myself—and we all say that. But let me remind the noble Lord of the history of pedestrian crossings,

43
Pedestrian crossings, which seemed an admirable safeguard for pedestrians crossing the road in villages and towns, proliferated to such a dramatic extent about 15 to 20 years ago that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has a very good memory, will no doubt recollect that finally they were simply not being observed anywhere, there were so many of them. The result was that far from being an added safety they had positively become a danger, and the Government of the day—this was the noble Lord's Government—had to take drastic action and reduce them by two-thirds to one-third of their previous number. That was the position when we started off the 'fifties and that is what we have stuck to.
With all these safety arrangements you must be extremely cautious and economical, because if you proliferate them all over the place they are not observed and rapidly become unenforceable. Although the danger is not as serious as with pedestrian crossings, speed limits also could rapidly become unenforceable. In the last twenty years local authorities have learned a good deal more about road traffic arrangements and road engineering. I hope the noble Lord's confidence is justified and that local authorities could take a bigger hand. When the noble Lord tells us these are only the lesser roads this is not quite true. The trunk roads are the exceptions. The lesser roads are the A and B class roads, and those are the great majority of our roads over which the local authorities will have control. Therefore it matters very much indeed that speed limits should be realistically and scientifically fixed. I want to see this done by the local authorities; I think they should come into this. But I want to see the safeguards used where necessary to make sure that we get the right result. Certainly this is not something to divide the Committee about. We want to see this work.
I am not absolutely sure that the noble Lord was right on one safeguard he mentioned when he said that public notice would still have to be given. It appeared to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and me that the public notice procedure now goes. However, I think there are enough safeguards there, especially in the Minister's ultimate power on
44
default, to make the experiment justifiable, but I would again remind the noble Lord of the unhappy history of the pedestrian crossing. We do not want that experience again. I hope that wise advice will be given and that the local authorities will be helped all they can be to make a success of this.
LORD STONHAM: The public notice procedure will continue and will be dealt with under Procedure Regulations.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord; we had not discovered that when we looked at the 1967 Act. I think noble Lords on all sides will be very glad to hear that the public notice procedure continues; I think it should. I think the safeguards are sufficient, although it is a little experimental. If the noble Lord will take note of our anxieties, we wish the experiment the best of luck, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 265, line 10, at end insert ("and the words from "(except" to "39(3)).""
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 321, and do so formally because it was discussed on July 23 with Amendment No. 302. I only rise, since this is the last Amendment and I think we have come through nearly 70 hours of continuous discussion in Committee on this Bill, to thank noble Lords in all parts of the Committee for their cooperation and kindness while we have been discussing this very large and important Bill. I think we have done a useful job on it together. We have been left with some disagreements which I trust we shall endeavour to resolve when we resume on October 7. There may be one or two points left, but I have no doubt that at the end of the day we shall come through and pass the Bill.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I reciprocate Lord Stonham's remarks? And may I also congratulate him on his very able handling of this large and complex Bill which he suddenly found landed on his plate about halfway through, in addition to a number of other Bills. We thank him for his patience in dealing with the points we have made. I would say that from this

45
side we have done our best to improve a large and difficult Bill, and we hope we have made a useful contribution.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
4.40 p.m.
LORD KENNETMy Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 [Publicity in connection with preparation of structure plan]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("will in their opinion") and insert ("may be appropriate to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 4 is linked with this. It might perhaps be a saving of time if the Government were willing that the four Government Amendments, Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6, were discussed at the same time, because I fancy that one of the purposes underlying them may be to meet the point raised by my Amendment. I brought up the same point in Committee.
What I pointed out was that subsection (1) of Clause 3 requires a local planning authority to take such steps as "will in their opinion" secure certain results. Subsection (4) deals with what happens if the Minister is satisfied that the authority have adequately complied with subsection (1). It seemed to me that so long as all the local authority had to do was to take such steps as would in their opinion secure certain results it would be really impossible for them to fail under the test in subsection (4). That is the purpose of my Amendment. I suspect that the Government accept my idea but have in mind a better way of doing it. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his sug-
46
gestion that we take his two Amendments with the four Government Amendments to the same passage My right honourable friend is advised that even with this new wording there would still be the possibility of challenge in the courts on the adequacy of what has been done. It is clearly undesirable that a structure plan, or indeed a local plan, should be at risk of invalidation at the bitter end, following challenge in the courts on the ground that the publicity given to items proposed in the plan was not adequate. If there are inadequacies in the publicity they should be corrected at a far earlier stage, and certainly before the formal public inquiry is held.
It is in order to achieve the purpose which I think I share with the noble Lord, without admitting the risk of invalidation following challenge in the courts at the end of the day, that the Government prefer the wording in their Amendments, Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Under these Amendments the initial judgment as to what steps are necessary remains with the authority, but the Minister will have the power to consider what has been achieved and to act upon his judgment. The Minister's consideration is now directed straight at the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the subsections, and it is from his satisfaction, or otherwise, with the results of the steps taken, rather than on a consideration of the steps themselves, that his powers to require further action will flow. If the noble Lord agrees with me that the result will be achieved by the Government's Amendments without seeing it open to risk of invalidation in the courts, and if he is prepared to withdraw his Amendment, I will move my four Amendments.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for having given consideration to the point which I raised. I think that their Amendments satisfactorily meet the point, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("the") to ("he") in line 1 on page 5 and insert ('purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection

47
(1) above had been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority in compliance with that subsection").—(Lord Kennel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("comply with that subsection") and insert ("achieve those purposes").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and the following Amendment together.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 31, leave out from ("the") to ("he") in line 32 and insert ("purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) above had been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority in compliance with that subsection").
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("comply with that subsection") and insert ("achieve those purposes").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Alteration to local plans]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 16, leave out ("repeal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. Subsection (l) of Clause 10 says:
"A local planning authority may at any time make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan adopted by them …"
In the course of the Committee stage I asked the Government what the necessity was for this word "repeal". The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in reply (OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/6/68, col. 637):
"if the noble Lord agrees, I will think about it and consult, and we can revert to it at a later stage".
I have tabled this and the three following consequential Amendments in order that we may have the benefit of the noble Lord's thoughts. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, my thoughts centre, for example, on action areas. Some local plans for action areas will be concerned with specific development operations which will be relatively quickly completed. They will deal with
48
lay-out and with general principles of design. In those cases it seems likely that it will be better to repeal that local plan when the development has been completed rather than to maintain it as part of the corpus of the development plan as a whole, for that could be misleading in creating an impression of development still remaining to be carried out. I think I need say no more. The idea of the repeal power is simply that when the development has been completed, the plan should go out of existence, so that nobody shall be misled by finding still in force a plan to do something when that something has in fact already been done.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having put on the record the case, or at any rate a substantial part of the case, for retaining the word "repeal". In the light of what he has said, I would no longer challenge the word and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Supplementary provisions as to structure and local plans]:
4.48 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 30, after ("persons") insert ("(including river authorities)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to require a local planning authority to consult with river authorities when making structure or local plans, and to ensure that regulations which the Minister was making under Clause 13 would say so. I think that river authorities have such an important part to play for local planning authorities that mention in the Bill is perhaps justified. I realise that a local planning authority has to consult many authorities when making a structure or a local plan, such as electricity, gas, transport, water undertakings, and I consider that river authorities in degree have an even greater importance than any of those.
First of all, river authorities are responsible now for the overall water supply. The water undertaking of the future is responsible for its extra water supplies coming from the river authority. The

49
river authority has to work out conservation schemes to provide for the future. Secondly, the river authority is responsible for land drainage, which means that the river authority has specific advice to give against building in the flood plain, where the buildings may suffer from floods during high rainfall periods in the winter. Thirdly, the river authority is responsible for taking the effluent from sewage works for which the local planning authority would be responsible.
Both in regard to the first and the third of these matters there is a physical limitation. You cannot enlarge the river. There it is. This, of course, applies more and more with regard to effluent disposal. Naturally, as more water is used by everybody in their homes and by all industries in the factories, there is more effluent to be disposed of as well. The effluent from different manufacturing processes becomes more and more difficult effluent to dispose of every year, and the old standards of at least eight to one dilution of river water to effluent is becoming more and more difficult to get. If you cannot get that eight to one dilution, then you must have a higher purity of effluent. This, of course, entails big expenditure, especially if the effluent is a big one and has to be purified pretty well to river water quality. So, again, we have a factor here of really overriding importance. It is essential for the local planning authority to know at the earliest possible time just what the capacity of the local river is which will take the effluent from the development proposed. I realise it is a matter of degree, but I would think the degree of importance of the river authority is such that it would be justified to be mentioned in these regulations. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, these are the persons that the planning authority would be bound to consult by the terms of the Bill itself, and if we add "including river authorities" after "persons" I fear there would be no grounds for omitting to add a great many other public bodies. If river authorities were to appear in the clause, district councils would have to appear, Government Departments would have to appear, the Forestry Commission, and the National Parks Commission would have to appear. Certainly the Regional Planning Council would have to appear. If I advise the House against
50
writing in "river authorities" it is solely because of an objection to writing in any of these bodies, and not because of any objection to the river authorities as such.
Of course, my right honourable friend recognises the importance of proper consultation, and, indeed, of continuous liaison and discussion between river authorities and local planning authorities. The river authorities' functions are certainly among those which it would be extreme folly in a planning authority to neglect to consult upon, when drawing up structure plans or local plans, or when fulfilling their general overall planning functions. This policy of my right honourable friend's is something he will not omit to bring out and ram home when he launches the new development plan code as a whole, after the Bill is through.
To turn to the regulations themselves (because we are dealing with the clause governing the regulations he is to make), my right honourable friend will consult with the Association of River Authorities, at the same time as with other relevant associations, on what should go into the regulations. I hope that with this assurance, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to write into the clause the river authorities, alone of all these public bodies.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his assurance, so far as it goes. I accept that it could hardly be reasonable to put "river authorities" in here. I should rather like to see them in the regulations, I am bound to say. I realise that he has offered me some concession in saying that the Minister will consult with the National Association of River Authorities in drawing up the regulations, but would the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, be good enough to go so far as to say that the river authorities would appear in the regulations as one of the bodies which should be consulted by the planning authority?
LORD KENNET: I think that is something which should be discussed between the Minister and the Association at the time the regulations are being drafted.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I realise the noble Lord can go no further to-day, and I hope the Minister will read those wise words, and that they will carry some weight when the argument

51
comes to take place! I thank him for going so far as he has, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.55 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
("() require a local planning authority, in such cases as may be prescribed or in such particular cases as the Minister may direct, to provide persons making a request in that behalf with copies of any plan or document which has been made public for the purpose mentioned in section 3(1)(a) or 7(1)(a) of this Act or has been made available for inspection under section 3(2) or 7(2) of this Act, subject (if the regulations so provide) to the payment of a reasonable charge therefor.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet—and I hope it does—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on Committee stage about the selling or making available of plans, so that people do not have to wait in the offices of local authorities, taking notes in longhand, or making copies which they can consider at leisure, but will be able to take home copies of the actual documents. It provides that the Minister shall be able to make regulations requiring a planning authority to sell on request any copies of any plans or documents which have been made public for the purposes of Clause 3(1) or Clause 7(1) or which have been deposited for formal inspection under Clause 3(2) or Clause 7(2). There has to be that distinction, otherwise one runs the risk of compelling local authorities to offer for sale copies of every rough sketch or draft plan which they are discussing internally before it reaches the stage of public consultation at all, and, clearly, that would be quite undesirable. The Minister will also be able to give a direction to a particular local authority which seems to be falling down on the required standard, as regards co-operation with the public on this matter, to make available for sale copies of the plans or documents specified. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this Amendment gives me the opportunity to express appreciation to the Government for the trouble they have obviously taken to consider a number of points which were raised by the Opposition in Committee. I cannot say that we
52
have been met in every case, but this is certainly a case where we have been met. This Amendment carries out just what I hoped to secure by another, much shorter —although I am sure less apt—Amendment which I moved in Committee. I am very happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 12, line 37, at end insert—
("() require a local planning authority to maintain and make available for inspection an up-to-date register of all development plans, structure plans and action plans in preparation or in force for their area or any part thereof.")
The noble LORD said: I will try my luck on this Amendment. It is intended specifically to empower the Minister to make regulations requiring the local planing authority to maintain and make available for inspection an up-to-date register of development plans, structure plans and action plans, in preparation or in force for their area, or any part thereof. In the course of proceedings in the Committee I said (col. 639 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for June 18):
"It will be of great convenience to all concerned if it is possible somehow, somewhere, to find out with certainty what plans are in existence, what is their authority, status, state of progress, and so forth, and what other plans are in preparation though they have not yet seen the light … Will the Minister, among the many regulations he has power to make, include a regulation that will require the planning authority to publish and keep up to date a list of that sort?"
The noble LORD, LORD Kennet, was good enough to say, in reply, that he would like to have time to consider that point, and that perhaps we could return to it at the next stage. We are now returning to it, and I hope that the Government's reply will be friendly and sympathetic. Whether this is done by regulations, or otherwise, I do not greatly mind. I am extremely anxious that it should be provided that professional people—and others—who want to find out what is happening about the many and varied kinds of plans that there may be for a certain area, shall be able to get that information easily, and authoritatively. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My right honourable friend thinks that local planning authorities should be obliged to maintain a register. He will be consulting with them at

53
the stage when he is preparing regulations about how best this can be achieved. The question is, what should be on the register? There I think LORD Brooke's Amendment goes a little far in including plans in preparation.
There are three stages here. First of all, there is the first gleam of light in the planning officer's eye. He has to be allowed to write it down, but one does not want his writings or drawings at that stage to appear on any register, because they are not yet public, and there is no reason why they should be. Secondly, there is the stage of public consultation. I submit that at this stage the plan or draft, or whatever it is, need not appear on the register because it will be very fully publicised. It will be on display in another room in the town hall or county hall, and moreover it will be a little difficult to know how to describe it on the register. It has to be given some sort of formal status or index number or identification mark, which would detract from the need for informality and flexibility at the public consultation stage; and the Government are against having those things which are under public consultation appearing on the register. In the Government view, a plan should reach the register at the time when it achieves some statutory status, when it has finished being prepared and it becomes approved or adopted, or submitted to the Minister for his approval. To that extent, the register can be achieved without amending the Bill. The regulation-making power, I am advised, is quite wide enough to do that.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has. I confess that when drafting this Amendment I suspected that in the words "in preparation or" I was going a little further than would be acceptable. I hope that between now and the time when action is taken careful thought can be given to this matter in consultation with the local authority associations and, I hope, with bodies like the Chartered Land Societies. It does not seem to me quite enough simply to have a register of the plans which have been submitted to the Minister or are in force.
If the register is confined to them there will be no mention of the fact that an important plan which has not yet reached
54
either of those stages is on view, available for public inspection in another room in the town hall, and someone who did not fully know his way about this subject might be misled into thinking that the register contained, as it were, an index to all the information that was available. In fact, it would not, because certain other information which might be of great importance to the inquirer was available for inspection in another room but was not mentioned in the register which he had asked to inspect. However, I am quite prepared to leave this point so that it can be further discussed with the professional organisations and the local authority associations, because I think we all want to achieve the same kind of result, and I accept that the words "in preparation" in my Amendment are ambiguous and go somewhat too far. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [New provision as to enforcement notices]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("20th December") and insert ("the end of").
The noble Baroness said: It might be for the convenience of the House if we considered Amendments 14 and 20 together, as these are the first of a series substituting references to the beg inning or end of the year for references to the 21st or the 20th December. At this and certain other points in the Bill it was necessary to relate provisions to the date of publication of the Bill, or to dates four years prior to that date. But it would scarcely be for the lasting convenience of practitioners and others concerned that certain provisions of the Bill should operate in this way in relation to a date two-thirds of the way through a month. These Amendments (and the others like them which occur on the Marshalled List to-day) therefore propose to make these references simply to the beginning or end of a calendar year, postponing them in each case by eleven days. In the event, these Amendments favour the individual developer, in that they give him 11 more days in which he can establish qualifications under the relevant provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this seems to me to be tidier than the Bill as originally presented. It is quite acceptable to me and I am grateful to the Government for having conceived this idea.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 14, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("on").
The noble LORD said: My Lords, perhaps we could discuss Amendments 15 and 16 together, because 16 is consequential on 15. Again we are reverting to a matter which was discussed on the Committee stage. Subsection (4) of Clause 15 says:
"An enforcement notice—

(a)shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates; and

(b)may, if the authority think fit, also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected by the notice."

In Committee I moved an Amendment to omit the second part of that and to insert
"or any other person having an interest in that land",
because it seemed to me at that stage that "any other person having an interest in that land "ought to have the enforcement notice served on him.
The Government explained, and I accept the explanation, that my Amendment went too wide, but a little debate ensued and there appeared to be a general feeling in the Committee that the words as they stand in the Bill are unsatisfactory. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, took strong objection to this phrase in the Bill as it stands,
"An enforcement notice—
(b) may, if the authority think fit, also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected by the notice."
That leaves it open to the authority not to think fit, and, therefore, not to serve an enforcement notice on a person who has an interest in that land and whose interest, in the opinion of the authority, is materially affected by the
56
notice. That must be wrong. The authority should not be left with that degree of total freedom, and I am therefore proposing to leave out the words "may, if the authority think fit, also be served". If my Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, the subsection will read, and I believe that is exactly what we all want to see:
"An enforcement notice—
shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates; and on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in the opinion of the authority is materially affected by the notice."
I greatly hope that these two linked Amendments will be generally acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I think it was on this Amendment in Committee—I am not quite sure—that the reply, or part of it, was that the person having the interest in the land might not be readily found, might not be easy to find. That may be true, but the owner of the land may not be easy to find. Absentee landlords who cannot be found are not at all the rarest of phenomena, and yet under paragraph (a)of this subsection the enforcement notice "shall be served on the owner". What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Perhaps the owner cannot very easily be found. It would seem to me that if a person has an interest in the land which the authority think is materially affected by the notice, then it ought to be mandatory upon the authority to serve a copy of the notice upon that person.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am convinced, and recommend the House to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 6, leave out ("their opinion") and insert ("the opinion of the authority")—.(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 14, line 31, after ("notice") insert ("(without prejudice to their power to serve another)")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is scarcely more than a drafting Amendment and puts beyond doubt that a local planning authority who withdraw an enforcement notice before it takes effect are not thereby debarred from serving a fresh notice. Perhaps I may also mention that Amendment No. 23, which relates to stop notices, and Amendment No. 106, which relates to listed buildings' enforcement notices, are to the same effect. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords. this Amendment is wholly acceptable to me, but it gives me an opportunity to mention again a point which I raised in this connection in Committee. Will the owner or occupier have any means of regaining his costs if the local planning authority behave in a troublesome way by serving an enforcement notice, then withdrawing it, then under the Amendment serving it again, then perhaps withdrawing it again, and so forth? The owner or occupier may be financially affected in more ways than one. If he is carrying out development, he may think it wise to stop the development the moment the enforcement notice is served; then when the notice is withdrawn and the additional expenditure which has been placed upon him by stopping the development becomes abortive, it is not clear that he has any chance of obtaining compensation.
Although the purpose of the Amendment is unexceptionable it worsens the situation for him because there may be a series of enforcement notices served and then withdrawn. He may be put to additional expenditure through feeling that, for safety's sake, he should stop the development as soon as the enforcement notice is served. He may incur expenditure in another way be preparing himself to fight the enforcement notice and appeal against it, so that he may have incurred legal and professional fees. There is a point to be considered here, and if the Government cannot even yet give me a definite reply, I very much hope that it will be considered. It seems to me that the local authority should be both empowered and required to compensate the owner or occupier for any expense to which he is put through the authority behaving unreasonably in serving, withdrawing and, maybe, re-serving and re-withdrawing, enforcement notices.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I take it that even without the words which are proposed to be added, a local authority could withdraw an enforcement notice and serve another. There is nothing to prevent them. I take it that those words are merely an assurance that they are able to do that. Therefore, they do not in fact add anything to the terrors which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has placed before us. Of course, theoretically a local authority can act in the way he suggests. They can withdraw a notice which is perhaps technically defective and substitute another. They can go on doing this indefinitely and put the owner of the property to great inconvenience and expense, but I hardly think that that is the way in which local authorities would act. These words are merely inserted to make quite sure beyond any doubt that if they do withdraw a notice they can substitute another; but I think that they can do so without those words.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, on the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, if the notice in question is withdrawn before it gets to the Minister—that is, without any proceedings before the Minister—then no costs are redeemable. If, on the other hand, it goes forward to the Minister and thus to inquiry, and if it is enforced unreasonably to that point by the local authority, then costs may be redeemable afterwards. There is a code of practice which governs this matter. The notice itself does not stop anything; it takes effect only after a period. Therefore, the only costs about which we are talking are the costs of fighting it.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It does not go as far as I would wish, but it has put something on the Record. In any case, let me make it clear that I have no desire to do anything except support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appeal against enforcement notice]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. This again is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, leave out ("alleging a breach of planning control").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19, with the omission of the word "alleged" which appeared in error on the Marshalled List.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 4, after ("breach") insert ("of planning control in the notice").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("21st December 1963") and insert ("the beginning of 1964").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Certification of established use
".—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a use of land is established if—

(a)it was begun before the beginning of 1964 without planning permission in that behalf and has continued since the end of 1963; or

(b)it was begun before the beginning of 1964 under a planning permission in that behalf granted subject to conditions or limitations, which either have never been complied with or have not been complied with since the end of 1963; or

(c)it was begun after the end of 1963 as the result of a change of use not requiring planning permission and there has been since the end of 1963 no change of use requiring planning permission.

(2) Where a person having an interest in land claims that a particular use of it has become established, he may apply to the local planning authority for a certificate (in this Act referred to as an 'established use certificate') to that effect:
Provided that no such application may be made in respect of the use of land as a single dwelling-house, or of any use not subsisting at the time of the application.
(3) An established use certificate may be granted (either by the local planning authority, or under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) below, by the Minister)—

(a) either for the whole of the land specified in the application, or for a part of it, or

60

(b) in the case of an application specifying two or more uses, either for all those uses or for some one or more of them.

(4) On an application to them under this section, the local planning authority shall, if and so far as they are satisfied that the applicant's claim is made out, grant to him an established use certificate accordingly; and if and so far as they arc not so satisfied, they shall refuse the application.
(5) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for an established use certificate, then unless within such period as may be prescribed by a development order, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the local planning authority, the authority give notice to the applicant of their decision on the application, then, for the purposes of section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (2) below, the application shall be deemed to be refused.
(6) Schedule (Provisions as to established use certificates) to this Act shall have effect with respect to established use certificates and applications therefor and to appeals under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) below.
(7) An established use certificate shall, as respects any matters stated therein, be conclusive for the purposes of an appeal to the Minister against an enforcement notice served in respect of any land to which the certificate relates, but only where the notice is served after the date of the application on which the certificate was granted.
(8) If any person, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for another person an established use certificate—

(a) knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular;—

(b) with intent to deceive, produces, furnishes, sends or otherwise makes use of any document which is false in a material particular; or

(c) with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both."
The noble LORD said: My Lords, I propose to consider together this new clause and the new Schedule which appears as Amendment 96. Part II of the Bill provides for the abolition of the present four-year limit on the service of enforcement notices in respect of unauthorised changes of use, except for changes to use as a single dwellinghouse. The Government recognise that in so far as the four-year rule is abolished by the Bill there may be some consequential difficulty in future,

61
where the use of land is most directly supported by a planning permission, in establishing all the planning facts for the purposes of transactions in land. This new clause, and the one which follows together with the new Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 1, accordingly provide for the certification of uses which have become "established" in the sense that they have become immune from enforcement action by virtue of the provision in Clause 15 of the Bill that an enforcement notice may be served only in respect of a breach of planning control occurring in 1964 or subsequent years. The new provisions thus confine themselves to those uses in respect of which the four-year rule will have been abolished by the Bill. Where the four-year rule continues to confer immunity from enforcement action, as it does in relation to the carrying out of operations or a change to use as a single dwelling-house, the four-year rule must be relied on in future as it is at present. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: These are complicated matters to take in at the Report stage of the Bill in the Second House, but I think it is right that we should spell everything out in this way. I note that the clause establishes a right of appeal to the Minister if the decision of the planning authority, or its failure to reach a decision, dissatisfies the applicant and he wishes to carry his application for an established use certificate further. I agree with the Government that if this new clause and Schedule were not inserted in the Bill, practical difficulties might ensue which can be obviated by the new statutory procedure laid down here. That being so, I am very ready to advise my noble friends to approve this new clause and the Schedule.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise only to ask one question. We seem to be establishing a new offence, and if a person is guilty of "knowingly or recklessly" making a false statement he is liable to a fairly heavy fine. In my experience, one of the most fruitful causes of debate is in connection with caravan sites. The owner of a piece of land will assert various facts in connection with the history of a site, and will say that he has at times accommodated more caravans than the local authority thinks he is entitled to accommodate. But it is difficult
62
to know exactly where wilful deceit begins and optimistic assessment ends. I am not absolutely certain which authority will take the man into court under this clause. Will it be the local authority or, as I imagine, the Minister after an appeal?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot immediately see the answer to the noble Viscount's question. I ask him to permit me to write to him giving him the answer, unless he thinks it makes a fundamental difference to the carrying of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.21 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal
(".—(1) The Minister may give directions requiring applications for established use certificates to be referred to him instead of being dealt with by local planning authorities; and, on any such application being referred to him in accordance with such directions, section (Certification of established use) (4) above shall apply in relation to the Minister as it applies in relation to the local planning authority in the case of an application determined by them.
(2) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for an established use certificate and is refused, or is refused in part, the applicant may by notice under this subsection appeal to the Minister; and on any such appeal the Minister shall—

(a)if and so far as he is satisfied that the authority's refusal is not well-founded, grant to the appellant an established use certificate accordingly or, as the case may be, modify the certificate granted by the authority on the application; and

(b)if and so far as he is satisfied that the authority's refusal is well-founded, dismiss the appeal.

(3) On an application referred to him under subsection (1) above or on an appeal o him under subsection (2) above, the Minister may, in respect of any use of land for which an established use certificate is not granted (either by him or by the local planning authority), grant planning permission for that use or, as the case may be, for the continuance of that use without complying with some condition subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.
(4) The decision of the Minister on an application referred to him, or on an appeal, under this section shall be final.
(5) In the case of any use of land for which the Minister has power to grant planning permission under this section, the applicant or appellant shall be deemed to have made an

63
application for such planning permission; and any planning permission so granted shall be treated as granted on the said application.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose that we should consider together this new clause and certain Amendments to the Schedules namely, Nos. 115, 122 and 123—since they spring from subsection (5) of the new clause. This new clause provides for the call-in by the Minister of applications for established use certificates, and, more important, for appeals to the Minister against the refusal of such certificates by local planning authorities. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I appreciate now, that when speaking to the previous new clause I "jumped the gun" and by referring to appeals to the Minister was, in fact, referring forward to this new clause which had not then been moved. My remarks, therefore, were relevant to this new clause rather than to the previous one. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will agree that the two hang together, and this new clause is wholly acceptable to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 17, line 38, after first ("notice") insert ("(without prejudice to their power to serve another)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment corresponds to Amendment No. 17, which the House has already accepted, but in this case the Amendment relates to stop notices. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Determination of planning and similar appeals by persons appointed by the Minister]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 together, as the last two are consequential on the first. This group of Amendments puts appeals against refusals to grant established use certificates into
64
the list of the kinds of appeal which may be delegated to inspectors for decision by means of regulations under Clause 19 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 9, at end insert—
("() appeals under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (2) of this Act")
Page 19, line 27, at end insert—
("() in relation to appeals under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) of this Act, subsections (2) and (3) of that section")
Page 19, line 34, leave out from ("above") to ("as") in line 35 and insert ("or section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (5) of this Act or paragraph 7(5) or 18(6) of the said Schedule 3.").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am not wholly happy about this being done, but I think it would be a mistake on my part to look the gift horse of the established use certificate in the mouth. Therefore I will not pursue the matter further.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it might allay the noble Lord's fears if I say that my right honourable friend does not intend to do this at once. He wants to get experience of how this new system works before delegating appeals against it to inspectors.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Determination of appeals by the Minister]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 20, line 28, leave out from ("Minister") to ("shall") in line 29 and insert ("whichever of the following provisions are relevant, that is to say those of—
the principal Act;
section 16 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act; and
section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967,")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment inserts into Clause 20(3) a reference to Section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act. It thereby makes a consequential Amendment which was missed when the Bill was being discussed on Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28:
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 12, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Supplementary]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 22, line 41, leave out from ("1967") to end of line 42 and insert—
("(a) if he was appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as functions of that Ministry; and
(b) if he was appointed by the Secretary of State, as functions of the Welsh Office.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 24 gives the Parliamentary Commissioner jurisdiction in connection with appeals determined by inspectors who are officers of the Ministry of Housing or the Welsh Office. As drafted, however, the subsection does not cover the case where an officer of the Ministry is appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales to determine an appeal arising on Welsh Office business, or vice versa. The effect of this Amendment is to ensure that if the Secretary of State for Wales appoints a Ministry inspector to determine an appeal, the determination of that appeal is regarded as a function of the Welsh Office for the purposes of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Compulsory acquisition of land in connection with development and for other planning purposes]:
5.28 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 23, line 19, leave out ("or assist").
The noble LORD said: My Lords, both the noble LORD, LORD Brooke of Cumnor, and I have our names to this Amendment, since if two Peers put down an identical Amendment it carries both names. We are dealing here with compulsory acquisition powers for development and for other planning purposes. As the Bill is drafted it enables the Minister to authorise acquisition, if he is satisfied that it is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole by development et cetera. During our Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke
66
of Cumnor, criticised the inclusion of the words "or assist" as constituting an extension of the powers of compulsory acquisition; and, sure enough, these very words do not appear in the corresponding power in the 1962 Act upon which the power in this Bill is based. The view of the Government was, and is, that it would be a useful extension, inflexion or articulation of the power—in other words, a useful addition to the phraseology—but that it is not something which cannot be lived without. I therefore beg to move this Amendment, on this occasion in the full confidence that it will meet with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the explanation of the curious heading to the Amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I independently tabled identical Amendments on the identical day. I am very glad indeed it worked out that way. I raised the point on Committee and indicated that this was one of my Amendments to which I attached a good deal of importance. I am the more grateful, therefore, to the Government for accepting my argument. I think that noble Lords on all sides will probably be with me when I say, as I said on the earlier occasion, that there must exist compulsory powers and, equally, that Parliament must scrupulously examine any extension of compulsory powers. This is a case where your Lordships' House has examined scrupulously a proposed extern ion of compulsory powers, and it has now been agreed by both sides that that extension should not be made. I appreciate very much the helpfulness of the Government in this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Compensation for compulsory purchase of land in clearance areas and of historic buildings]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 32.
Lord BROOKE OF CUMNOR: On a point of order, may I be allowed to move my Amendment as an Amendment to that set down by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet? If not, I will just speak to the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should prefer it if the noble Lord would move his Amendment as an Amendment to mine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I will call Amendment No. 31, after which I will call, before putting the Question, Amendment No. 32.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 26, line 5, leave out from ("land") to ("as") in line 7 and insert ("indicated in a structure plan in force for the district in which it is situated either").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely a drafting one. I beg to move.
5.32 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 31:
After ("plan") in the proposed new words to insert ("submitted to the Minister for his approval or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment as an Amendment to that just moved by the noble Lord. We are back again now to the difficult and depressing subject of blight. In Committee I moved Amendments which would have had the effect of securing that certain provisions in the 1962 Act enabling the owners to require the local authority to purchase their property because it was blighted should operate from the time when the plans were first published. That suggestion was resisted by the Government on the ground that the outcome of the plans was at that stage somewhat indefinite and the local authority might be required to purchase property which, in the end, turned out not to be within the area that was to be affected by the road or the development, or the re-development or whatever it was, and so the local authority might have that property on its hands. I do not think that would have been a financial loss to the local authority, because it has been difficult for many years past to purchase any property which had not appreciated in value by the time it was desired to sell it again. However that may be, in this Amendment I am proposing that the blight provisions should operate not quite so early as I proposed in Committee but
68
not quite so late as the Government propose in the clause as it stands.
May I just remind your Lordships what happens here? In perhaps the simplest case, the local planning authority prepares a structure plan and publishes it, and the moment it is published blight may fall on certain properties because there is an indication in the plan that the land where that property is situated may be required for some public purpose, and the owner will therefore have difficulty in selling it except at a considerably reduced value. Next, the plan as revised by the authority, after publication and discussion, is submitted to the Minister; and finally the plan, perhaps with further modifications, is approved by the Minister and comes into force.
The Government say that it should be possible for the owner to take advantage of the blight provisions, and the requirement upon the local authority to purchase, from the time when the plan comes into force. In my Committee stage Amendment I proposed that this should operate from the time when the blight starts, which is the time when the plan is first published; but in the Amendment I am now moving I am proposing that the blight provisions should operate from the time when the plan is submitted to the Minister.
That time is very much more definite, because whereas a local authority may publish a plan for purposes of public discussion and modification in the light of that discussion, when it submits the plan to the Minister it is in effect saying, "We are prepared to go ahead on these lines". The authority has committed itself to that extent, whether or not the Minister subsequently modifies it. I therefore cannot see that my proposal would be unfair to the local authority in any way, because, as I have said, the local authority has modified its own first, published plan; it has finally settled on what it wants to submit to the Minister and has submitted it; and it seems to me that from that moment the blight settles on the land which the local authority specifically desires to see used for some public purpose or other.
The Government may argue that even at that stage it is not absolutely certain which land is going to be finally blighted, because the Minister may make modifications. I appreciate that, but time is

69
passing all along, and I would ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of a man who owns a house and who, for good reason, wishes to move to some other part of the country. The moment the first structure plan is published saying that that land is likely to be affected, the price of his property will drop. He cannot wait for all these processes to be gone through before he sells his house; and when he sells the house, if it is blighted and if he has not yet qualified under this Bill to be able to serve a purchase notice on the local authority, then he will lose a considerable amount of the value of the house. The length of time during which he will be in that unhappy position will be materially shortened if my Amendment is accepted. It will be materially shortened and, at the same time, the area of land affected will be reduced as compared with the Amendment that I moved at the earlier stage because of the fact that the local authority has now crystallised its plan and submitted it.
My Lords, this is a very difficult subject, and I expect that every one of your Lordships who has listened to me seeking to explain it will appreciate the difficulty. But the fact of blight is most unfair to individuals. For some eight or nine years, it has been accepted that in certain classes of cases the damage to the individual is so severe that he ought to be relieved by the public authority of that loss; that the loss should be spread over the community and not borne by the individual who is unhappily hit. I am sure that the right principle is that the person so unhappily hit should be under the disadvantage for as short a time as we can make it. It is to shorten the time during which the individual may be unfairly treated that I move my Amendment to the Government Amendment. I would remind the House that the point in question here is whether the loss caused by blight over this period is to fall on the single unhappy individual or is to be spread over the community at large—bearing in mind that the development will be undoubtedly for the good of the community. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord fully into the merits of this matter but will merely say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the case as he described it. The
70
point is that his Amendment goes beyond it and fundamentally changes the purpose of the clause, which is simply to tailor the existing blight provisions to meet the needs of the new development plan system. It is a fundamental principle of the existing blight legislation that it applies only to approved proposals, and not to submitted or tentative proposals which may still be subject to amendment, either by the planning authority themselves or, as in the case of the proposal before us, by the Minister. Certain representations have been made to my right honourable friend by the Greater London Council, the Chartered Land Societies and others about blight. They are being considered.
The changes in this Bill are designed only to fit the present blight arrangements into new planning circumstances and not to make fundamental changes like this. The time to make such changes —if the Government and Parliament decide that they are desirable—will be as a result of a comprehensive review of the problem of blight, the compensation payable, the purchase provisions and other related matters in the compensation code. The blight caused by submitted structure plans is one of the issues forming part of the review now in progress, but it is not the only one.
My Lords, that leaves the human question outlined so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. As the House knows, my right honourable friend intends to send a circular to local authorities all about everything under this Bill, giving advice on this and that; and in this circular he is ready to put a passage urging the authorities to treat as sympathetically as they can cases of hardship arising from blight caused by unaccepted plans. We in the Ministry know that most authorities already do this. It will be the purpose of this circular to influence all to do the same pending a fundamental review of the subject. I hope the noble Lord may agree that that is the right way to do it and that he need not press forward with his Amendment this afternoon.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have not pierced the armour, but I feel that I have made a dent in it. I am glad that the Government are quite clearly taking this matter seriously. When the noble Lord mentioned the Greater

71
London Council it brought vividly to my mind the representations I had, while representing in another place a London constituency, about the blight hardship caused from the moment when the plans for a motorway box in London were announced. I am quite sure that this is a matter of major importance which Parliament ought to tackle as early as possible.
I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's argument that it would not be right to make a piecemeal alteration here; but I take it from what he said that the Government are making a thoroughgoing examination of this whole question of compensation. I would only say that it will be welcomed, I think, by people of all political Parties and of none if that examination can be expedited and further legislation can be brought forward at an early date to lessen the injustice which blight causes to individuals who have done no harm at all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 26, line 13, leave out ("in which it is situated").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 26, line 18, leave out from ("order") to end of line 25, and insert ("has been made by a local authority or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a follow-up to my Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment. This Amendment is not very happily drafted, but it is designed to indicate that I think the provisions for protection against blight ought to operate not from the time when the compulsory purchase order is confirmed by the Minister but from the time when the order is made by the local authority; because it is from that moment that the blight settles. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will he able to tell me that this question also will be included in the comprehensive reexamination
72
of compensation and blight that is in progress. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that that is the case.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37:
Page 26, line 20, at end insert—
("or
(d) is land on which the Minister of Transport or, in Wales, the Secretary of State proposes to provide a trunk road or a special road and has given to the local planning authority written notice of his intention to provide the road, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the proposed route of the road.
() Subsection (1A) above shall not apply to land situated in a district for which a local plan is in force, where that plan—

(a)allocates any land in the district for the purposes of such functions as are mentioned in that paragraph; or

(b)defines any land in the district as the site of the proposed development for the purposes of any such functions.

() In section 139 of the principal Act (notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest on ground of planning blight) 'the relevant date'—

(a) in relation to land mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above, means the date when the order for its compulsory purchase was confirmed or made by the Minister; and

(b) in relation to land mentioned in subsection (1)(d) above, means the date on which the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State gave to the local planning authority the written notice specified in that paragraph").

Page 26, line 20,leave out lines 21 to 25.
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(d)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 are drafting Amendments, I beg to move them together.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have only a drafting point on these drafting Amendments. I find about eight lines down a reference to "subsection (1)(a)". But I cannot trace subsection (1)(a). Is it a misprint for "subsection (1)"?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if it is, it will be rectified; if it is not, I ask the noble Lord to allow me to write to him fully later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.47 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice
".—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect for enabling mortgagees to take advantage of the provisions of sections 138 to 151 of the principal Act (notice requiring purchase by local planning authority on grounds of planning blight).
(2) Where the whole or part of a hereditament or agricultural unit is comprised in land of any of the descriptions contained in paragraphs (b) to (f) of section 138(1) of the principal Act or paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 31(1) of this Act and a person claims that—

(a)that he is entitled as mortgagee (by virtue of a power which has become exercisable) to sell an interest in the hereditament or unit, giving immediate vacant possession of the land; and

(b)since the relevant date (within the meaning of section 139 of the principal Act) he has made reasonable endeavours to sell that interest; and

(c)he has been unable to sell it except at a price substantially lower than that for which it might reasonably have been expected to sell if no part of the hereditament or unit were comprised in land of any of the said descriptions,

then, subject to the provisions of this section, he may serve on the appropriate authority a notice in the prescribed form requiring that authority to purchase that interest to the extent specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, sections 138 to 151 of the principal Act.
(3) Subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to an interest in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit as it applies in relation to an interest in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit:
Provided that this subsection shall not enable a person—

(a)if his interest as mortgagee is in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make any claim or serve any notice under this section in respect of any interest in part of the hereditament or unit; or

(b)if his interest as mortgagee is only in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make or serve any such notice or claim in respect of any interest in less than the entirety of that part.

(4) A notice under this section shall not be served unless one or other of the following conditions is satisfied with regard to the interest which the mortgagee claims he has the power to sell:—

(a)the interest could be the subject of a notice under section 139 of the principal Act served by the person entitled thereto on the date of service of the notice under this section; or

74

(b)the interest could have been the subject of such a notice served by that person on a date not more than six months before the date of service of the notice under this section.

(5) If any question arises which authority are the appropriate authority for the purposes of subsection (2) above, subsection (4)(b) above shall then apply with the substitution for the period of six months of a reference to that period extended by so long as it takes to obtain a determination of the question.
(6) No notice under this section shall be served in respect of a hereditament or agricultural unit, or any part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, at a time when a notice already served under section 139 of the principal Act is outstanding with respect to the hereditament, unit or part; and no notice shall be so served under section 139 of that Act at a time when a notice already served under this section is so outstanding.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, a notice served under this section or section 139 of the principal Act shall be treated as outstanding with respect to a hereditament or agricultural unit, or to part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, until—

(a) it is withdrawn in relation to the hereditament, unit or part; or

(b) an objection to the notice having been made by a counter-notice under section 140 of the principal Act, either—

(i)the period of two months specified in section 141(1) of the principal Act elapses without the claimant having required the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal under that section; or

(ii) the objection, having been so referred to the Lands Tribunal, is upheld by the Tribunal with respect to the hereditament, unit or part.

(8) The grounds on which objection may be made in a counter-notice under section 140 of the principal Act to a notice under this section are those specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of that section and also the following grounds:—

(a) that, on the date of service of the notice under this section, the claimant had no interest as mortgagee in any part of the hereditament or agricultural unit to which the notice relates;

(b) that (for reasons specified in the counter-notice, the claimant had not on that date the power referred to in subsection (2)(a) above;

(c) that the conditions specified in subsection (2)(b) and (c) above are not fulfilled;

(d) that (for reasons specified in the counter-notice) neither of the conditions specified in subsection (4) above was, on the date of service of the notice under this section, satisfied with regard to the interest referred to in that subsection.

(9) The provisions of the principal Act specified in Schedule (Consequential amendments of planning blight provisions of principal Act) to this Act (being provisions relating

75
to blight notices and to proceedings arising out of such notices) shall be amended in accordance with that Schedule."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to discuss Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 42 together, for they belong together. There were Amendments down at the Committee stage in the Commons about extending the benefits of the blight provisions in the 1962 Act to mortgagees as well as to owner-occupiers. The Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing then said that the Government viewed the idea with favour and would bring forward Amendments to meet the point, provided that there were no snags. These three Amendments do that. Their object is to enable mortgagees of property, the owners of which would be entitled to serve a blight notice, to serve such a notice in place of the owner where the mortgagee would be entitled to sell the property with vacant possession. The effect of this is to extend the definition of "owner-occupier" to cover mortgagees in possession.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I welcome this new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Extension of grounds of objection to purchase of claimant's interest]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39:
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("do")in line 4 on page 27 and insert—
("Where a blight notice is served under section 139 of the principal Act or section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) above, then in the case of land—

(a)falling within section 31(1)(a) above; or

(b)falling within paragraph (c) of section 138(1) of the principal Act and not within paragraph (e) or (f) of that subsection or paragraph (d) of section 31(1) above,

the grounds on which an objection may be made in a counter-notice under section 140 of the principal Act shall include the grounds that the appropriate authority (unless compelled to do so by virtue of sections 139 to 151 of the principal Act and section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) above.") —(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 40:
76
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("notice served under section 139 of this Act") and insert ("blight notice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together and point out that Amendment No. 100, introducing a new Schedule, depends upon this Amendment. In the 1962 Act and in this Bill blight notices are not given a name but are referred to as notices served under Section 139. The purpose of these Amendments is to give them the name "blight notice".
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I had been tempted to inquire how the phrase "blight notice" got on to the Statute Book. I gather that that is all brought about by the new Schedule. In any case, I am glad that I did not give myself away by asking, innocently or ignorantly, at an earlier stage. I will search the new Schedule and compare it with the principal Act to see exactly how it happened.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Compensation for compulsory purchase of land in clearance areas and of historic buildings]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("notice under section 139 of the principal Act") and insert ("blight notice").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Miscellaneous amendments of Part VIII of the principal Act]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 12, leave out from first ("Act") to ("shall") in line 13 and insert ("or section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice)of this Act, section 140(1) of that Act (objection to blight notice").—Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Compulsory acquisition of listed building in need of repair]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 39, line 28, leave out ("London borough").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment Nos. 43 and 44 hang together. Clause 46 gives local authorities the power to acquire compulsorily listed buildings which are in need of repair in certain circumstances. The Greater London Council was left out by an oversight and these Amendments rectify that omission.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 29, after ("situated") insert ("or in the case of a building situated in Greater London. the Greater London Council or the London borough council").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Repairs notice as preliminary to compulsory acquisition]:
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 40, line 39, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, generally, I do not like tabling again for the Report stage an Amendment which has been moved and discussed in Committee, but I feel that I am justified in doing so in this case because perhaps the reason underlying my Amendment was not fully realised on the Committee stage until I had explained it. This is a case where a local authority or the Minister may be considering the compulsory purchase of a listed building because the owner or occupier has been neglecting it. Clause 47 says that
"Neither a council nor the Minister shall start the compulsory purchase of a building … unless at least one month previously they have served on the owner … a notice …
(a) specifying the works they consider reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building"—
and so forth.
It appears to me that one month is sufficient only if one assumes that the owner is going to do nothing at all about it. But I think that we should conceive it possible that the owner may have a change of heart and may decide that he would rather put matters right than have the building compulsorily purchased from him. If that is so, one month seems to me a very short interval to give him,
78
particularly as he may be abroad on business, or otherwise not available to attend to the correspondence instantly at the time when the repairs notice under Clause 47 arrives. It still appears to me that two months would be a more reasonable interval, while not becoming a delaying interval, and I greatly hope that the Government may now be willing to agree to this slightly longer period.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I said during the Committee stage that this seemed like a good idea and that I would look at it to see whether there were any snags. I have not been able to find any. I still think it is a good idea, and so I am delighted to invite the House to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Directions by Minister to local planning authorities with respect to development affecting Conservation Areas]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 43, line 39, leave out from ("determining") to ("and") in line 42 and insert ("an application—

(a)for planning permission for any such development as is referred to in section 1(6) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (special provisions as to publicity for applications. affecting Conservation Areas); or

(b)for listed building consent for any works for the demolition, alteration or extension of a building in a Conservation Area").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 52, which we have now reached, was introduced by the Government at our Committee stage. It enables the Minister to give directions to planning authorities, first about the matters which they are to take into account when considering applications affecting conservation areas, and, secondly, about consultations which they are to undertake before reaching their decisions on such applications. As drafted originally, that implied only planning permission, but it seems clear that applications for listed building consent in conservation areas—that means consent to knock down a listed building—should be brought within the scope of the Minister's power to make directions, and that is what the Amendment does. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 52 insert the following new clause:
Additional requirement of notice for development affecting Conservation Areas
".—(1) Where an application for planning permission for any development of land is made to a local planning authority and the case is one where the authority are required to comply with section 1(6) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (special publicity for planning applications affecting Conservation Areas) the authority shall also comply with the following subsection.
(2) The authority shall, for not less than seven days display a notice on or near the land to which the application relates, containing the same particulars as are required by section 1(6)(a) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 to be contained in the notice to be published by the authority in a local newspaper.
(3) An application for planning permission to which section 1(6) of the said Act of 1967 applies shall not be determined by the local planning authority before both of the following periods have elapsed, namely:—

(a)the period of twenty-one days referred to in paragraph (a)of that subsection; and

(b)the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice required by subsection (2) of this section was first displayed;

and in determining the application the authority shall take into account any representations relating to the application which are received by them before both those periods have elapsed.
(4) In the said section 1(6), paragraph (b) and (c) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This new clause hangs together with the new clause No. 80 in the Marshalled List and with Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 127 to the Schedules. I propose to discuss them all now and to move the others formally, if this one finds favour. This Amendment is to implement an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage on a discussion of the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. At that time he did not accept that there should be a blanket requirement to post notices on the site for all the 400,000 planning applications made annually. But the Government now agree that it is desirable to secure wider publicity for planning applications of substantial effect and importance where the present method of bringing the matter to public notice is already by advertisement in the local Press. The local authority associations have been told
80
that the Government will wish to consult them after the passage of the Bill to see what more can be done about publicity for planning applications. One proposal that we shall wish to discuss is that where a local authority advertises substantial departures from development plans under the terms of development plan directions there should be a requirement to post site notices. This is the most important proposal that the Government have on the site notices question. I ask the House to bear that in mind, because it does not require any Amendment of the Bill. That will be put in hand, anyhow.
The two new clauses, my Lords they are rather lengthy, add up to two smaller additions in this field of posting site notices. But I think that between them the new clauses and the substantial departure ones, which do not require an Amendment to the Bill, should cover just about all the cases where there is an argument for putting up a site notice. The first new clause, that after Clause 52, says that those applications which must be advertised under the Civic Amenities Act, because they affect conservation areas, are also to have site notices posted about them. The second new clause, that after Clause 67, says that what is known in planning jargon as bad neighbour development, which must at present be advertised, is also to have a site notice put up about it when an application is put in.
My Lords, I think the only other thing that I ought to impart to the House at this stage is to remind your Lordships that the Minister of State in my Department said in the House of Commons that he would look at any ideas that were submitted to him about adding to the G.D.O. categories of proposed development requiring notification; that is the so-called bad neighbour list. I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I warmly welcome both of these new clauses. I think it is an excellent thing that both of these should be written into the Bill, and I was glad to hear what the noble Lord said about the possibility of extending this type of treatment to substantial departures from a plan. I have no criticism of either of the two new clauses. The only point that I wish to raise—and it was indeed referred to

81
obliquely in the noble Lord's concluding words—is this. Alterations to the list of cases which will require special publicity treatment under the principal Act and will require the posting of notices under the second of these new clauses, are made, I think I am right in saying, by development order. Indeed, there is a reference in the second new clause which says:
"… classes of planning application prescribed by a development order …"
I greatly hope that the Government, when the question of amending a development order in this context is under active consideration, will find some means of associating Members of both Houses of Parliament who are interested in the subject more closely.
It always seems to me, my Lords, a slightly curious fact about our arrangements that the Government consult the local authority associations and many highly reputable professional organisations about matters of this kind on which they are proposing to make Orders or regulations, but there is no provision for their consulting Members of both Houses of Parliament, who are at least equally interested. When the Order embodying the regulations comes before Parliament it is not capable of amendment. Members of both Houses, therefore, appear to me to be in a less favourable position to influence the content of the Order or the regulations than these important outside bodies. I genuinely feel that this is a weakness in our practice.
I appreciate that in certain cases the degree of secrecy required might make it difficult to consult Members of Parliament in advance, but that does not arise here. There is no question of secrecy here; there is only a common desire to arrive at the right sort of list to put into the regulations. I think it would be most helpful if the Government could find some means of notifying Members of both Houses, who have shown by their participation in the work on this Bill that they have an interest, that this subject is now under active consideration, and inviting them perhaps to a discussion in the Department about the list. I do not know exactly what the best procedure would be, but I should like to leave that idea with the Government. Having said that, I commend these two
82
new clauses to the House as warmly as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I very much agree with what the noble Lord has just said, and I suggest that we start right now. Let me invite Members of this House to write to me as soon as they like with suggestions for addition to the list. The list, by the way, is to be found in Article 6 of the General Development Order. If noble Lords will glance at that and see if they think there is anything else that ought to be subject to the advertisement and site notice provision, and will drop me a line, we will consider it, and perhaps hold a meeting later on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.5 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 1946 Act, Sch.
".In paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 (application of special parliamentary procedure to compulsory purchase order affecting ancient monument etc., subject to certificate by Minister of Public Building and Works that undertakings have been given as to its preservation) the reference to land being, or being the site of, an ancient monument or other object of archaelogical interest shall be construed as not including a reference to a listed building or any land or object comprised within the curtilage of such a building unless the building or object is specified in the Schedule to the Ancient Monuments Ad 1882 or is for the time being specified in a list published under section 12 of the Ancient Monuments Act 1913."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 12 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 provides that any compulsory purchase order which authorises the purchase of land which contains an ancient monument is to be subject to special Parliamentary procedure unless the Minister of Public Building and Works gives a certificate that the acquiring authority has entered into an undertaking to observe satisfactory conditions about the use of the land.
This comes in because the term "ancient monuments" as used in the 1946 Act is so wide as to include all listed buildings, even if they are not ancient monuments in the flat rower sense; that is, listed or scheduled by the

83
Ministry of Public Building and Works under the Ancient Monuments Acts. As the law stands at present, therefore, any compulsory purchase order which includes a listed building ought to go through special Parliamentary procedure. As a matter of fact, I cannot claim that it always has in the past, and in any case the proper place to consider the effect of the presence of a listed building on the C.P.O. is in the normal operation of planning law—consultation between the Minister, the local authority, local amenity societies, and so on and so forth—but not by assimilating it to the more rigid and restricted ancient monuments legislation.
This Amendment makes it clear that listed buildings are not ancient monuments for the purpose of the 1946 Act unless they happen also to be ancient monuments in the narrower sense under the ancient monuments legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Constitution of Planning Inquiry Commissions]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 27, after ("authorised") insert ("by the other")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Procedure on reference to a Planning Inquiry Commission]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 48, line 20, at end insert—
("() Where a Planning Inquiry Commission are to hold a local inquiry under subsection (3) above in connection with a matter referred to them, and it appears to the responsible Minister or Ministers, in the case of some other matter falling to be determined by a Minister of the Crown and required or authorised by an enactment other than this section to be the subject of a local inquiry, that the two matters are so far cognate that they should be considered together, he or, as the case may be, they may direct that the two inquiries be held concurrently or combined as one inquiry.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable a local inquiry required to be held by virtue of an enactment other than the
84
Bill and the 1962 Act to be held, where appropriate, concurrently with a local inquiry being held by a Planning Inquiry Commission. With many development proposals this will not arise. But one class of matters referable to a Planning Inquiry Commission comprises matters requiring authorisation under other legislation as well as under planning legislation. The construction of a new power station, for example (though not all such proposals would merit reference to a Planning Inquiry Commission), requires authorisation under the Electricity Acts, and it is possible that it would generally be quite proper, and more convenient from the point of view of any objectors, to hold any inquiry required under those Acts concurrently with the local inquiry held in the second phase of its investigation by the Planning Inquiry Commission. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Delegation of planning functions to officers of local authorities]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 49, leave out lines 1 and 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will take the determination of advertisement applications out of the list of matters which a planning authority may delegate to its own officers. The reason for this requires some explanation, and I apologise to the House if I am somewhat lengthy on this point, but there is a decision of Government policy which it becomes necessary to make public at this point, and the most convenient place to do it is on this Amendment in this House this afternoon.
On March 21, when this Bill was at Committee stage in another place, Mr. John Fraser suggested that the right of appeal to the Minister against the decision of a local planning authority on an application for consent to display an advertisement should be abolished. At that time my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State said that he would consult the local authority associations and the advertisement interests about the suggestion. This he has done. The local authority associations are in favour of it, and the advertising industry is opposed to it; so also is the Corporation of the

85
City of London. My right honourable friend the Minister has considered all the representations made to him both in favour of the abolition of the right and against the abolition of the right, and he has concluded that the control of advertisements is essentially a local matter which ought to be left entirely to the locally elected authority. Accordingly, he has decided, in consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, to amend the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations so as to delete the provision for appeals.
When my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State saw representatives of the Outdoor Advertising Council, led by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on July 2, it was suggested that only an appeal to the Minister would prevent some local authorities from acting unreasonably, and, while purporting to refuse applications on the legitimate grounds of amenity and public safety, in fact they might do so on other undisclosed grounds, such as a general prejudice against advertisements, or a judgment based on some mistake of fact, or even a dislike of the substance being advertised in the particular case under consideration. My right honourable friend does not necessarily accept that any local authority might act in such a way; and, indeed, local authorities are already required to decide applications solely with regard to amenity or public safety.
To make the matter absolutely clear, however, my right honourable friend the Minister will also amend the regulations so as to require that the reasons for refusal or the conditions attached to a consent be specified fully by the local authority and to require also that the authority state any facts which they regard as material to their decision. This will enable an applicant to challenge the decision in the courts, if he considers that the authority have not properly considered the case in the light solely of amenity and public safety, which are the only criteria permissible under the regulations.
The amending regulations will be laid in due course. My right honourable friend considers that when there is no right of appeal against a decision on an application to display an advertisement, which he regards as a matter for local
86
decision, that decision ought to be taken by the local planning authority who are the elected representatives of the local community and not delegated by them to an officer of the authority. Hence the Amendment now before the House. When Mr. John Fraser suggested that advertisement appeals should be abolished he also suggested that consideration should be given to allowing more advertisements to be displayed with what is known as "deemed consent"; that is, without an application having to be made to the local authority, although the authority could challenge it by requiring an application for express consent. My right honourable friend is prepared to discuss this possibility with representatives of the advertising industry and of the local authorities. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sorry that the Government, on their own initiative, have dispelled the concord with which we have hitherto been debating this Bill through all its stages. This Amendment is, I gather from the noble Lord's speech, a kind of paving Amendment in the Bill to drastic action which the Minister proposes to take subsequently by regulations outside the Bill. He said that it was a decision of Government policy which it became necessary to announce at this point. It certainly was not necessary to make this decision, and I am extremely surprised that the Government have ventured to make it in face of the almost unanimous opposition with which the original suggestion has been met.
There was, of course, nothing about this in the Bill as first presented to Parliament. There was nothing about it in the Report of the Management Study on Development Control recently, which was commissioned by the Government; and in the terms of reference of that study the Government said the study should cover the control of advertisements under the Act. The drastic proposal that they have in mind was not recommended by that body, nor, so far as I am aware, by any other body. It sprang entirely from a speech by a Back-Bench Government supporter in Standing Committee in another place. The Government have discussed it, as the noble Lord said, with the local authority associations. It is not really very surprising

87
that the local authority associations should support a proposal which will remove an appeal against their decisions to the Minister. It would be really incredible that the local authority associations should do anything other than support a proposal of that kind. I can imagine a very much larger field of work where the local authority associations would welcome the removal of any sort of ministerial interference with their decisions. So the fact that the local authority associations approve is really not a count in favour of this proposal at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the advertising interests were opposed to this deprivation of the right of appeal. Equally naturally, it would be expected that they would be opposed to it. What he did not mention was that the Confederation of British Industry is opposed to it; the National Chamber of Trade is opposed to it; the Law Society, a body to which Parliament usually pays considerable regard, is opposed to it, and I understand that a number of professional organisations have all declared themselves opposed to it. In those circumstances, it seems to me quite extraordinary that, after the House of Commons has risen for the Summer Recess, this important announcement of Government policy, which seemed likely to run into widespread opposition, should be made here by means of a paving Amendment to this Clause 58.
Let us just examine how it is a paving Amendment. The Bill as introduced, and as it passed through another place and came here, included applications for advertisement consents among those matters which could be delegated by a local authority to its officers. Nobody has challenged that at any stage—neither the advertising industry nor the local authority associations, nor anybody else. That is accepted. But what the Government want to do is, quite apart from and outside this Bill, to take away the right of appeal to the Minister against a refusal of consent for the display of an advertisement. The Government no doubt realise that this would be an even more unpopular action if the decision had been taken not by the local authority itself— that is to say, the elected members—but by some officer of the local authority. So, they are now seeking to pave the
88
way for this unpopular decision by removing applications for consent to the display of advertisements from those matters which, under this Bill, can be delegated by the local authority to officers. That seems to me to be entirely wrong. I think one must judge this Amendment not on what it actually does but on what it implies and what it is paving the way to.
If I remember rightly, the whole subject of advertisement control occupied a good deal of attention when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was taking through Parliament his 1947 Act, and it was partly on that account that the right of appeal to the Minister in the case of an application for advertisement consent was not incorporated in the Bill. But what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill said, was that he accepted entirely that there must be a right of appeal and that he wanted to consider further what machinery of appeal should be provided, and that he would secure that that was done under regulations. That is what happened, and that is how these appeals to the Minister against refusal of consent to the display of advertisements have been carried on ever since. If I remember rightly, a firm and unqualified pledge was made by the noble Lord at that time that there would be a right of appeal. And now, on July 29, after the House of Commons has risen for the Summer Recess, the Government announce that they are going to take away that right of appeal to which their predecessors were pledged.
I cannot accept this. I should willingly accept a procedure under which the Government set up an independent committee to look into the matter and to see whether the expense of advertisement control could be lessened, because if 1 remember rightly that was the defence that Mr. Fraser adduced in another place. He pointed out the expense and trouble involved and suggested that a great deal of that trouble and expense could be obviated by abandoning the right of appeal. Of course it could, just as a great deal of trouble and expense could be saved in the law courts by abolishing the Court of Appeal. But that is not the answer. At the present time I understand that about 20 per cent. of all appeals to the Minister under this heading succeed.

89
In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, explained, there is a strong feeling that a number of local authorities might take an almost prohibitive line—not merely restrictive—if they did not know that there was a right of appeal to the Minister, and that the possession by the advertiser of that right of appeal ensures that the standards set throughout the country remain reasonably uniform. Considerable issues are involved here. I am sure the Law Society would not have set itself in opposition to this proposal if it did not feel that it was an interference with the course of justice. Because this is a paving Amendment to a course of action which I consider entirely unacceptable, I must ask that if the Government press it my noble friends will vote against the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the Government have not said the last word on this matter. I do not know whether they are aware that this really constitutes a breach of faith with the advertising interests. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is quite right when he says that this was a matter which received a great deal of discussion during the passage of the 1947 Bill. At that time the control over outdoor advertising was very loose and the advertising interests were greatly concerned that the Bill considerably strengthend the control over such advertisements and in fact virtually abolished outdoor advertising in the countryside. They were afraid of the very things which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out: that local authorities might be prejudiced against advertisements generally or against particular advertisements or against particular advertisers. The only way in which one could satisfy them was to give them this right of appeal. It was in consideration of that right of appeal that they withdrew their objections to the provisions relating to advertising in the 1947 Act.
I feel it is a breach of faith with them that, having got their approval, admittedly twenty years ago, to the insertion of these provisions on the understanding that there would be a right of appeal, we are now withdrawing that right. Apart altogether from that, it is rather odd, and going very much against the general trend of events, that we should be withdrawing a right of appeal against
90
the decision of a local authority. After all, the whole trend of events is to give people a right of appeal against what they may consider to be arbitrary or wrong decisions. We assume that a local authority is not guided by the various considerations which I have enumerated, but they can still be wrong and they may take the view that an advertisement in a particular place is dangerous, injurious from the traffic point of view, or that it is a breach of amenity. However, they may be wrong, and the advertiser is surely entitled to have the right of appeal against this decision.
I am sorry that this arises through the instrumentality of Mr. John Fraser. He happens to be a partner of mine, but I am afraid he did not consult me about this at all. Had he done so, I might have enlightened him about what had gone before. Nevertheless, I feel it is so wrong that if there is a Division I shall be forced to vote in favour of my political opponents. I hope the Government will be prepared to think about this matter again. It is really wrong.
6.28 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as we are on Report stage I should like to take up some of the points that have been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, described this Amendment as paving to a drastic action not connected with the Bill. I do not deny that the action is somewhat drastic in the very limited field and the small matter which it concerns, but I think the word "paving" is probably not quite right. It does not simply pave, the way to that. It is an Amendment which the Government, and I think probably all sides of the House, agree should be adopted if the major decision is taken. The Government intend that it shall be taken, but, of course, Parliament is sovereign in this as in all other matters. I shall return to this point later. It is a consequential improvement in advance of the major measure—that is the way I should like to put it.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke of the unanimous disapproval with which the measure had been greeted. I do not think he can say that, because it has not been announced before. The possibility has been greeted with disapproval precisely from those one would expect

91
to disapprove of it, namely, the advertising interests. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned also the Law Society. I have not yet seen the terms of their objection to it and we shall study them carefully. Now that the change is announced, we shall, of course, be better able to gauge the mood in which different sectors of the community greet it. I shall be very surprised indeed if it is unanimous or anywhere approaching unanimous. I do not think it is particularly in the interests of anybody except the advertisers that they should have an appeal on these very small matters covering only outdoor advertisements.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not in the interests of good administration that there should be a right of appeal for any citizen against possible arbitrary decision?
LORD KENNET: I will come to that point, which is the crux of the matter, in a moment.
On the question of unanimity, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, somewhat brushed aside the opinions of the local authority associations, saying that he would expect them to be for it because they would always like to be able to abolish all appeals so as to be able to proceed in an authoritarian manner without consulting anybody. I do not think it is right to look at it in that way. The associations express the collective wisdom of the local representatives, who are precisely that, elected by the people to deal with local matters, as freely as Parliament can bring themselves to agree that they should; and in this case I think Parliament should bring themselves to agree, because what could be more a local matter than the question whether or not there should be a hoarding on station road or a "Player's" advertisement outside the tobacconist's shop? This is really not something for Whitehall interference.
On the point the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, made, about the announcement being made after the Commons has risen, I do not know whether he intended to imply that there was anything sinister in it, but I assure him there is not. The announcement had, for the convenience of everybody, to be made to-day if the
92
Bill was to be amended to operate the new system, if it comes into effect, more effectively, by denying local authorities the right to delegate these decisions to their own officers. It happens that the House of Commons is not sitting and we are going on for a week longer for reasons that we all know. I would ask the House to put out of their minds any thought that there is a plot about this, because there is not. The Government will have to face the music in the House of Commons anyhow.
On the question of the figures the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said he understood that about 20 per cent. of appeals were being allowed at the moment. I am informed that the actual figure this year is 16 per cent., which is not very different. That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it, and I submit a more useful way, is to ask what proportion of all applications for advertisement permission are being allowed on appeal. That is, not what proportion of appeals are being allowed, but what proportion of the whole lot have to go to appeal in order to get through. That figure is one per cent. The remainder either do not go to appeal or are disallowed on appeal. If we take away the right of appeal on the statistics over the last few years we are depriving the advertising industry of one per cent. of its applications to display advertisements on particular sites. There is no question of a material reduction in the turnover of the outdoor advertising industry. It is quite out of the question. That would be quite an irresponsible suggestion and it has not been made.
It may be of interest to the House to know that the Council on Tribunals has been consulted about this proposal. They did not object in principle to the eventual abolition of appeals. What they did think was that the appeals ought to be abolished progressively as local planning authorities were considered competent to exercise the new functions under the Bill. My right honourable friend is not convinced this is the right way to look at it. In the first place, it would not be practicable to abolish appeals by stages. If they were to be abolished anywhere they should be abolished everywhere, right across the country. I think this is clear in ordinary justice. Secondly, the criteria of competence for preparing local plans

93
are quite different from those for deciding advertising applications, which is such a very small matter in comparison. So it would not seem appropriate to make this depend on the giving of the new powers under the Bill as a whole to local authorities, but better to do it right across the country in one go.
My noble friend Lord Silkin spoke of a breach of faith. I do not know that when a Government introduces a provision, and that provision is part of a deal accepted by a certain interest in a given year, it must be supposed that that deal must endure, on both sides of it, to all eternity, and if it does not there is a question of breach of faith. I should have thought that after 21 years it would be quite permissible to submit to Parliament a proposal for changing a law enacted 21 years ago without any allegation of a breach of faith. I do not know what the House thinks, but that is my own view.
To come to the crux of the matter, it is this. Can anybody think of a matter which is more truly local in its importance than the question whether or not there shall be an advertisement in a given place? My noble friend Lord Silkin spoke of the trend towards allowing a right of appeal in more and more cases, and said that this proposal cuts across it. I would say that there is another trend—that is, increasing devolution of truly local matters to local final decision, a trend which I welcome very strongly; and I would say that we may hope in future to see a trend devolving final decision in regional matters to regional authorities.
I know there are many Members of this House who would like to see devolution of final decision in matters concerning Scotland and Wales to Scotland and Wales, and away from Whitehall. If we can think in terms of devolution on such big and important issues without Whitehall interference, surely we can think in terms of leaving final decision on matters such as whether or not an advertisement should appear outside a shop in the high street to the local elected representatives, and get rid of the necessity to maintain a quite sizeable central staff crawling all over the shop in order that the man in Whitehall shall make sure that the locally-elected person has not erred.
94
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was thinking, I believe, of advising his noble friends to divide against this Amendment. I think it would appear curious if it were done, because the Amendment, I would remind the House, says simply, "Let us change the Bill so that local authorities may not devolve these decisions on their officials". The Government think it is right to do this, because if the final say is going to be at local authority level, and not Whitehall level, let us at least see that it is taken by the elected representatives of the full council or committee and not by their officers. I would urge on the House the view that the right thing to do in this case is to consider the amended regulations when they come before the house to consider the major issue, which tonight is not before the House—I have merely announced the Government's intention. What is before the House is this little consequential improvement in advance.
Either the regulations will go through Parliament or they will not. Let us consider the two cases. If they go through, I think noble Lords would agree it would be better that local authorities should not have power to devolve it on their own officers, because if there is no appeal it is a bit much to leave it to a local authority officer. On the other hand, if the amended regulations do not go through Parliament, we shall find, if the Amendment is accepted, the decision may not be devolved by the local authority to its own officers but there would still be an appeal. I would submit that this does not matter very much, and it would be better to keep the two issues quite separate—to vote on the Amendment on its merits, do we or do we not permit local authorities to devolve this to their own officers, and then to consider the amended regulations when they come before Parliament for approval.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question. Can he say whether National Parks are also included? He spoke of the local authorities, the planning authorities, being elected, but in the case of the National Parks where there is a Planning Board some of its members are appointed by the Minister.
LORD KENNET: My Lards, I am not quite sure that I have understood the noble Lord's question. What is it?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was asking whether in fact the proposals we have been discussing are applicable equally to National Parks as to the rest of the country, because the planning boards there are not entirely elected.
LORD KENNET: The Amendment and the regulations themselves will make no change in the identity of advertisement control authorities. If an authority has been an advertisement control authority it will continue to be so. There will be no new ones and no subtractions from the list.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the Minister's refrain has been that there can be no more local matter than this. Not long ago my local authority ordered me to remove a door in a stone wall and to fill the gap by rebuilding the stone wall. Your Lordships might say "What could be a more local matter than that"? But there was an appeal to the Minister, and I exercised my right of appeal. The Minister considered the matter and, in his wisdom, he said, "Your door in the wall is perfectly all right and it can stay where it is".
To my mind the value of these appeals to the Minister, even in quite local matters, is that thereby some sort of uniformity is achieved all over the country in the way citizens are treated, because local authorities discover by experience what Whitehall considers reasonable and they act accordingly. Without this right of appeal you do not get the kind of uniformity of treatment which is surely desirable up and down the country.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has assuaged the feelings
of Lord Silkin, but he certainly has not assuaged mine. I am particularly grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who, it seemed to me, exposed the weakness of the Government's case when it was argued that these decisions on advertising control were purely local. An enormous percentage of all planning applications and planning appeals are purely local, and only a minority of them raise wider issues. The logic of the Government's case is that the right of appeal to the Minister on the refusal of a planning application ought to be abolished, except in a minority of cases where there are clearly wider than local considerations. I am quite certain that that would not be acceptable to your Lordships. I am interested to hear that the proportion of successful appeals is down this year to 16 per cent. The figure of 20 per cent. was quoted in debate by the Minister of State in another place, and that was why I used it.
Whatever the noble Lord says about the argument, it remains to me quite clear that this Amendment is an integral part of a proposal which is totally unacceptable, so far as I am aware, to everybody except the Government and the local authority associations. The noble Lord questioned me about the Law Society. He himself referred to a meeting held at the Ministry in July; and I think I can say with confidence that the representative of the Law Society at that important, key meeting opposed the change which the Government have now announced. I feel more strongly than ever that I should advise my noble friends to vote against this Amendment.
6.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Richie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.[Teiller]

Royle, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kennet, L.

Rusholme, L.

Burden, L.

Leatherland, L.

St. Davids, V.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Serota, Bs.

Collison, L.

Maelor, L.

Shackleton, L.

Crook, L.

Milner of Leeds, L

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles

Mowbray and Stourton, L,

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Ferrers, E.

Poltimore, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gage, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Airedale, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rathcavan, L.

Albemarle, E.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Aldington, L.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Auckland, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Audley, Bs.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Balerno, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Barrington, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Killearn, L.

Silkin, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Buckton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Strang, L.

Carrington, L.

Lambert, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Latymer, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Margadale, L.

Teviot, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mills, V.

Teynham, L.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wade, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 49, line 9, at end insert—
("() an application for an established use certificate under sections (Certification of established use) of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment adds applications for established use certificates to the list of matters which may be delegated to an officer of a local authority. Such applications will turn on matters of fact and law rather than raise issues of planning policy. I beg to move.
Clause 59 [Limit of duration of planning permissions past and present]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 50, line 22, leave out ("20th December 1967") and insert ("the beginning of 1968").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the House has already discussed at an earlier stage the principle lying behind Amendment 53. I beg to move formally.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, it would be for the convenience of the House if we considered Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56. Perhaps, by leave, I could move them together. They are drafting Amendments which have been
98
submitted for the purposes of clarification. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 26, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section").
Page 50, line 28, leave out ("and if not granted, shall") and insert ("or as the case may").
Page 50, line 39, at end insert—
("(3) If after the commencement of this section planning permission is granted without the condition required by subsection (2) above, it shall be deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the development to which it relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of the grant.")—(Baroness Serota.)
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 51, line 6, at end insert—
("(e) to any planning permission granted under section 20 of the principal Act on an application relating to buildings or works completed, or a use of land instituted, before the date of the application")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to except a Section 20 permission front the time limit provisions. I beg to move.
Clause 60 [Outline planning permissions]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 51, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment hangs together with Amendments 62 and 63. It is a paving Amendment for Amendment 62. As at presented drafted, Clause 60 is deficient, in that it contains no provision for the case where outline permission has been granted before the commencement of the clause subject to an expressed time limit condition of some kind. Amendment No. 62 makes good this deficiency. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59:
Page 51, line 17, leave out ("20th December 1967") and insert ("beginning of 1968")
On Question, Amendment agreed to. 6.53 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("two") and insert ("three")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60. Perhaps your Lordships will consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 61, 64, 65 and 67, which are linked with it. This series of arithmetical Amendments arises in this way. In non-statutory language, Clause 60, as drafted, says, after grant of outline planning permission, application for detailed planning permission must be made within two years and a start must be made on the development within three years of the grant of the detailed planning permission. In Committee I criticised the shortness of these periods and I moved that the proposed interval of two years should be extended to three. The Government said that this would mean an extension by one year of the whole process, which was not acceptable to them.
I am accordingly, on this occasion, not proposing any extension of the whole period; I am simply saying that it should be three plus two, instead of two plus three, which still makes only five. I know there is considerable anxiety among professional bodies about the shortness of the five years. Nevertheless I am not pressing that further. I know that the chartered land societies made representations to the Government that if there was to be this "two and three" scheme it should more appropriately be three
100
and two, than two and three. I think the reason underlying that is that a considerable amount of work has to be put in before one is in a position to submit a detailed planning application. Applicants will already have received outline planning permission and will probably not wish to put themselves to the trouble, and expense, of preparing detailed plans—if it is a large development, the expenses may be considerable—until it is quite clear that they are in a position to go ahead with it.
On the other hand, I think the chartered land societies felt that after detailed planning permission had been granted there was no particular reason why the developers should not get on with the job within two years. Since we debated this matter in Committee, I have been in touch with the Federation of Registered House Builders also, and although they are still strongly critical of the overall five-year period they endorse my view, as embodied in this Amendment, that it would be better to have three plus two than two plus three. I think that is quite a substantial body of support for my Amendment, and as this proposal of mine on Report stage does not involve any lengthening of the total period I hope it may be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has indicated, these Amendments would make the time limit provisions in Clause 60 read so that three years instead of two years was the standard period allowed for the submission of applications for the approval of details after the grant of an outline permission, and two years instead of three the standard period for the commencement of development after approval of details. He has also indicated to us that the earlier proposals he put to us at the Committee stage are not put to-day, but he has confined the series of Amendments for debate to-day to the "three plus two" principle. My right honourable friend still takes the view that the periods at present in the Bill are to be preferred and in fact would work out better in practice, but it is really a question of balancing the time to be allowed for preparation of detailed plans against the time to be allowed for the preparation and letting

101
of contracts and the physical preparations necessary before work can begin.
Nevertheless, I must admit that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would not fundamentally affect its operation or frustrate its purpose. Moreover, at any rate in relation to new permissions, the clause leaves the final decision on what the periods should be to the local planning authority and the Minister, so to that extent the Amendments are of limited effect. In these circumstances, if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, were to press his Amendments I could not advise my noble friends on this side of the House to divide against him.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I find that reply disappointing, because it is not just the preparation of detailed plans and things of that kind that are involved. Finance plays a very important part in development, and such things as credit restrictions, the economy of the country and matters of that kind arise. Whereas the financial arrangements can all be completed and made available for development, it may well be that financial circumstances alter and it is not possible to proceed as planned. Considered on a schedule of that kind, I think it is a pity that something cannot be done to extend the period, as has been suggested.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal, while a very important one, should be dealt with by the procedures for it which are set out in the Bill. For my part, I appreciate the attitude of the noble Baroness, who, I know, always seeks to be as helpful as she can. She did not exactly welcome these Amendments of mine with enthusiasm but she said that she would not advise her noble friends to vote against them. I myself think that it would be hardly worth while to have a Division either way on this question so I greatly hope that if I stand by the Amendments she will fulfil her promise and the Amendments will be written into the Bill. Then we shall all see how we get on. As she rightly said, there is flexibility in the Bill so that adjustments can be made in the course of practice if they are found to be needed.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 29, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 32, at end insert—
("(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to a planning permission granted before the commencement of this section subject to an express condition that the development to which it relates should be begun, or be completed, or that application for approval of any reserved matter should be made, not later than a specified date or within a specified period.")—(Baroness Serota.)
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("subject") in line37.—(Baroness Serota.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 40, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 65.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 52, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert—
("(4) If after the commencement of this section outline planning permission is granted without any conditions under subsection (3) above, it shall be deemed to have been granted subject to those conditions.
(5) The authority concerned with the terms of an outline planning permission may, in applying subsection (3) above, substitute, or direct that there be substituted, for the periods of two years, five years or three years referred to in that subsection such other periods respectively (whether longer or shorter) as they consider appropriate.
(6) The said authority may, in applying the said subsection, specify, or direct that there

103
be specified, separate periods under paragraph (a) of the subsection in relation to separate parts of the development to which the planning permission relates; and, if they do so, the condition required by paragraph (b) of the subsection shall then be framed correspondingly by reference to those parts, instead of by references to the development as a whole.
(7) In considering whether to exercise their powers under subsections (5) and (6) above, the said authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. In moving it I would draw your Lordships' attention to a new subsection (6) which incorporates the most substantial alteration contained in this Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move No. 67, the Amendment to the Amendment:
Subsection (5), line 4, leave out ("two years, five years or three") and insert ("three years, five years or two")
Amendment No. 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [Provisions supplementary to sections 59 and 60]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 68.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 34, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 35 and insert—
("or a person appointed by him under section 19 of this Act to determine the appeal grants the approval, on the date of the determination of the appeal by the Minister or that person.
(4) Where after the commencement of sections 59 to 60 above a local planning authority grant planning permission, the fact that any of the conditions of the permission are required by this Act to be imposed, or are deemed by this Act to be imposed, shall not prevent the conditions being the subject of an appeal under section 23 of the principal Act against the decision of the authority.
(5) Section 18(3) of the principal Act (planning permission not to be taken as authorising operations carried out after the time limited in that behalf by the permission) shall not have effect in relation to a planning permission having conditions attached to it by or under section 59(1), (2) or (3) or section 60(2) or (3) or (4) above; but in the case of such a planning permission (whether outline or other),—

(a) development carried out after the date by which the conditions of the permission require it to be carried out shall be treated as not authorised by the permission; and

104

(b)an application for approval of a reserved matter, if it is made after the date by which the conditions require it to be made, shall be treated as not made in accordance with the terms of the permission.")—(Baroness Serota.)

Clause 62 [Termination of planning permission by reference to time limit]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 53, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where, by virtue of section 59 or 60 above, a planning permission (whether granted before or after the commencement of those sections) is subject to a condition that the development to which the permission relates must be begun before the expiration of a particular period and that development has been begun within that period but the period has elapsed without the development having been completed.
(2) If the local planning authority are of opinion that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period, they may serve a notice (hereafter in this section referred to as a 'completion notice') stating that the planning permission will cease to have effect at the expiration of a further period specified in the notice, being a period of not less than twelve months after the notice takes effect.")—(Baroness Serota.)
Page 53, line 22, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 24 and insert ("take effect only if and when it is confirmed by the Minister, who may in confirming it substitute some longer period for that specified in the notice as the period at the expiration of").
Page 53, line 35, leave out ("as from the date specified in the notice") and insert ("as the expiration of the period specified in the notice for the purposes of subsection (2) above").
Page 53, line 37, leave out ("and including that date") and insert ("the end of that period").
Page 53, line 39, leave out ("date specified therein as that on") and insert ("expiration of the period specified therein as the period at the expiration of").—(Baroness Serota.)
Clause 63 [New provision as to what is "operational land" of statutory undertakers]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 54, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
("(b) the undertakers' interest in the land was acquired by them as the result of a

105
transfer under provisions of the Transport Act 1968 from other statutory undertakers and the land was, immediately before the transfer, operational land of those other undertakers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed this clause on Committee, I undertook to look again at the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, about the handing of operational land by one statutory undertaker to another. I think that I can cut short my explanation by reminding the House that the example he proposed where things might go wrong would be that the Bill would permit a Gas Board to acquire land from British Rail and then to put gas holders on what was earlier a siding, because the railway use would have been operational use and the gas holder would also be operational use.
It is true that the Bill as introduced would have done this. We have looked at various ways of ensuring that such an event, unlikely as it was, would be prevented by the Bill and have concluded that the best way is to narrow the matter by specific reference to the proposed reorganisation of the transport undertakings as that appears in the Transport Bill now before the House. With that explanation, I beg to move.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, would wish me on his behalf to welcome this Amendment. It certainly seemed that the original paragraph (b) went much too wide. In the context in which we are discussing it, the proposed paragraph (b) appears to be very much more sensible. I am as grateful as all others concerned in the matter will be that the Government have agreed to amend the Bill in this sense.
Clause 65 [Restriction on entitlement of statutory undertakers to compensation for adverse planning decisions]:
7.12 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved Amendment No. 75:
Leave out Clause 65 and insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) Except as provided by subsection (2) below, statutory undertakers shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of a decision mentioned in section 170(1)(a) or
106
(b) of the principal Act (Right to compensation in respect of certain decisions and orders) where that decision is made after the commencement of this section.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to compensation in respect of a decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act refusing planning permission for the development of operational land, or granting such permission subject to conditions, where—

(a)planning permission for that development would have been granted by a development order but for a direction given under such an order that planning permission so granted should not apply o the development; and

(b)the development is not specifically authorised by statute (within the meaning given to that expression by section 58(3) of this Act).

(3) Section 119 of the principal Act (compensation on refusal of planning permission or its grant subject to conditions) shall not apply in relation to planning permission for the development of operational lard of statutory undertakers.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ilford. I do so on his behalf, since he has had to leave the House. As the law stands, statutory undertakers applying for planning permission to carry out development on their operational land and receiving a refusal of permission or a grant of permission subject to onerous conditions, may claim compensation from the local planning authority. This is in complete contrast to the position of the private developer who in similar circumstances would not be entitled to any compensation at all.
During the passage of this Bill through both Houses various Amendments have been made on this matter. Briefly, the position is that, under the clause as it now stands, the new concept is that the clause provides for the making of regulations by the planning Minister and the appropriate sponsoring Minister to specify types of development for each class of statutory undertaker or even for a single undertaker. Where development is covered by the regulations, compensation will be payable at the rate of 50 per cent., whereas if development does not fall within the regulations there will be no right of compensation a all to the statutory developer.
The present clause goes a step towards the complete removal of the right to compensation in all cases for which the clause I am moving is designed

107
to provide. It has thus been conceded that there are circumstances in which no compensation ought to be payable. Why not remove the entitlement to compensation altogether? The issue of principle here is clear; namely, that in matters of development control the local planning authority should not in any circumstances in their consideration of any application for planning permission have regard to the possibility that their decision, if adverse to the developer, might give rise to a liability for compensation. It might obviously influence their consideration of the matter. In practical planning terms it should be of no account to the planning authority that the developer is a statutory undertaker, the only class of developer in this privileged position. Their only concern should be to determine whether or not the development is right for the land in question and, if so, whether any conditions should be attached to it.
Perhaps I can give an illustration to show why I feel that the present position is wrong and unfair. Let us take an oil company which wants to put up an oil tank, which may be a very ugly object and in many ways is rather similar to a gasometer. If they are refused permission to put up their oil tank, they get no compensation. If, however, the Gas Board is refused compensation, in the case where they want to put up agasometer—which may be even larger and more hideous than an oil tank—under these proposals they would get 50 per cent. compensation. To my simple mind it seems to me that that "ain't right". One has two things to consider. One is that the mind of the planning authority may be affected by the fact that they have to pay compensation in one case and not in another, and the other is that it is unfair as between a private developer and a statutory undertaker. For those brief reasons, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. This Amendment has the backing of the County Councils' Association. I know of a similar case in my own vicinity, where a large firm is contemplating a course of action which, in the opinion of many, will seriously injure amenities. The case is now sub judice, so I cannot
108
refer to it in detail. The point is that, although the Minister will have a difficult decision, it would be unthinkable that the whole circumstances would not be examined at a public local inquiry or, if the Minister decided to attach conditions, that they should not be borne entirely by the firm. It is difficult to understand why the statutory undertakers should have this privileged condition or should impose conditions on ratepayers for the maintenance of the amenities.
I sometimes wonder whether there is not some element of inter-departmental feeling in this matter, in that some Departments may feel that, having been given deemed planning permission, it would be wrong for another Ministry to have supervision over their work. In equity, I can see no real distinction between the work of statutory undertakers or the work of these large firms which often claim, as I am sure they will do in the case I have mentioned, that they are acting in the national interest. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I greatly hope that the Government will be forthcoming in their reply to my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury, who has explained his Amendment so clearly that I need add very little. In the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Ilford moved a similar Amendment and I, as an alternative, moved an Amendment to reduce the 50 per cent. compensation to 10 per cent. compensation. I think my noble friend's method is more well principled than mine, because I can see no case at all for any compensation here. But even taking the Bill as it stands, the proposal of compensation at the rate of 50 per cent. is itself without any basis in principle. The figure of 50 per cent. can be arrived at by no other method than splitting the difference, which is not really a very good way of settling these matters. It was arrived at under duress in the case of the Abingdon gas holder, because there was little doubt that the Gas Board, which I think was operating in that case under a Private Act, could have laid legal claim to the full 100 per cent. compensation.
There are two important issues here to bear in mind. One is that if a statutory

109
undertaker is not allowed to do something which, for the purpose of its undertaking, it wants to do on operational land, and it suffers thereby, it is in no worse case than any other developer or, indeed, any other industry. If you have a factory and it is urgently desirable for the sake of economic production that that factory should be extended, nevertheless the planning authority may have good grounds for refusing the planning application for extension. The grounds may be so good that that refusal is held up by the Minister on appeal, and there is no sort of compensation to the firm concerned. It simply loses the financial advantage that it would have had if it had been allowed to do what was deemed to be not consistent with good planning.
And so with the statutory undertaker. In the hypothetical case, the statutory undertaker is not authorised by the planning authorities to do something, because it is contrary to good planning, and that will increase its costs. It will not make it impossible to carry on the undertaking; it will simply increase its costs. The costs must be spread over the consumers of whatever service or facility or product the undertaker provides, as they must be paid by somebody. But there seems no reason whatever why the statutory undertaker should have the opportunity, which the private owner or the private developer does not, of shifting an additional financial burden on to the shoulders of the ratepayers in general, if they and their representatives wish to preserve the town or the piece of country, or whatever it may be, in a manner which is consistent with good planning. That is the first point.
The second point is that a planning authority ought not to have to consider liability to compensation when it is reaching decisions on planning applications. A planning application comes before it and it should judge that on its merits, and not be hampered by the thought that if it refuses planning permission it may cast a burden, possibly running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, on its ratepayers.
I know well the case that is made for special treatment of the statutory undertakers—that is to say, the railway that wants a siding must have the siding adjoining the railway; the Gas Board that
110
wants a gas holder must have the gas holder in a certain place, or, at any rate, within a certain radius of that plate, or its costs will be higher— and the question is: where should the additional costs fall? I wholly agree with my noble friends that there is no case, in principle, for granting the statutory undertakers a privileged position above everybody else in this matter. That is why I greatly hope that the Government will be prepared to say that they will accept this Amendment either in detail or, at any rate, in principle.
7.25 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, when this clause was before us in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, agreed to withdraw the Amendments which they had down, on the understanding that the Government would without commitment look again at the question of compensation to statutory undertakers. This we have done in the light of the criticisms which they and others made, and of the alternative proposals embodied in their Amendments. The Government's view remains that the clause should staid as it is.
It has been argued that local planning authorities should be free to make planning decisions without having to think of their liability to pay compensation if permission is refused. That has been argued here this afternoon and it is commonly argued in planning circles when this matter is discussed. But this liability does not arise only towards statutory undertakers. There are many circumstances in which a planning decision may entail the payment of compensation; for example, where a permission is revoked —which I agree is rather a special case —or where a would-be developer is not allowed to exercise rights granted by the General Development Order. This is something much more closely relevant to what we are now discussing. There is nothing in this principle of liability to compensation which is peculiar to statutory undertakers.
Let us spend a few moments on the case of the Abingdon gas holder, which has been much quoted as an example of the kind of favouritism which ought to stop. I hope to dispel some misconceptions about this case which, as the

111
Government fully recognise, rightly aroused great public interest. The Gas Board's right to compensation had nothing to do with their being statutory undertakers; any other body would have been entitled to compensation in the same circumstances. Very often, when these matters are discussed, these two points have either not been recognised or, if they have, seem to me to have been given too little weight.
The position is that where development has been authorised by both Houses of Parliament in the form of private or local legislation (which exists for private concerns and local authorities as well as for statutory undertakers) then that development is permitted by the General Development Order, Class XII. If rights under any Class of this Order are withdrawn and the developers are prevented from doing what that Order permits, then they are entitled to compensation. That is what happened at Abingdon. The case received a lot of publicity because Abingdon is a pretty, old town, and because the compensation payable was substantial. But that compensation was payable because General Development Order rights were being taken away, and not because the developers happened to be statutory undertakers. In the event, as we know, the compensation payable was reduced by 50 per cent.
It is true that statutory undertakers have often had to rely on Private Act or Ministerial Order to get adequate powers, and, consequently, Class XII of the G.D.O. is perhaps more frequently relevant to their development than it is to development by other people. It is also true that if planning control is used to prevent statutory undertakers from carrying out the kind of development which, on technical and other grounds, is the best solution to their problem, the second-best solutions available may be unusually expensive to them. I am thinking of such things as high-pressure, low-level gas holders, instead of the old-fashioned low-pressure, high-level ones. It is for this reason that the statutory undertakers were given a special compensation code, even where there is no Private Act to give them access to the General Development Order provisions. The result of this is that the imposition of planning controls on statutory under
112
takers is often, in practice, more expensive, and so, in a sense, more difficult, than the imposition of similar controls on other developers.
Clause 65 as drafted deals with the compensation payable to statutory undertakers in two kinds of case. First, there is the one that I have just been talking about, where there are rights under Class XII of the G.D.O. These rights, as I have explained, are not peculiar to statutory undertakers. But as their activities may make more impact than other people's, Clause 65, as a first step—and this is Clause 65 as drafted—halves the compensation payable to statutory undertakers. Second, there are the cases under Section 170 of the 1962 Act, where the right to compensation is dependent on the land being operational land. Here, statutory undertakers do have a right not enjoyed by others, so here, too, the clause as drafted, as a first step, halves their compensation.
One might argue, as some noble Lords have done, that the time has come to put statutory undertakers in both cases on exactly the same footing as anybody else. This is attractive when you say it, but what do we mean by "anybody else"? The clause tabled by Lord Ilford would abolish statutory undertakers' rights to compensation in cases where they have no permission granted by the G.D.O., and apply for planning permission to develop operational land but permission is refused. That far, Lord Ilford's clause would indeed put the undertakers on the same footing as anybody else. But it would abolish altogether the undertakers' compensation rights where they are deprived of their development rights under Class XII of the G.D.O. Other developers who are deprived of these rights would continue to get full compensation both under the Bill as introduced and with Lord Ilford's proposed Amendment. So in this type of case Lord Ilford's clause would treat statutory undertakers worse than anybody else. It would not put them in the same position as anybody else: it would positively penalise them.
VISCOUNT GAGEMy Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would allow me to interupt him. Could he give any examples of these private undertakings which have received compensation with

113
regard to their special rights, he having said that there are such private individuals? We have given certain examples of cases where they will not receive compensation. Has he any case which he can give us where they would?
LORD KENNET: No, I am sorry, my Lords; I have not got any ready. I can certainly look them up and send them to the noble Viscount. They would arise in cases where a Private Act gave them access to the privileged position of G.D.O. Class XII. I can find out what has been done in this respect and let the noble Viscount know.
All this being so, the Government naturally considered leaving the amount of Class XII compensation alone and simply abolishing altogether the special right to compensation where the land is operational. This would indeed have brought about complete parity between statutory undertakers and the others, but I think it would have worked out less well than what we now propose, which is to take the two kinds of case together and halve the compensation for both. The Government's present clause will thus leave statutory undertakers worse off than other developers in one kind of case, the Class XII case, and still at some advantage in the other class of case, where operational land is involved.
My Lords, we have not stopped there. Clause 63 narrows the definition of operational land. Then, again, the regulations to be made under Clause 65—and this is the second step; I referred to the first step earlier—will mean that a great many developments which would hitherto have qualified for full compensation and which might still have qualified for as much as a half will instead qualify for none at all. Thus the only kind of development on operational land which will qualify for compensation, even at 50 per cent., will be
"development necessary to enable an undertaking to carry out a primary statutory function and, in particular, in the siting or design of which operational considerations seriously limit the undertakers' freedom of choice".
I quote from my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State on the Commons Report stage. Only where statutory undertakers are in this special position will they qualify for even 50 per cent. on operational land. If what they propose does not fall within that definition—and it is easy to see that quite a
114
lot will not—they will not get any compensation whatever on refusal.
My Lords, this is a big advance. I do not claim perpetuity for Clause 65 as now drafted. It should produce a reasonable result and a much fairer position than the present arrangement. This is what matters. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that a statutory undertaker, when refused permission, was in no worse case than anybody else. I believe this is not so at all. I believe this is very far from the truth, because it remains an overriding fact in this whole field that statutory undertakers, unlike ordinary commercial operators, are not free simply to abandon the project. They cannot just go somewhere else or go into another line of business. They cannot even go out of business, because they have a statutory duty to provide a service. Where they provide their service it is nearly always for the benefit of the local community, and if the local community want provided in the interests of their area in a way which is more expensive, as the: may very rightly want, it is not unreasonable that the local planning authority should make a contribution through the rates.
It may be hard to put this contribution on communities where the amenities are worth preserving, whereas no doubt in other cases the local authority will not think it worth refusing and paying up the compensation. But there is money also in local amenity. If a town is pretty and is kept pretty, it attracts tourists, and this is reflected in the rates.
Until now, the Government agree, the scales have been tipped in favour of statutory undertakers. At very considerable expense to them and wholly to the advantage of local authorities, the measures we propose will redress, the balance. We have tried to strike a fair balance—and the Government are generally criticised for going either too far or not far enough, and often for both at the same time. So, as we have not been persuaded that the alternatives discussed in Committee and put down for to-day's debate would provide a more equitable basis for the present Bill, I shall ask the House to accept Clause 65 as it stands.
7.36 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I, for one, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having explained so clearly

115
and at such conscientious length the changes which the Government arc proposing to make by means of this Bill. I think he has made the very best of the case, if I may say so with respect. I must however affirm that to my mind it is not good enough. I really do not think we ought to let this Bill leave your Lordships' House with the provision that a statutory undertaker seeking a development on operational land, for which he has no Private Act, or no G.D.O. cover, shall be entitled to 50 per cent. compensation if the local planning authority decides, and the Minister upholds the decision on appeal, that the development is undesirable from the planning aspect.
LORD KENNET: I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. He should qualify that by saying, "if it is the exercise of a primary statutory function on operational land as that is newly and more narrowly defined in the Bill."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I accept that. The noble Lord will appreciate that I have not a brief from which to speak on this, and I am using shorthand terms to describe the situation. But I entirely accept that the Government have gone a long way in the changes which they propose. With respect, I do not think that the instance of compensation on the revocation of a planning permission is relevant. If a planning authority has given one decision and later on thinks it has made a mistake, and wants to change, then its blood be on its own head and the compensation on its own ratepayers: it has made a mistake and it must pay compensation for setting things right. Likewise, I do not think it is a parallel to the wider case when one quotes the General Development Order exemption for development that is authorised by some Private Act. I do not know how old the Gas Act was in relation to Abingdon; but I suspect that it was fairly old and that Parliament had taken its decisions without any foresight or possibility of foresight as to the enormity of the outrage that years later might be perpetrated on the small town of Abingdon.
I think I am reasonably correct in saying that the General Development
116
Order exemptions are, in the main, exemptions for the type of development that is so unobjectionable that there is no need for planning permission to be sought. It happens that there is included in that list a case where development has been specifically authorised under an Act of Parliament. Some of these Acts may go back a long way. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to remember that we are legislating, even now, that the ordinary planning permission shall lapse after five years unless it has been acted upon.
I appreciate that the Government have been trying to find a solution but I really think they must try harder. My noble friend's Amendment may not be perfectly drafted. On a matter like this, I think it is quite an achievement to draft an Amendment which stands up at aft I said in Committee that I had quailed at the prospect; and produced a much simpler and less principled Amendment of my own. Except by passing an Amendment of this general character, I do not see how we can ensure that the statutory undertaker is in no more favourable a position as regards compensation than other developers in the normal case which is not covered by a private Act or previous planning permission or anything of that kind. Perhaps in another place they may be able to draft it with more precision so as to achieve the effect that my noble friend Lord Grimston described. I do not know whether other noble Lords will wish to express views. I am fairly confident that public opinion generally is in favour of this Amendment in principle. For my part, if my noble friend decides to press it—and that is entirely a matter for him—I shall go into the Lobby with him.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, from what has been said, it appears to me that unless we press this Amendment the position will be that in normal cases statutory undertakers will still be in a privileged position. That is the principle against which we are standing. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet. said that the new clause may in certain exceptional circumstances give an advantage to the private undertakers. I accept from him that that may be so, and that to that extent the drafting of this new clause is faulty; but on the main issue I think it is right. I would suggest to your Lordships that the best way to deal

117
with this problem is to vote this new clause into the Bill and then at the next stage the Government can put forward any suggestions for removing these advantages which may, it is said, accrue to private developers. For those reasons I ask the House to divide.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 76:
After Clause 65 insert the following new clause:
Modifications of s. 164 of principal Act.
(".—(1) Section 164 of the principal Act (power of Minister, local planning authority or statutory undertakers, on acquisition or appropriation of land for development, by service of notice under the section to secure extinguishment of statutory undertakers' rights over the land or the removal of their apparatus) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2)A notice under that section shall not be served by the acquiring or appropriating authority unless they are satisfied that the extinguishment of the statutory undertakers' right or, as the case may be, the removal of their apparatus, is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any development with a view to which the land was acquired or appropriated.
(3)The period referred to in subsection (1) of the said section (that is to say the period to be specified in a notice under the section as the period at the end of which the statutory under-
7.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Rockley, L.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Buckton, L.

Sandys, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Killearn, L.

Strang, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Latymer, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teviot, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Milverton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, I,.

Wade, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Beswick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Burden, L.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chalfont. L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Shackleton, L.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Crook, L.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

takers' right will he extinguished or. as the case may be, before the end of which their apparatus shall be removed) shall be a period of not less than twenty-eight days from the date of service of the notice.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a number of Amendments which come in the latter part of the Bill and which are concerned with in-proving machinery. Unless any noble Lord tells me that I should not, I propose to move this group of Amendments formally, indicating that they are of a purely mechanical nature. I would therefore say, accordingly: My Lords, "Machinery: I beg to move."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: What the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said is entirely acceptable to me. I know that he will draw the attention of the House to anything which is not a matter of machinery; not a matter of drafting and not consequential.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
Notice for same purposes as s. 164 of principal Act, but given by statutory undertakers.
(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where land has been acquired or appropriated as mentioned in section 164(1) of the principal Act, and—

(a)there is on, under or over the land any apparatus vested in or belonging to statutory undertakers; and

(b)the undertakers claim that development to be carried out on the land is such as to require, on technical or other grounds connected with the carrying on of their undertaking, the removal or re-siting of the apparatus;

the undertakers may serve on the acquiring or appropriating authority a notice claiming the right to enter on the land and carry out such works for the removal or re-siting of the apparatus or any part of it, as may be specified in the notice.
(3) Where, after the land has been acquired or appropriated as aforesaid, development of the land is begun to be carried out, no notice under this section shall be served later than twenty-one days after the beginning of the development.
(4) Where a notice is served under this section, the authority on whom it is served may, before the end of the period of twenty-eight days from the date of service, serve on the statutory undertakers a counter-notice stating that they object to all or any of the provisions of the notice and specifying the grounds of their objection.
(5) If no counter-notice is served under subsection (4) above, the statutory undertakers shall, after the end of the period of twenty-eight days therein mentioned, have the rights claimed in their notice.
(6) If a counter-notice is served under subsection (4) above, the statutory undertakers who served the notice under this section may either withdraw it or may apply to the Minister and the appropriate Minister for an order under this section conferring on the undertakers the rights claimed in the notice or such modified rights as the Minister and the appropriate Minister think it expedient to confer on them.
(7) Where, by virtue of this section or of an order of Ministers thereunder, statutory undertakers have the right to execute works for the removal of re-siting of apparatus, they may arrange with the acquiring or appropriating authority for the works to be carried out by that authority, under the superintendence of the undertakers, instead of by the undertakers themselves.
(8) Where works are carried out for the removal or re-siting of statutory undertakers' apparatus, being works which the undertakers
120
have the right to carry out by virtue of this section or an order of Ministers thereunder, the undertakers shall be entitled to compensation from the acquiring or appropriating authority; and the amount of the compensation shall be an amount calculated in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of section 171 of the principal Act but reduced, in a case where the authority carry out the works, by the actual cost to the authority of doing so.
(9) In subsections (2) to (4) of section 171 of the principal Act, as they apply for the purposes of this section, any references to "the proceeding giving rise to compensation" shall, instead of being construed in accordance with subsection (5) of that section, be construed as a reference to the circumstances making it necessary for the apparatus in question to be removed or re-sited.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a little more than machinery. Here we are back on statutory undertakers. I should like to make it absolutely clear that this is not the same sort of issue, of big developments and compensation, that we were talking about. When a local authority acquires a part of a town for redevelopment, there is very often plant underground belonging to statutory undertakers. The local authority may serve a notice on the Gas Board or Electricity Board, or whatever it is, saying "You must please move this, so that we can get on with the redevelopment." If they served that notice they become liable to compensate the statutory undertaker for the cost of moving the plant.
It sometimes happens that a local authority, having acquired the land, simply do nothing. They do not serve any notice on the statutory undertaker, and thereby are not liable for compensation. This means that if the statutory undertaker wants to get his gear out of the way, he has to move it just the same, but he does not get any compensation. In certain parts of the country the one-sidedness of the present system is a source of friction between local authorities and statutory undertakers, and the Amendment will enable the statutory undertakers to serve a notice on the local authority if it does not happen the other way round. This will have the effect of balancing it out, so that the undertaker will get paid the cost of moving the equipment even if the local authority does not take the initiative.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.56 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 66 insert the following new clause:
Conversion of shop into restaurant to constitute development
". The conversion of a shop into a refreshment house or restaurant shall, if begun after the commencement of this section, be treated for the purposes of the principal Act as involving development."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, let me set everybody's mind at rest at the outset by saying that I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. I am well aware that its real effect would be to amend the Use Classes Order. I think that kind of thing is far better done by a new Order rather than by amendment through the Statute. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate that if we do not take our opportunities on a Bill like this of raising points which we should like considered in connection with the future Amendment of the Development Order or the Use Classes Order, the opportunity may not come until the Order has been laid; and when the Order has been laid it is incapable of amendment. I am therefore raising this now in the confident hope that consideration will be given to the point when the Use Classes Order is next under revision.
My Lords, at present, as I understand it, a shop, that is to say premises which, with planning permission, are used as a shop, can be converted into a restaurant, or café, or eating place, without any further planning permission being required. In a main shopping street there can surely be no objection to that. But we all know that there are very many shops existing with planning permission in residential areas. The type which perhaps we think of first is the corner shop which is extremely convenient to people living along the street. It has been the corner shop, where you could get all kinds of things, for years and years and years. Then there is the type which comes from an extension of a few shops round the corner from the main shopping street into an area which is essentially residential. Like the corner shop, any shop there can be converted into an eating place without further planning permission.
One may say from one point of view that this is no bad thing, because one does not want planning legislation to tie everybody up too tightly. But there is one aspect which I submit requires specific consideration. Planning is very much concerned with the preservation of environment. Shops normally close at half-past five or six o'clock, or half-past six or seven o'clock, or thereabouts. A cafe, or restaurant, or eating house, probably does not. Until recently it could stay open all night. It may even now stay open all night, but the Refreshment Houses Act 1967 does empower a local authority to fix a closing hour of 11 o'clock or later.
The broad situation, however, is that when a shop adjoining or bordering upon a residential area is turned into an eating place it may attract people and generate noise up to the late hours of the evening, whereas so long as it was a shop it closed down for active purpose very much earlier. I had one or two of such instances in my constituency when I was a Member of another place, and others have been reported to me. The objection arises, of course, after it has happened.
I am not suggesting that there is anything sinister in all this. Somebody comes along and buys a shop and is informed by his lawyer that he requires no further planning permission to, turn it into a restaurant that can stay open until the late hours of the evening. It is then discovered by the people living nearby that, whereas they had been living in a quiet street up to that time they now live in a noisy street. Some restaurants create little noise, but ethers, according to their clientele, may generate quite a lot of noise during the hours of the evening.
My request in this Amendment is simply that this point should be looked at in connection with any future revision of the use classes order. I am sure that one could not go as far as the Amendment suggests, because it is too sweeping, but I thought that this was the most convenient way of bringing the point to the notice of the Government. If they are prepared to say that this question of shop use changing, without additional planning permission, into late night catering use will be examined when the Bill has received the Royal Assent, I, for

123
my part, shall be quite content and will withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that will be done in connection with the possible revision of the use classes order. As a matter of fact, we have not very much evidence of what the present situation is. The noble Lord mentioned an experience of his own. A few more experiences like that would help us to make up our minds the better about what ought to be done. There is the fact that noisy restaurant clienteles in the small hours can be controlled, eliminated or kept quiet by other provisions than the planning law, though I agree that this is not a conclusive case to keep them out of the provisions of the use classes order. Another point is that it is difficult to define a café or restaurant, because there are all sorts of mixed ones, and we have hitherto had real problems in finding a proper definition. However, with those two provisos, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks, that it will be considered in connection with the use classes order provision.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I appreciate the difficulties. I am content with his assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Modification of transitory exemptions based on pro-1948 use]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 58, line 26, leave out ("20th December 1967") and insert ("the beginning of 1968").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the last in the series of Amendments substituting the beginning of a calendar year for a reference to the 20th December. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
Posting of site notice prior to planning application
(".—(1) An application for planning permission for development of any class to which section 15 of the principal Act (certain classes of planning application, prescribed by development order, to be supported by evidence of prior publicity) applies shall not be entertained by the local planning authority unless it is accompanied by one or other of the following certificates, signed by or on behalf of the applicant, that is to say—

(a)a certificate stating that he has complied with subsection (2) of this section and when he did so; or

(b)a certificate stating that he has been unable to comply with it because he has not such rights of access or other rights in respect of the land as would enable him to do so, but that he has taken such reasonable steps as are open to him (specifying them) to acquire those rights and has been unable to acquire them.

(2) In order to comply with this subsection a person must—

(a)post on the land a notice, in such form as may be prescribed by a development order, stating that the application for planning permission is to be made; and

(b)leave the notice in position for not less than seven days in a period of not more than one month immediately preceding the making of the application to the local planning authority.

(3) The said notice must be posted by affixing it firmly to some object on the land, and must be sited and displayed in such a way as to he easily visible and legible by members of the public without going on the land.
(4) The applicant shall not be treated as unable to comply with subsection (2) of this section if the notice is, without any fault or intention of his, removed, obscured or defaced before the seven days referred to in subsection (2)(b) above have elapsed, so long as he has taken reasonable steps for its protection and, if need be, replacement; and, if he has cause to rely on this subsection, his certificate under subsection (1) above shall state the relevant circumstances.
(5) The notice required by subsection (2) of this section shall (in addition to any other matters required to be contained therein) name a place within the locality where a copy of the application for planning permission, and of all plans and other documents submitted therewith, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during such period as may be specified in the notice, not being a period of less than twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice is first posted.
(6) If any person issues a certificate which purports to comply with the requirements of this section and which contains a statement which he knows to be false and misleading in a material particular, or recklessly issues a certificate which purports to comply with those requirements and which contains a statement

125
which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(7) Any certificate issued for the purpose of this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed by a development order.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause hangs together with Amendment No. 47 which, my noble friend Lord Kennet moved earlier on in our deliberations. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Transfer of Ministerial functions as to stopping up etc. of footpaths and bridleways]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 67, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("() The power conferred on the Minister of Transport by section 153(1) of the principal Act to make an order authorising the stopping-up or diversion of a highway, where he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out as mentioned in that subsection, shall, in the case of a footpath or bridleway, he exercisable also by the Minister of Housing and Local Government where that Minister is so satisfied; and the Minister of Transport shall not make an order under that subsection in the case of a footpath or bridle-way unless, at the time when he first publishes notice of the order in accordance with section 154(1) of the principal Act, it appears to him to be necessary for the said purpose also to authorise the stopping-up or diversion of some other highway, not being a footpath or bridleway.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment, which hangs together with Amendment No. 121 to Schedule 7 to the Bill, replaces the present subsection (2) of Clause 80, which had the effect of transferring from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of Housing and Local Government the power to make orders stopping up or diverting footpaths or bridleways. In its orginal form this power was too simply stated and it did not deal with a situation which is a relatively frequent occurrence in practice—that it is necessary to deal with a footpath or bridleway in the course of stopping up or diverting a highway which is open to vehicular traffic. It is therefore necessary to preserve the power of the Minister of Transport, who will be dealing with highways on which vehicles can be used, to deal also
126
with footpaths and bridleways. The new subsection provides this, but goes on to say that the Minister of Transport is not to make an order in the case of a footpath or bridleway unless it appears to him to be necessary to authorise at the same time the stopping up or diversion of some other sort of highway. The effect will be that where only a footpath or bridleway is involved, only the Minister of Housing can act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 67, line 35, leave out ("footpath or bridleway") and insert ("highway").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 hang together and, with the leave of the House, I will move them in that way. The first of the Amendments is required because it will sometimes be necessary or expedient in an order diverting or stopping up a footpath or bridleway to substitute a highway on which there are rights of way with vehicles. Amendment No. 83 merely replaces the existing words with a simple formula. I beg to move.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move No. 83.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("'footpath'") and insert ("In this Act").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [New powers to authorise stopping-up and diversion of highways]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 84 to 90 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move No. 84.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 1, leave out ("and section 86 below").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 85.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, leave out lines 4 to 26.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 86.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 30, leave out ("telegraph") and insert ("telegraphic").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 87.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 30, leave out ("77") and insert ("81").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 88.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 32, at end insert ("with the substitution in the said sections of the principal Act for references to the Minister of Transport and the said section 153(1) of references to the responsible Minister and this section").—(Baroness Scrota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 89.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, leave out lines 33 and 34.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.9 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway
".—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a local planning authority by resolution adopt a proposal for improving the amenity of part of their area, being a proposal which involves a highway in that area (being a highway over which the public have a right of way with vehicles, but not a trunk road or a road classified as a principal road for the purposes of advances under section 235 of the Highways Act 1959) being changed to a footpath or bridleway.
(2) The responsible Minister may, on an application made by the local planning authority after consultation with the highway authority (if different), by order provide for the extinguishment of any right which persons may have to use vehicles on that highway.
(3) An order made under subsection (2) of this section may include such provision as the Minister (after consultation with the highway authority) thinks fit for permitting the use on the highway of vehicles (whether mechanically propelled or not), in such cases as may be specified in the order notwithstanding the extinguishment of any such right as is mentioned in that subsection; and any such
128
provision may be framed by reference to particular descriptions of vehicles, or to particular persons by whom, or on whose authority, vehicles may be used, or to the circumstances in which, or the times at which, vehicles may be used for particular purposes.
(4) No statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths, footways or bridleways shall affect any use of a vehicle on a highway in relation to which an order made under subsection (2) above has effect, where the use is permitted in accordance with provisions of the order included by virtue of subsection (3) above.
(5) Any person who, at the time of an order under subsection (2) of this section being made, has an interest in land having lawful access to a highway to which the order relates shall be entitled to be compensated by the local planning authority in respect of any depreciation in the value of his interest which is directly attributable to the order and of any other loss or damage which is so attributable.
In this subsection 'lawful access' means access authorised by planning permission granted under the principal Act or the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, or access in respect of which no such permission is necessary.
(6) A claim for compensation under subsection (5) above shall be made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under the principal Act.
(7) Sections 153(2), (3) and (5), 154, 156, 157 and 158 of the principal Act (provisions ancillary to section 153(1), provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land in connection with highways, and provisions as to telegraphic lines) shall apply in relation to an order under this section, as they apply in relation to an order under section 153(1) of that Act, with the substitution for references to the Minister of Transport and that section of references to the responsible Minister and this section.
(8) The responsible Minister may, on an application made by the local planning authority after consultation with the highway authority (if different) by order revoke an order made by him in relation to a highway under subsection (2) above; and the effect of the order shall be to reinstate any right to use vehicles on the highway, being a right which was extinguished by virtue of the order under the said subsection.
(9) Subsection (7) above shall not be taken as prejudicing any provision of the principal Act enabling orders to be varied or revoked.
(10) In this section—

(a) 'the responsible Minister' means, except in relation to Wales, the Minister of Transport, and, in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State; and

(b) 'statutory provision' means a provision contained in, or having effect under, any enactment."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to empower local authorities to carry out on

129
highways, which have been converted to footpaths or bridleways by order under the preceding new clause, the kind of minor works which are appropriate where a pedestrian precinct has been created. One envisages here the laying out of flower beds, the creation of play spaces for children, and perhaps the provision of refreshment facilities, showcases, information boards and the like. It is conceivable that in some town centres shopping streets which have been turned into pedestrian precincts could be fitted with a showcase or two which could provide a valuable facility for publicising work going on towards the preparation of local plans, and these could make a useful contribution to stimulating public awareness of that process under the provisions of Part I of this Bill.
I hope that this new clause will commend itself to the House, in that it will provide an essential power, if full benefit is to be obtained from the power afforded by the preceding clause, to convert highways into footpaths or bridleways. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 91.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
Power of local authorities to provide for amenity of converted highway
(".—(1) Where in relation to a highway an order has been made under subsection (2) of section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) of this Act, a competent authority may carry out and maintain any such works on or in the highway, or place on or in it any such objects or structures, as appear to them to be expedient for the purposes of giving effect to the order or of enhancing the amenity of the highway and its immediate surroundings or to be otherwise desirable for a purpose beneficial to the public.
(2) The powers exercisable by a competent authority under this section shall extend to laying out any part of the highway with lawns, trees, shrubs and flower beds and to providing facilities for recreation or refreshment.
(3) A competent authority may so exercise their powers under this section as to restrict the access of the public to any part of the highway, but shall not so exercise them as—

(a) to prevent persons from entering the highway at any place where they could enter it before the order under section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) was made; or

(b) to prevent the passage of the public along the highway; or

130

(c) to prevent normal access by pedestrians to premises adjoining the highway; or

(d) to prevent any use of vehicles which is permitted by an order made under the said section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) and applying to the highway; or

(e) to prevent statutory undertakers from having access to any works of theirs in, under or over the highway.

(4) An order under subsection (8) of the said section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) may make provision requiring the removal of any obstruction of the highway resulting from the exercise by a competent authority of their powers under this section.
(5) The competent authorities for the purposes of this section are—

(a) the councils of counties, county boroughs and county districts; and

(b) in Greater London, the Greater London Council and the councils of London boroughs;

but such an authority shall not exercise any powers conferred by this section unless they have obtained the consent of the local planning authority and the highway authority (in a case where they are themselves not that authority).")—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Miscellaneous amendments of Part IX of principal Act]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 72, line 16, leave out ("78") and insert ("82 or (Conversion of highway, into footpath or bridleway)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, first to put right an incorrect reference to Clause 58, and, secondly, to apply the provisions of Clause 86 to the new clause as well as to Clause 82. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 93.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 28, leave out ("the responsible Minister") and insert ("any Minister of the Crown").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94:
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) This Act,—

131

(a) except so far as it amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, section 24(9) of the Industrial Development Act 1966 and section 8(3) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967, shall not extend to Scotland; and

(b) except so far as it amends the said Act of 1957, shall not extend to Northern Ireland.")—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Special provisions as to development plans in Greater London]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 25, leave out ("Part I of this Act (including this Schedule") and insert ("this Act").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
8.13 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 96:
After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule:

PROVISIONS AS TO ESTABLISHED USE CERTIFICATES
Application for certificate and appeal against refusal thereof
1. An application for an established use certificate shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order, and shall include such particulars, and be verified by such evidence, as may be required by such an order or by any directions given thereunder, or by the local planning authority, or, in the case of an application referred to the Minister, by him.
2. Provision may be made by a development order for regulating the manner in which applications for established use certificates are to be dealt with by local planning authorities, and, in particular,—

(a) for requiring the authority to give to any applicant for such a certificate, within such time as may be prescribed by the order, such notice as may be so prescribed as to the manner in which his application has been dealt with;

(b) for requiring the authority to give to the Minister and to such other persons as may be prescribed by or under the order such information as may be so prescribed with respect to applications for such certificates made to the authority, including information as to the manner in which any such application has been dealt with.

3.—(1) A development order may provide that an application for an established use certificate, or an appeal against the refusal of such an application, shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by a certificate corresponding to one or other of those described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 16(1) of the principal Act (requirement of certificate
132
that the applicant is the owner of the land or has given notice to the owners of his intended application, or has tried to do so) and any such order may—

(a) apply for the purposes of this subparagraph the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) and (6) of that section, with such modifications as appear to the Minister to be requisite; and

(b) make provision as to who, in the case of any land, is to be treated as the owner for the purposes of any provision of the order made by virtue of this sub-paragraph.

(2) If any person issues a certificate which purports to comply with any provision of a development order made by virtue of subparagraph (1) above and which contains a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly issues a certificate which purports to comply with those requirements and which contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(3) Where provision is made by a development order in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, the order may also include provision corresponding to section 17(3) of the principal Act (duty of local planning authority, and of the Minister on appeal. to take into account representations made by others interested in the land and to give them notice of the decision on the application or appeal).
Provisions with respect to grant of certificate
4. An established use certificate shall be in such form as may be prescribed by a development order and shall specify—

(a) the land to which the certificate relates and any use thereof which is certified by the certificate as established;

(b) by reference to the paragraphs of section (Certification of established use) (1) of this Act, the grounds on which that use is so certified; and

(c) the date on which the application for the certificate was made, which shall be the date at which the use is certified as established.

5. Where the Minister, or a person appointed by him under section 19 of this Act to determine an appeal, grants an established use certificate, the Minister or that person shall give notice to the local planning authority of that fact.
6. In section 19(4) of the principal Act (register of decisions on planning applications) references to applications for planning permission shall include references to applications for established use certificates; and the information which may be prescribed as being required to be contained in a register kept under that subsection shall include information with respect to established use certificates granted by the Minister or by a person appointed by him under section 19 of this Act to determine an appeal.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed this Amendment

133
under Amendment No. 21. I beg to move
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [General vesting declarations for land compulsorily acquired]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 79, line 34, leave out ("under the Act of 1946").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment falls under Lord Kennet's heading of "Machinery". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 81, line 31, at end insert—
(". At any time after a general vesting declaration has been executed in respect of any land a person entitled to compensation arising out of the acquisition by the acquiring authority of his interest in that land may require that authority within fourteen days or by the vesting date, whichever is the later, to pay to him on account of compensation a sum not exceeding nine-tenths of the amount which the district valuer certifies to be proper compensation in respect of that interest.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I am making a second attempt. I criticised the general vesting declaration procedure when we were in Committee, principally on the ground that it appeared to me to render it possible for the public authority to establish a title to land and to disentitle the existing owner without any guarantee of the owner's getting payment within a reasonable time. In Committee I moved an Amendment which would entitle the owner to require the acquiring authority to pay him 90 per cent. of the district valuer's value for the land within 14 days of his requiring it. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, quite rightly pointed out to me that, apart from everything else, this was faulty in that it might enable the owner to insist on receiving 90 per cent. of the compensation value even before the title of the land had passed to the acquiring authority.
My Amendment has been redrafted with the intention of correcting that mistake. I shall not be in the least surprised, of course, if the noble Lord points out that I have fallen into some other pitfall by the alteration I have
134
made; but I am not a lawyer and it is all I can manage to do to draft these Amendments so that what they mean is clear to me and will be clear, I hope, to most of your Lordships. I am very well aware that I am exposed to the criticisms of the draftsman. I do not think there will be any doubt at all in the mind of anybody who reads this Amendment as to what it means.
What it seeks to do is to establish that the person, and particularly the owner-occupier, who loses all title to his land quickly through a general vesting declaration shall be able to make the acquiring authority pay him 90 per cent. of the district valuer's valuation quickly. If that valuation is wrong it will not matter so much when the Bill reaches the Statute Book because the Government have introduced provisions by which an over-payment by the acquiring authority can be re-claimed from the recipient. I would only say in conclusion that there is very strong feeling in favour of the Government's putting some obligation like this upon acquiring authorities. I have been not surprised but gratified by the support which has been disclosed to me for an Amendment of this general character. I think that the system of the general vesting declaration, which may have much to be said for it in respect of speed of operation, is gravely at fault if it may leave the owner without his title to the land, without any title on which he can raise money, and without any money at all, until such time as the acquiring authority, perhaps much later, decides to pay. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am informed that the noble Lord has fallen into another pitfall. I think that in fact he fell into it the last time also, but it was, as it were, masked by the major one he was in then and it is now revealed. It is that the district valuer is not always necessarily engaged in negotiations on all compulsory purchase acquisitions, and if he is not then he does not have a view about what the figure ought to be. So that is a difficulty, but I do not want to make too much of it. It is only a technical pitfall. But what the noble Lord's Amendment does do, which is more serious, is to extend this 90 per cent. right to anyone who is entitled to compensation. In Committee the noble

135
Lord referred especially to owner-occupiers, but at present he is allowing all owners, whether owner occupiers or landlords, to benefit from it; and this seems to be wider than is probably justified. However, the real objection to this Amendment is the mere fact that this provision would be here in the Bill requiring the local authority to make advance payments on request.
I think that at an earlier stage Lord Brooke, or if not he then another noble Lord, drew an analogy with the practice of the Minister of Transport who often, or even usually (I am not sure), does this: pays 90 per cent. over. The Minister of Transport, however, is not statutorily bound to do it. He just does it on occasions when it seems to him to he the right, the just and the convenient thing to do, and not on other occasions. Equally, the Land Commission, who first got this short vesting procedure and on whose procedure the procedure in the Bill is modelled, do not have a statutory obligation to make these 90 per cent. payments.
So what the Government object to in this Amendment is not any suggestion that it is a good idea to pay over 90 per cent. when you can, when the man needs it and when it is clear what it is 90 per cent. of. That is obviously a good idea if there are no difficulties about it. What the Government object to is the proposal to write it into the Bill as a statutory obligation for the first time on any public body. That being so, and given the, I should have thought, reasonably just, merciful and equitable performance of local authorities in cases of this sort so far, which I have no doubt will be continued under the new dispensation, I hope the noble Lord will be content to rest on that.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken the trouble to explain at length the difficulties about accepting my Amendment. The one point to which I would take exception was when he described it as an "advance payment". I must say that if I received an account
136
from a shop for goods of which I had taken delivery some time before, I should hesitate, if I sent a cheque for 90 per cent. of their bill, to dare to describe it as an "advance payment" to them. I do not think that would be well received, certainly by some shopkeepers whom I know. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be willing to cover this point in a circular to local authorities.
I am not so much concerned about Government Departments, I am not so much concerned about a body like the Land Commission, which is a creature of the Government. I am anxious about the local authorities, some of which are very good payers and some of which are slow payers. I think it would be decidely helpful if the Government, perhaps by drawing the attention of local authorities to the practice of the Minister of Transport, or in some other way, would put into their minds that they should be ready to make a substantial payment on account where there is liable otherwise to be hardship. That is what I am seeking to achieve, and if that can be done in a non-statutory way I should feel it was well worth while to have ventilated these matters here. I hope the noble Lord will consider this point.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the Amendment is formally withdrawn, I should like to assure the noble Lord that we shall certainly consider putting that in a circular. I should just remind the House that after vesting day and until the final payment is made, interest accrues on what is not paid.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 82, line 27, leave out paragraph 16.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is occasioned by the provisions of the Theft Act, which received the Royal Assent last week, and which was so recently discussed in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.23 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 100:
After Schedule 2 insert the following new schedule:

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF PLANNING BLIGHT PROVISIONS OF PRINCIPAL ACT
Section 138
In subsection (1), after the words 'this Act' there shall be inserted the words 'and section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) of the Act of 1968'.
In subsection (5), after the words' those sections' there shall be inserted the words' and section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) of the Act of 1968'.
After subsection (5), there shall be added the following subsection—
'(6) In these provisions and in section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) of the Act of 1968, "blight notice" means a notice served under the next following section or under the said section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice)'.
Section 139
In subsection (4), for the words' a notice served under this section' there shall be substituted the words' a blight notice'.
Section 140
In subsection (1), for the words' Where a notice has been served under the last preceding section' there shall be substituted the words' Where a blight notice has been served under the last preceding section or under section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) of the Act of 1968)'.
In subsection (3), for the words' a notice under the last preceding section' there shall be substituted the words a blight notice'; and after the word' subsection' there shall be inserted the words' or, as the case may be, section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) (8) of the Act of 1968'.
Section 141
In subsection (1), for the words' notice served under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words' a blight notice'.
Section 142
In subsection (1), for the words 'Where a notice has been served under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'Where a blight notice has been served'.
In subsection (2)(b), for the words 'the notice under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'the blight notice'.
Section 144
In subsection (1), for the words 'a notice has been served under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'a blight notice has been served
Section 146
In subsection (1), for the words' a notice under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'a blight notice'.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed this under Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Control of works for demolition, alteration or extension of listed buildings]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this and the next Amendment, No. 102, are really machinery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) Regulations under this Act may provide that an application for listed building consent, or an appeal against the refusal of such an application, shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by a certificate corresponding to one or other of those described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 16(1) of the principal Act (requirement of certificate that the applicant is the owner of the land or has given notice to the owners of his intended application or has tried to do so) and any such regulations may—

(a) apply for the purposes of this subparagraph the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) and (6) of that section, with such modifications as appear to the Minister to be requisite; and

(b) make provision as to who, in the case of any building, is to be treated as the owner for the purposes of any provision of the order made by virtue of this subparagraph.")—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 102.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 13, at end insert—
("() Where provision is made by regulations in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, the regulations may also include provision corresponding to section 17(3) of the principal Act (duty of local planning authority, and of the Minister on appeal, to take into account representations made by others interested in the land and to give them notice of the decision on the application or appeal.")—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, these three Amendments, Nos. 103, 104 and 105, which beg to move en bloc, are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 90, line 48, leave out ("(3), (4), or (6)") and insert ("or (3) to (7)")
Page 91, line 3, leave out ("14(6)") and insert ("14(7)")
Page 91, line 11, leave out ("paragraph 14(3) and (4)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) of paragraph 14").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 92, line 22, after ("notice") insert ("(without prejudice to their power to serve another)")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another Amendment corresponding to Amendment No. 17, but in this case it relates to listed building enforcement notices. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Procedure in connection with orders relating to footpaths and bridleways]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 96, line 25, at end insert—
("() In the foregoing sub-paragraph 'council' means a county council, a county borough council, a county district council, the Greater London Council or a London borough council.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment defines the word "council" used in the Schedule on procedure for footpath and bridleway orders. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 are purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 97, line 7, after ("or") insert ("over").
Page 97, line 30, after ("or") insert ("over").—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Adaptation and interpretation of enactments, etc.]:
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 99, line 46, after ("Act") insert ("this Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with machinery. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.25 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 101, line 35, at end insert—
(". In section 14(8)(b) after "1959" there shall be inserted the words "except sections 72, 73 and 74 thereof".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is similar in terms to one which I moved in Committee and which has been inspired by a recent court case, Westminster Bank, Limited, v. Beverley Borough Council, which was reported in The Times on May 31 last. It was a case which was heard in the Court of Appeal and which is sub judice, an appeal having been lodged with this House.
The question which arises, and with which we are dealing in this Amendment, is whether or not, when a road improvement scheme is made, people owning land beside the proposed road improvement area shall or shall not receive immediate compensation for losing their right to develop their roadside land. Legislation of 1925 made it abundantly clear that in these cases there was to be immediate compensation paid to any person who was injuriously affected by such a road-widening scheme.
We then had the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, the first of the Town and Country Planning Acts, and in 1954 the Ministry of Transport issued a Circular No. 696, paragraph 8 of which says:
"In view of the powers now available to local authorities as planning authorities for the control of development it is no longer necessary for councils to safeguard future road improvement schemes by using their powers … to prescribe building and improvement lines."
It then quoted the 1925 Statutes, to which I have referred.
Your Lordships will have guessed that the point of this was that by proceeding under the planning legislation persons whose land was injuriously affected were not to be entitled to immediate compensation. They might get compensation when the road improvement scheme went through, but that of course might be in 25 years' time, and it would not be the landowner at the time the scheme was made but probably his grandson who would get the compensation.
In 1959, Parliament passed the Highways Act of that year, Sections 72, 73 and 74 of which re-enacted specifically the provisions of the two 1925 Statutes which had said that there was to be immediate compensation payable in these road-improvement scheme cases, a procedure which no doubt had been followed from 1925 right up until the Ministry of Transport Circular of 1954. Of course, when Parliament passed the 1959 Act it had before it the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, but Parliament specifically re-enacted that in these cases persons injuriously affected when road-improvement schemes were made should have the immediate compensation to which they had been entitled ever since 1925. One would have thought that the 1959 Act put paid to the Ministry's Circular of 1954, but in fact it was the opposite.
In Committee in reply to my Amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Serota said this—and may I say that I was a little disappointed that nowhere in the Minister's reply does any reference appear to the fact that what we are discussing here is whether people shall or shall not have immediate compensation. But the noble Baroness did say this:
"The Highways Act Provisions go back to the time before the universal planning powers of the 1947 Act were available to local planning authorities and are now moribund."— OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/7/68, col. 740.]
I think that observation from the Minister entitles me to quote an observation of Lord Justice Salmon in the Court of Appeal, and I am going to he very careful not to breach the sub judice rule; I am not going to quote anything said in the Court of Appeal with regard to the facts of the particular case, but referring exclusively to general principles and general policy what Lord Justice Salmon said, as reported in The Times, was this:
"… a Ministry of Transport circular seemed to say quite plainly that it would be very stupid to prescribe an improvement line under the Highways Act 1959, because the highway authority would have to pay for the damage suffered by the landowner. Ever since the circular was published, it appeared that improvement lines were not prescribed under the Act, but planning powers were used to sterilise land without property owners having the right to compensation.
"That practice was to be deplored. It was a practice to defeat the express intention of
142
Parliament in the Highways Act. It was an unjust practice designed to save money."
I am perfectly certain that Parliament, in passing the 1959 Act, was reflecting public opinion, public opinion being that when land is taken for the community or is prescribed to be taken for the benefit of the community the individual landowner who is injuriously affected thereby shall have immediate compensation. If the procedure of the 1954 Ministry circular goes on being adopted, which is quite contrary in what is said in the provisions of the 1959 Highways Act, I humbly submit that that is a piece of impertinence on the part of the Executive.
We must decide in these cases what is to happen. Is Parliament's intention, as expressed in the Highways Act, to be observed, and are people to have their immediate compensation? Or is the practice of an out-of-date Ministry circular going to be observed, and are people going to be denied their immediate compensation? Or are local authorities going to be given the choice to exercise their whim or their judgment and in some cases to grant compensation under the Highways Act and in other cases to deny compensation by proceeding under planning legislation? I suggest that we must come to a decision upon this matter in this Bill. I submit to your Lordships that the observations of Lord Justice Salmon which I have quoted ought to be followed and adopted and this Amendment ought to be accepted, which makes it quite clear that in the future the provisions of the Highways Act 1959 are to apply and people are to get immediate compensation as provided in that Act in cases where they lose the right to develop their land by reason of the land being prescribed as required for the community for road widening schemes and the like. I beg to move.
8.35 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has indicated in his speech in moving it, is a very technical one requiring great knowledge of previous legislation and the relevant Acts of Parliament. It might be helpful to the House if I were to explain a little of the background. Section 14(7) and (8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962

143
empowered the Minister to facilitate development by making development orders which direct that certain enactments shall not apply or shall apply with modifications to the development specified in the order. The enactments in respect of which this power can be exercised are those passed before the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act 1957 and those provisions in the Highways Act 1959 which are a re-enactment of provisions dating back from before the passing of the 1947 Planning Act. The 1959 Act was a consolidating measure, and Sections 72, 73 and 74, referred to in Lord Airedale's Amendment are re-enactments of old Road Improvement Act and Public Health Act provisions concerned with the prescription of improvement lines for street widening and building lines and frontage lines where a building is to be rebuilt.
As I understand it, the effects of Lord Airedale's Amendment would be to take away the power of the planning Minister to make orders removing or restricting the effect of those sections. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to the Westminster Bank case and reminded the House that this case was decided against the Minister in the court of first instance, broadly on the ground that the decision of the planning authority and of the Minister on appeal was a misuse of planning powers, because the land required for road widening would have been protected by the use of powers under Sections 72, 73 and 74 of the Highways Act 1959, powers which could have carried with them a right to compensation from the Bank. In the Court of Appeal this decision was reversed, Lord Justice Salmon dissenting, broadly on the grounds that highway considerations were an integral part of planning—a theme which has run very much through our discussions on this Bill—and the planning legislation contained its own compensation code which laid down the circumstances in which compensation should be payable for planning restrictions. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted, and the Ministry have recently been informed by the Bank that it is intended to lodge such an appeal.
The only basis for attacking the planning decision taken in reliance on Planning Act powers in this case lay in the existence of the alternative powers
144
under the Highways Act, and if these alternative powers were not there, there would be no doubt about the validity of planning decisions of this type. Lord Airedale's purpose, presumably, is to prevent the Minister from acting to clear up the situation once and for all by exercising his power to make a development order or orders, under Section 14(7) of the 1962 Act, cancelling or restricting the effect of the relevant sections of the Highways Act in relation to all development or to the development specified in the particular order. This would have been in some people's view a remarkably recondite way of dealing with the problem presented by the court of first instance, if it had not been reversed by the Court of Appeal, and although it has occurred to my right honourable friend it is certainly not a course that he would have been recommended to take. To that extent, therefore, the Amendment before the House is guarding against a contingency which is never likely to arise.
The position of the Government in all this is that we regarded the situation as left by the decision of the Court of Appeal as satisfactory. It leaves with local planning authorities and the Minister powers which it was always assumed they had, and which indeed they must have if development control is to be exercised satisfactorily. In these days the planning of development cannot be regarded as something separate from the planning of roads, to be conducted by a separate authority and under separate powers.
Since the debate on the Committee stage my right honourable friend has considered what was then said on Lord Airedale's Amendment, but he is satisfied that for the time being matters should proceed as they are. He attaches great importance to the principle that planning powers should be available in cases where it is necessary to control development which would interfere with road improvements or road construction. Meanwhile, the Highways Act powers remain on the Statute Book. Until they are repealed it seems right that the Minister should have power to modify their effect by means of a development order if it should appear necessary.
It must be conceded that that power has not so far been used and it is indeed not likely to be used in practice. This

145
is not, in any case, we feel, the moment to rush into an alteration of the law, especially one which would preclude the bringing of the two sets of provisions into concurrence without legislation, when leave to appeal to your Lordships' House has already been given in the case which has brought the question into prominence and that leave, it is understood, is likely to be exercised shortly. I hope that the House will agree, that in the light of these circumstances, particularly with the case pending, it should not accept tonight the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
8.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope that the advice of the noble Baroness will be carefully considered. It raises one important point. There have been a number of cases in courts of law where there has been this sort of conflict between a power which can be exercised under the planning Acts without the payment of any compensation at all (which I think is this case), and another power under another Statute which may be on a cognate subject which does provide for compensation. It is not so much necessarily the power to reduce planning permission as to impose conditions upon its grant, and there has been a considerable exercise of judicial opinion about whether it is right to take away the compensation that would be due under other Acts by way of a condition under the Town and Country Planning Act.
I think that the noble Baroness certainly has a point when she says that we ought to wait until this House in another capacity decides whether or not in this case the Beverley Corporation were correct in the way that they dealt with the matter, and that the Minister was correct in upholding them. I hope that the Government have not taken a fixed line and made some policy decision about whether or not it is the proper way to deal with these things, so that the person who is otherwise entitled, as in this case, under the Highways Act to compensation, should, after all, be deprived of it by the exercise of these powers under the Town and Country Planning Act.
This is really a quite broad matter. It does not apply only to the Westminster Bank case; it applies to a large number
146
of other provisions in the law where there are inter-related possibilities of this sort. I hope that what the noble Baroness says does not imply a general policy decision upon this matter. If it does, then I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has a point and that the matter ought to be pursued. But I hope that her speech was not intended to direct our minds in that particular way.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment so closely argued both on Committee and on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I should declare an interest in this subject as a member of the Country Landowners' Association, an Association which comprises some 38,000 members. It must be remembered that the Association comprises largely owner-occupiers, and this is an important factor which I will come to a little later.
When this Amendment was moved in Committee on July 8, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, assured us (col. 739):
"… the Government regard the situation left as a result of this case"—
that is, the Westminster Bank v. Beverley Corporation case—
"as satisfactory, in that it leaves with the local planning authority and the Minister powers which it will always be assumed that they had and which they must have, if development control is to be exercised satisfactorily."
I think we may agree that this position is highly satisfactory, but only from the point of view of a local planning authority. They are in a most enviable position, because they are able to choose between two procedures which they may adopt. They can either take powers formally under a development plan prepared under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, to define what land in their area is proposed to be used for a highway in future; or, alternatively, they can take powers under the Highways Act 1959. The provisions for widening roads, of course, come under Sections 72 and 73 of this Act, involving payment of compensation for injurious affection.
It so happens that this particular case involves the Westminster Bank. But can we say that this is typical? After all, in a large number of cases a road frontage due for widening so often consists of perhaps three bungalows, a filling station,

147
a newsagent's and a house or two. In that case, there may be a quite substantial number of occupiers and owner-occupiers, all of whom would be affected to a greater or lesser extent. I wish to emphasise that in this Bill we are planning for the 1970s and the 1980s, and we are not looking backwards. With that in mind, we should perhaps have our intentions set clearly on what is the important factor at the outset, and in my view Lord Airedale's Amendment underlines a particularly important point.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the two noble Lords who have supported my Amendment. I suppose that if I were to proceed to divide the House now upon this Amendment I should not get much thanks, because I daresay there would not be a quorum and we should be prevented from completing the Report stage of this Bill. And in that event, I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would never speak to me again. But I shall return to this matter on Third Reading. I shall have had the advantage of reading carefully in Hansard what the noble Baroness has said in replying to this Amendment this evening.
In the meantime, may I say to the noble Baroness, in all friendliness, that, just as I complained that in her speech in replying to my Amendment in Committee she said nothing which indicated in the least that what we were discussing was whether a person whose land was taken away was to get any compensation or not, again this evening not one word of the noble Baroness's speech would lead anyone to suppose that what was being discussed was whether or not a person whose land was to be taken away was to receive the compensation which Parliament had said in the 1959 legislation was to be given.
Finally, let me emphasise once more that when Parliament passed that legislation in 1959 it had before it the Town and Country Planning legislation. As I see it, the objection to adopting the course advocated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is that we all know that by the time this House, in its judicial capacity, has decided the Westminster Bank case this Town and Country Planning Bill will have passed
148
into law. However strongly their Lordships sitting judicially may deplore the existing state of affairs, we shall be told just how long it will be before any further legislation can be passed to deal with this matter; that "it was only yesterday that the Town and Country Planning Bill was passed into law and there is no more Parliamentary time for this matter". That is what we shall be told, and that is why I want sincerely to get this matter resolved before this Bill reaches the Statute Book, notwithstanding that a case is sub judice. I shall seek leave to withdraw this Amendment now, but I shall come back to it on Third Reading.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I hesitated to interrupt him when he was speaking—I must apologise for not taking up the specific point he made on compensation. It is perfectly true that the Highways Act powers necessarily bring the right to claim compensation at the time of prescribing the building or improvement, but it is my view—and certainly I am advised by those who have much greater knowledge of this subject, and of this very involved and difficult legislation, than I myself have—that it is far too facile a generalisation to say that in contrast to the Highways Act, the Planning Acts give no compensation at all.
As I understand it, a refusal of permission which falls within Part II of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1962—and that includes the case, of extension of an existing building by not more than one-tenth—distracts compensation. Compensation, or the right to require the opposing public authority to buy the land, might arise under other provisions of the planning Act in certain circumstances. For these reasons, which I am sure are very familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who is so expect in this subject, I find it difficult to accept that action under one set of legislation provides compensation and the other one clearly does not.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I will not make a third speech, because we are on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 101, line 37 leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
("11. Any reference to section 68 of the Act shall be construed (according as the context may require) as including, or as being replaced by, a reference to section 26 of this Act.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to enable transactions authorised in relation to land under Clause 26 of the Bill to be carried out also in relation to land previously acquired under Section 68 of the 1962 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 101, line 44, at end insert—
(". In section 15(1)(b) (certain planning applications not to be determined by local planning authority before expiration of a specified period), for the words from 'appearing from the evidence' onwards there shall he substituted the words of the application'.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed this and the next Amendment in the context of Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 113.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—
(". In section 17 (determination of planning applications),—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (1)(a) there shall be inserted the words 'subject to sections 59 and 60 of the Act of 1968'; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from 'appearing from the evidence' onwards there shall be substituted the words of the application'.")—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 114.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 36, leave out ("following"). —(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 104, leave out lines 9 to 26 and insert—
("33. In section 159 (determination of applications etc. by statutory undertakers in respect of operational land) the following amendments shall be made:—
150

(a) in subsection (1), after the words 'such an application' there shall be inserted the words or such an application is deemed to be made under section 16(7) of the Act of 1968 on an appeal under that section by statutory undertakers';

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:

(1A) An application for planning permission which is deemed to have been made by virtue of section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (5) of the Act of 1968 shall be determined by the Minister and the appropriate Minister.'")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed this in the context of Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 together. The object of these revisions is to ensure a technical defect in the service of an enforcement notice cannot be pleaded in the courts as ground for upsetting the notice, but must be raised by way of appeal to the Minister. The Minister has jurisdiction under Clause 16(4)(b) to disregard the failure of service, where no one has beer, prejudiced. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 105, line 24, leave out from ("section") to ("above") in line 34 and insert—
("(a) the validity of an enforcement notice shall not, except by way of an appeal under Part II of the Act of 1968, be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever on any of the grounds specified in paragraphs (b) to (e) of section 16(1) of that Act;
(b) the validity of a listed building enforcement notice under section 40 of the Act of 1968 shall not, except by way of an appeal under Part IV of Schedule 3 to that Act be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever on any of the grounds specified in sub-paragraph (b) or (e) of paragraph 18(1) of that Schedule.
(2) Subsection (1)(a)")
Leave out from beginning of line 47 to end of line 7 on page 106.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 107, line 22, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (3), for the words in either of the preceding subsections' there shall be substituted the words' in subsection (1) of this section'").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 107, line 44, at end insert—
(". In section 196 (expenses of county councils), after the word 'thereto', there shall be inserted the words 'or under the provisions of the Act of 1968'.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the application of Section 196 of the Act of 1962 to the provisions of this Bill. This provides that the council of any county may direct that any expenses incurred by them, under certain specified sections, shall be treated as expenses for special county purposes, chargeable upon such part of the county as may be specified in the directions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 109, line 22, after ("under") insert ("Part II or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment brings a proposal to serve a notice under Part II of the Bill within the subsection, as well as notice under Part V of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.55 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 110, line 5, at end insert—
("() After subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where an order has been made—

(a) by the Minister of Transport, either before or after the commencement of section 80 of this Act, under section 153(1) of this Act or section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947; or

(b) by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the said section 153(1),

so much of the order as relates to a footpath or bridleway may be varied or revoked by an order made under the said section 153(1) by either of those two Ministers.'")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this hangs together with Amendment No. 81, which we have already discussed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 depend from
152
Amendment No. 22, which we have already discussed. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 112, line 43, leave out from ("16(7)") to end of line 45 and insert ("or (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 is deemed to have been made for such planning permission as is mentioned in the said section 16(7) or, as the case may be, the said section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (5)'.")
Page 113, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert ("or (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 is deemed to have been made for such planning permission as is mentioned in the said section 16(7) or as the case may be the said section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (5)'.").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 114, line 19, at end insert—
("This amendment of section 14 shall not have effect in relation to a notice thereunder served before the commencement of Part H of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment ensures that a notice served under Section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act, that is a "tree enforcement notice", before the commencement of Part II of the Bill is dealt with according to the existing enforcement code. The Amendment is consistent with the new transitional provisions for enforcement notices generally, which are contained in the forthcoming Amendment to Schedule 8. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 117, leave out lines 2 to 7 and insert—
("10.—(1) References in this Act to an enforcement notice shall be construed as not including references to an enforcement notice served, before the commencement of Part II of this Act, under section 45 of the principal Act, or having effect by virtue of paragraph 11 or 12 of Schedule 13 to the principal Act, or paragraph 1 or 17 of Schedule 14 to that Act.
(2) In relation to an enforcement notice so served, the provisions of the principal Act,

153
and of any other Act passed before this Act, shall continue to apply as if this Act had not been passed.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the withdrawal, after the said commencement, of an enforcement notice so served or the service thereafter of an enforcement notice under Part It of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, machinery! I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 117, line 21, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
("13. In relation to a notice served under section 139 of the principal Act before the commencement of sections 31 and 32 of this Act, and to any hereditary or agricultural unit which is the subject of the notice, sections 140 to 151 of the principal Act shall, after that commencement, have effect without any of the amendments made by Part IV of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to replace the existing paragraph 13 with a more flexible and generous transitional provision. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 121, line 1, column 3, at end Insert—
("In section 1(6), paragraphs (b) and (c)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed this Amendment in the context of Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  ASBESTOS REGULATIONS
  ASBESTOS REGULATIONS