Sitting of 11 November 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  ROAD VEHICLES (LIGHTING REGULATIONS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 (S. I., 1975, No. 1736), dated 24th October 1975, be annulled.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Youth Services
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the intentions of local authorities with regard to the maintenance of current youth service provisions in the light of cuts in public expenditure programmes.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): No firm information is available, as local authorities are not required to tell the Department of their intentions. While it is not possible simultaneously to restrain public expenditure and generally to maintain or increase the size and quality of the services provided, it is my impression that many authorities are doing their best to maintain their youth service provison in spite of the difficulties.
    Mr. Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Opposition Members are deeply concerned about the sagging morale of the youth service and the destruction of overall activity in youth service provision? Does he know, for example, that in Liverpool the local
    1114
    authority has pushed voluntary youth work to the bottom of the urban aid list, and that one London borough has told a voluntary youth body that it will lose all its grant next year? Is the hon. Gentleman surprised, therefore, that young people are totally disillusioned with the Government?
    Mr. Jenkins: Young people are not the only people who are aware that the Opposition are always asking for reductions in public expenditure in general yet oppose every element of restraint which is planned. Consequently, the Opposition have no credit whatsoever in the country. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me particulars of the specific cases he mentioned, I shall look into them. There are certain circumstances in which some authorities have found great difficulty in maintaining their youth services. On the other hand, there are others which, despite immense difficulties, have made increases in the service. It is far from true to say that the general morale is as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend accept that when the Opposition weep crocodile tears and shed hypocrisy about cuts in public expenditure on the youth service, we would appreciate it if they would tell us how to have an expanding education service while cutting public expenditure in the way they tell the Government to do, almost every day?
    Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point I was trying to make. He has underlined clearly what I said. But I do not think that anything that either of us can say will prevent the Opposition from continuing to make general statements about the desirability of reducing public expenditure yet asking for increases in every single service.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps the Government are taking to improve nursery education.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): To enable the provision of nursery education places to be increased, allocations of resources to local education authorities for the current year have been maintained and £8·5 million has been

    1115
    allocated for starts in 1976–77. Her Majesty's inspectors maintain regular contact with the schools and authorities, and my Department supports a programme of research which began in 1974, with the establishment of a nursery education research management committee.
    Mr. Marten: What are the criteria by which the Government judge it right to spend many hundreds of millions of pounds on nationalisation while reducing expenditure on nursery education from £30 million to £9 million next year?
    Miss Lestor: The question of public ownership and nationalisation is not one for my Department, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition have long attempted to suggest that the Government take into public ownership only those things which are failing the nation and therefore cost money. That is not the view of the Government, who also wish to take into public ownership things that are profitable, and which serve the nation well.
    I have already pointed out that, despite very great economic difficulties, we have not ceased to expand the nursery education programme, although it is true that it is not expanding at the rate which many of us would like to see.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party came to office on the basis of a manifesto that included the expansion of nursery education? Is she further aware that the sum of money she has reported to the House for next year's expansion of nursery education is less than half that which was spent this year? Does not she think that that reduction of nursery education is against everything for which the Labour Party has campaigned?
    Miss Lestor: I am well aware that the Labour Party came to power advocating an expansion of nursery education. I was one of the people responsible for getting it into the programme. If I thought that we were now going to drop it, I should not wish to remain a member of the Government.
    Perhaps my hon. Friend could use her considerable talents to persuade those education authorities that have not taken up their allocations for nursery education in the last year to do so, and to take up their allocations in future years. There
    1116
    is a myth that the Government are responsible for this failure, whereas some of us have been trying to persuade local authorities to use the allocations available to them.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that the hon. Lady will reconsider her resignation. It would be a disaster to lose both the hon. Lady and the nursery programme.
    Does not the difficulty in which local education authorities are placed arise from recurrent costs? How can the Government reconcile the contradictory objectives of giving capital sums for nursery education and then denying to local education authorities the revenue costs to service the schools?
    Miss Lestor: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about my future and that of the nursery school programme. I can assure him that both are in very good hands.
    Concerning capital expenditure on nursery education, and revenue costs, both are covered. It is perfectly true that the development of nursery education costs a great deal of money, and that some local authorities have not decided to go ahead with it, but the Government make allowance in the RSG settlement for the recurrent expenditure consequences of the capital allocations they make available for nursery education.
    Mr. Arnold Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the hypocrisy of the Opposition in this matter was shown up? The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has already said that the present Government have given an allocation of only £9 million, whereas his own Government allocated £30 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of nursery education depends on the willingness of local authorities to take up their allocations? As my hon. Friend has already said, many of the Tory authorities, including my own, at Redbridge, have not done this.
    Miss Lestor: I agree completely with what my hon. Friend has said. He has re-emphasised the nature of the situation in which we are placed.

    School Books
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what

    1117
    consultation he is having with representatives of local education authorities about the provision of school books in the next financial year.
    Miss Joan Lestor: None, Sir. Decisions on school book provision are within the discretion of individual authorities.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister aware that at a recent conference of educational publishers and of all the leading teachers' organisations, fears were expressed that, because of inflation and the squeeze of public spending, the provision of books will drop by 25 per cent. in the coming year? Is she also aware that at the same conference it was said that the provision of school books per pupil, in Nigeria, is now larger than that in this country?
    Miss Lestor: I am aware of the concern that has been expressed about the whole question of school books. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Bullock Committee recommended the setting up of a working party to examine capitation allowances. This recommendation is currently being considered by my Department.
    Mr. Freud: Is the Minister aware that less than 1 per cent. of the local education authorities' budget is spent on school books? Will she accept that unless adequate resources are made available for improving reading standards during statutory schooling, we shall have to enlarge the adult literacy campaign.
    Miss Lestor: I am afraid I did not quite catch the last part of the question.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister agree that unless adequate supplies of books are provided during statutory schooling there will have to be greater financial provision for the adult literacy campaign?
    Miss Lestor: This is perfectly accurate. There is a connection, obviously. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bullock Committee, while drawing attention to the question of school books, their quality and availability, also gave instances in which the question of reading standards was not connected simply with the supply of school books. There are many other factors to be borne in mind.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that, whilst her Ministry lays down minimum standards for school buildings
    1118
    and for pupil-teacher ratios, her right hon. Friend has given me an answer showing that the Ministry has no standards whatsoever, or no minimum standards, concerning capitation, or for equipment and materials, which includes books? Is she aware that, even where there is an increase in the real resources spent on education, this can, due to the current economic difficulties, sometimes mean a reduction in these very important materials? Does she not think that it is time the Department had some standards in this respect?
    Miss Lestor: I can only repeat what I said in answer to the first question. This is one of the matters to which the Bullock Committee drew attention, and it is one of the matters that we are examining at the moment. I cannot really go much further than that.

    Truancy
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of pupils who play truant from school at the latest date for which figures are available.
    Miss Joan Lestor: As I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) on 31st October—[Vol. 898, c. 624–5]—no national information is available subsequent to that which has already been given to the House following the Department's survey of absence in maintained middle and secondary schools on 17th January 1974.
    Mr. Janner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the survey which was carried out showed a massive rate of truancy, that any truancy of this sort is invariably a sign of danger to the young person and to the home concerned, and that it is very important for us to have full knowledge of all the facts, in order to understand how to arrest and deal with truancy? What steps is my hon. Friend proposing to take, in the circumstances, to cope with this problem?
    Miss Lestor: The survey gave a useful overall picture. It is evident that the system of establishing national returns needs to be more elaborate before any conclusions can be drawn from them. The consultative letter on behavioural problems—connected, undoubtedly, with the whole question of truancy—which was

    1119
    sent to interested bodies in May this year, asked for the views of the people concerned. A copy of the consultative letter is in the Library, and we hope to see comments on it before deliberating on what more can be done.
    Dr. Boyson: Concerning the survey of 17th January 1974 to which the Minister referred, is the Minister aware that the schools had one month's notice that there would be a survey on that day, that the survey was done by the schools themselves, and that it is known that in certain cases, in order to ensure a high attendance, nobody went to the clinics, and that the schools themselves decided what was meant by truancy?
    Is she further aware that in 1973 the magazine "Where" stated that reliance could not be placed on registers in cases like this?
    Does the Minister therefore agree that we ought to return to the system under which school inspectors made spot checks on attendance, and that only in that way shall we know the extent of this problem, which is certainly a large one?
    Miss Lestor: As I have already said, the survey admittedly had defects. Some may relate to the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We are awaiting responses from interested bodies on this whole question, and it may well be that the suggestion he has put forward will be considered.

    Adult Education
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any progress is being made in reorganising education for those over 16 years of age under one umbrella of adult education.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Fred Mulley): These students form a large and diverse group. I do not believe that their varied educational needs would be better met within a single organisational structure.
    Mr. Thorne: Does the Minister therefore depart from what is in the paper published by the Labour Party a year or two ago? Does it really mean that resources are the problem, and that any reorganisation in the adult sector will be
    1120
    set back until more resources are available?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that we need more resources. We are seeking to make them available—for the 16–19 age group. But my hon. Friend's Question asks whether it should be done under one institutional umbrella. The varied needs of those on non-advanced and those on degree courses do not necessarily imply that they should all be within one institutional framework.
    Dr. Hampson: Is the Minister aware that nothing highlights more the hollow-ness of the Government's rhetoric on education than the many pronouncements of the noble Lord the Minister of State? Since the conference that he proposed for the autumn has been postponed to the spring and is now no longer to be on adult education but on the 16–19s, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm when the conference is to be, what it will be about, on what scale, and at what cost?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that that series of questions arises from this Question.

    School Leaving Age
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of his recent circular to local authorities concerning restraint on educational expenditure, especially in relation to four-year-olds and rising fives, he will reconsider his decision not to permit greater flexibility in statutory schooling for the 15–16 year age group.
    Mr. Mulley: I have no plans to reduce educational expenditure by curtailing the period of statutory schooling for secondary pupils.
    Mr. MacGregor: Given the increasing frustration, resentment and disillusionment, and the possible waste of resources among the 15–16 age group, coupled with the desirability to increase nursery education facilities for the rising-fives, would not it be better to allow greater flexibility of the statutory school leaving age, thus giving local authorities some discretion to concentrate their resources where they think most desirable, and not insisting on their doing so on statutory ages which many people believe to be increasingly unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot agree with that. In my view, the raising of the school leaving age was one of the few good things done by the previous administration. It would be a retrograde step to revert to arrangements of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the other hand, as both my hon. Friends have made clear with regard to nursery education, one of the difficulties is that although, in the rate support grant, we provide for the recurrent costs, local authorities are not spending on education the funds which have been allocated to education. Some Conservative authorities are not taking up their allocations for nursery education, but at the same time they object to the allocations given to other authorities.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the restraint is having a positive effect, especially in my area, where many children who have passed the age of five are not being admitted to schools? Is not this in contradiction of the 1944 Education Act, and will my right hon. Friend say what he intends to do about this situation?
    Mr. Mulley: I should prefer not to give a legal ruling off the cuff, in answer to a supplementary question. If my hon. Friend will let me have details, I shall look into the position. However, if the children are of statutory school age, the local authorities concerned have a statutory obligation to provide schooling for them.

    Maintained Schools
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places he estimates that the maintained sector will lose as a result of the withdrawal of the direct grant.
    Mr. Mulley: It is too early to know precisely what the effect of the phase-out will be, as the schools concerned are not required to indicate their intentions until the end of the year.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does not it illustrate a strange sense of priorities on the part of the Government when, irrespective of the numbers involved, the Minister feels obliged to provide, at public expense, for the education of children who would otherwise have gone to direct grant schools, at a time when the Government's
    1122
    nursery school programme appears to be grinding to a halt?
    Mr. Mulley: I am deeply moved by the Opposition's great concern about the nursery school programme and their wish now to go back on the raising of the school leaving age, which was introduced by their Leader when she was Secretary of State for Education. I am afraid that it is not possible to give precise figures about the direct grant schools, but the additional cost could amount to £12 million. However, the additional saving, if it went the other way, could be as much as £30 million. Taking a line down the middle, therefore, there might be a saving of about £9 million as a result of the Government's policy for the direct grant schools.

    Assessment of Performance Unit
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the work already carried out by the Assessment of Performance Unit within his Department; and if he will make a statement about its future programme.
    Miss Joan Lestor: The unit has been considering on which areas of pupils' performance its efforts to improve and extend assessment should first be concentrated, and which other areas should also be covered. Its specialist groups concerned with language and science have already had preliminary discussions, and the unit is in touch with work already in progress on testing mathematics. A widely based consultative committee is in the process of formation.
    Miss Fookes: Why has this unit done so little?
    Miss Lestor: It is difficult to answer that question unless the hon. Lady can be a little more expansive about what she has in mind. I have given details of progress so far. There was a delay in the appointment of a chairman, which meant that the consultative committee has not got off the ground as quickly as we had hoped. However, progress is being made. If the hon. Lady tables another Question on the next occasion that we take Questions on Education and Science, she will be provided with further information.

    Comprehensive Education
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have still not submitted plans for comprehensive reorganisation covering their whole areas.
    Mr. Mulley: Seven local education authorities have refused to submit plans for the total elimination of selection for secondary education in their areas and a further 13 have not yet submitted complete responses to Circular 4/74.
    Mr. Ovenden: Does not that answer reveal that a considerable number of local authorities are determined to obstruct or delay the implementation of comprehensive reorganisation unless my right hon. Friend is prepared to introduce legislation forcing them to do so? Has his attention been drawn to statements by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Kent Education Committee saying that comprehensive reorganisation in parts of that county would not be effective until the 1980s or the 1990s? Has my right hon. Friend's attention also been drawn to the refusal of the education committee even to discuss plans for reorganisation in parts of the county, including my own constituency?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend knows the legal position. I am sure that he will agree that since I was appointed in June the parliamentary timetable has been fully occupied. There has been no opportunity for legislation in the present Session. However, he will know from my consultative document that the need for legislation is very much in my mind.
    Mr. Mayhew: Are not these education authorities—especially the Kent authority—to be congratulated on giving effect to the Charter of Human Rights, which specifies that parents shall have the right to choose their children's education?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that that arises in any sense from the original Question and my Answer to it.

    Public Sector Education (Local Authority Control)
    Mr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it remains his policy
    1124
    that control of the public sector of education should remain with local authorities.
    Mr. Mulley: I have no plans to change the existing basic division of responsibility between the local education authorities and my Department.
    Dr. Marshall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the financing and the control of the public sector of education must go together, so that the transfer of financial provision to central Government, as is widely advocated, would effectively mean the end of local education authorities?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree about the importance of the financial support for education by central Government being administered by the local education authorities. My hon. Friend knows that the Layfield Committee has been studying all aspects of local government finance, including this one. It will be reporting soon. When that report is available, we shall want to consider carefully whether existing arrangements are satisfactory.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the Press notice of 17th September sent out under the Minister's authority contain a threat to coerce those education authorities which decline to go comprehensive? Does it not also threaten them with restricting their rights under the Education Acts to take up places in independent schools, and does not that mean a major shift—a constitutional change—of power to the Government from local education authorities? Ought not an announcement of that importance to have been made to this House rather than in a Press notice? If government by circular is bad, is not government by Press notice worse?
    Mr. Mulley: This was not a matter of a decision being communicated by a Press notice. As I was consulting the local authorities on certain matters, I thought it advisable that other bodies should have the consultation document available to them in the same way that it was available to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). In my view that was desirable.
    I turn to the hon. Gentleman's strictures. In view of the number of times that the hon. Gentleman has urged me

    1125
    to interfere in the most detailed administrative decisions of local authorities, I am surprised that he has put forward the point he has made today. However, I do not view my proposal as a major constitutional innovation. It would give some legislative support to Section 1 of the Education Act 1944.

    National Theatre
    Mr. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he can announce any progress on the completion of the new building for the National Theatre.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am glad to say that steady progress is being made towards the completion of the new building, with a view to the National Theatre Company opening in it to a paying public next March. The company is already rehearsing in the new building.
    Mr. Strauss: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is able to announce a firm date for the opening of the theatre. Can he relieve the widespread anxiety which exists about the future of other theatres, operas and ballet companies supported by the Arts Council, resulting from the particularly severe impact of inflation? Will these bodies be enabled to function effectively in the future without a severe diminution of standards?
    Mr. Jenkins: The Government are well aware of the difficulties posed for the Arts Council and its beneficiaries by inflation. Discussions are taking place. One problem is that the Arts Council is being asked to carry, on its own grant, not only the consequences of inflation, but a larger share of the total cost of its operations. I expect to meet the Chairman and members of the Arts Council next week.

    School Management (Taylor Report)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the Report of the Taylor Committee on School Management.
    Miss Joan Lestor: My right hon. Friend hopes that the committee's task will be completed within the next 18 months or so.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the city of Sheffield, part of which is repre
    1126
    sented by her right hon. Friend, is using the boards of managers and governors to foster a new type of relationship between the schools and the community? A recent survey by the local education authority suggests a certain degree of success already, because the system is creating a new channel of communication between the schools and the community.
    Miss Lestor: That is a most interesting point. I hope that the Taylor Committee will take due notice of that information, which I am sure it will find helpful.
    Mr. Freud: Is the Minister satisfied with the position. If the hon. Gentleman by her Department to those people who wish to be parent governors?
    Miss Lestor: I am perfectly satisfied with the position. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific complaint I shall be happy to consider it.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the situation which has arisen at the William Tyndale Junior School make it essential—[Interruption.] That is a matter for Mr. Speaker, not hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Cryer: That is for an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not that position make it a matter of great urgency that the committee and, indeed, the Department of Education, should consider whether arrangements should be made for the election or the appointment to governing bodies of an adequate number of parents with children at such schools? If that had been done, the type of situation which occurred at the William Tyndale school would not have arisen.
    Miss Lestor: In my view the hon. Gentleman is prejudging the situation. He has no more knowledge than I whether parents, teachers or any other people were at fault in respect of the William Tyndale school. Until the inquiry has been completed it would be better for us to remain impartial.

    Speech Therapists
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provisions, and at what colleges, exist in

    1127
    Wales for the training of speech therapists; and whether he is satisfied with the situation.
    Mr. Mulley: A course is available in Wales at the Llandaff College of Technology. There has been an encouraging increase in training facilities in England, Wales and Scotland since 1972, broadly consistent with the expansion of the service which the Quirk Committee envisaged for the 20-year period from that date.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that in a constituency such as mine, which is 87 per cent. Welsh speaking, a large number of children aged 2, 3 and 4 years may be monoglot Welsh, yet the area health authority in my area could not recruit a single applicant who was competent to look after Welsh speaking children in need of speech therapy? Will the Minister consider the possibility of bringing pressure to bear on advancing courses to teach speech therapists, with a particular relevance to the Welsh language?
    Mr. Mulley: I am quite certain that the numbers of such people available in all parts of the country are inadequate to the needs. This is a problem, but it takes time for these people to be trained. However, I am advised that not only has the number of people taking the course in Wales increased, but that Welsh speaking students are being recruited. I hope that they will be available to meet the type of situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

    Medical Students
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students occupy places in medical schools at the present time, and how many did 10 years ago, respectively.
    Mr. Mulley: In 1973–74, the latest year for which figures are available, the number of full-time students in medical schools in Great Britain was 17,299. In 1965–66 there were 14,438.
    Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the inevitable long terms effect of the decisions to expand medical school provisions, which was taken by the previous Labour Government in the late 1960s, will adequately
    1128
    relieve existing shortages? If not, what further steps are being considered?
    Mr. Mulley: We have plans to increase the number of admissions to about 4,000 each year by the end of this decade, as against 3,300 at present. However, the actual assessment of manpower needs is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, Scotland and Wales.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Is the Minister taking any steps to ensure that a large proportion of the places available is allocated to women medical students?
    Mr. Mulley: There has been an increasing number of women students. Without notice, I am unable to give the exact figures, but certainly there is this welcome tendency. I do not believe that it is for me to lay down any particular proportions.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase of approximately 20 per cent. in the number of medical students as between now and 10 years ago indicates quite clearly that the vile campaign conducted by some of the medical profession suggesting that doctors are leaving this country in droves, is absolute nonsense—because most consultants are still putting their sons and daughters into the medical profession?
    Mr. Mulley: That would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the figures.

    Stirling University
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay a visit to Stirling University.
    Mr. Mulley: I have no such plans at present.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend please try to arrange a visit to Stirling University, which is in my constituency, so that he can see at first hand the effect of some of the cuts in educational expenditure? Will he give me the chance to introduce him to many of the students who are suffering real hardship because of inadequate grants, and to many of the staff who are doing a good job and yet are receiving a lower salary than are many people who are doing a similar job in other educational establishments?
    Mr. Mulley: I should certainly not wish to go to Stirling University without

    1129
    the benefit of the counsel and, if possible, the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I was appointed to my present position when the universities were about to start their summer vacation. I have so far managed to visit three universities, but I hope to visit more in the future. However, in view of the financial constraints, the message which I have received everywhere is not dissimilar to that which my hon. Friend has put forward concerning Stirling University. There is no doubt that the financial position is a great strain on our universities and I want to pay tribute to the work which they are doing. I do not know of any area in the world where higher education is organised as effectively and so efficiently in cost-benefit terms as in the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister agree that one way of protecting our universities in Scotland and enabling them to have a larger budget would be to ensure that the Scottish universities come under the Scottish Assembly and are not governed by the United Kingdom Government through a British University Grants Committee?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Lady should not tempt me to try to anticipate my right hon. Friend's White Paper. Whatever his view on the matter mentioned by the hon. Lady, I should need more persuasive arguments than hers to come to the conclusion that she seems to have reached.
    Dr. Hampson: The right hon. Gentleman paid a fine tribute to the universities. Is he aware that nothing has damaged morale more than the way that the university staff's pay claim has been bungled and the degree to which there has been procrastination under this Government? Is he also aware that the university staff are not trying to break the pay limits established by the Government, but that they feel sore at having been let down by the Secretary of State when the starting date was fixed at 1st September and not 1st October? Will he admit publicly that they have suffered an injustice, and will he try to correct the situation as soon as circumstances permit?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information from. I do not think that any of the university staff would want the Government's
    1130
    counter-inflation policy to be broken specifically for them. As to the date of the settlement, if the hon. Gentleman had a vestige of knowledge about the problem, he would know that the 12-months rule is an integral part of trying to contain wage inflation, as is the £6 limit. If the Opposition would go on record and say that they do not care about trying to stick to the 12-months rule, or about defending the £6 limit, we would know exactly where we were.

    Public Lending Right
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet received the final report from the technical investigation group on public lending right.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Moate: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the experiment quoted in the interim report indicated that for every £1 million spent on public lending right, the successful writer of popular fiction might get £1,260, whereas the writer of Welsh fiction might receive £2? Is it the language of Socialist priorities that such meagre benefits should be given to Welsh or specialist writers, and that such generous State subsidy should be given to authors like Harold Robbins?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. It is by no means the intention that when public lending right comes into being the whole pool should be scooped by the most popular writers. The intention, which will be developed when the Bill comes before the House, will be demonstrated in practice. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman are incorrect.
    Mr. Faulds: May we have a categorical assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that, after long-broken promises, the Government have at last summoned enough resolve to introduce this matter in the next Session?
    Mr. Jenkins: The Government have never had any doubt about their intention to introduce a public lending right, but my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate the Gracious Speech.

    Schools and Colleges (Promotions)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to provide a review

    1131
    body for promotions within schools and colleges; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mulley: No, Sir.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the review body would help to take away from headmasters and college principals the air of patronage which frequently accompanies promotions within education institutions? It is the "blue-eyed boy" syndrome, which is not exclusive to education institutions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a review body would give an air of impartiality and fairness that would be widely welcomed by both teachers and lecturers?
    Mr. Mulley: The Burnham Committee is to undertake a review of the points system, which has a bearing on the number of promoted posts. It would be wholly wrong if we sought to deal nationally with what must be a local matter. It is for local education authorities to determine how they promote teachers and how, within the schools, the various jobs are filled. That job must be done by the local education authorities. As far as I know, the teachers' unions have not put forward any alternative suggestions.
    Mr. Brittan: While accepting that this is a matter for the local education authority, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that governors of school boards have an important part to play in matters of this kind, and a constructive rôle in deciding who should be appointed to these posts?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am sure that that is an aspect to which the Taylor Committee will address itself. It is for local education authorities to decide whom should be appointed as governors in their schools.

    Secondary School Classes
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the optimum number of pupils in secondary school classes.
    Mr. Mulley: None. The average class size in maintained secondary schools in January 1975 was 22·4.
    Mr. Renton: In his forward planning, when there are necessary cuts in public
    1132
    expenditure, will the Secretary of State tell us by how much he expects the average number of pupils in secondary school classes to rise, and what will be the effect of phasing out the direct grant?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that there should be any effect from phasing out the direct grant. I am hoping that a great number of the direct grant schools will join the maintained system. In the next year we are hoping to make arrangements, within the rate support grant system, which will avoid any deterioration in the staff-pupil ratio, although we shall not be able to make any improvements. Whether the staff-pupil ratio is maintained will depend largely on the local authorities. Although we calculate the national total of rate support grant system on the assumption that expenditure on education by local authorities will reach a certain level, we have no means of ensuring that the local authorities spend the money on education.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Ql. Mrs. Chalkerasked the Prime Minister if the public speech on the National Health Service of the Secretary of State for Social Services of 9th October at Folkestone represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.
  Mrs. Chalker: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how he intends to fulfil his right hon. Friend's pledge not to reduce the size of the private sector but merely to separate it, when most of the private beds in the Mersey and North-West regional hospital areas are in National Health Service hospitals?
  The Prime Minister: That matter was fully explained not only by me in the House but by my right hon. Friend in the debate, when the Opposition, with singular ineffectiveness, tried to halve my right hon. Friend's salary. This matter was also fully discussed on my statement on the Royal Commission. If the hon. Lady has any particular hospital in mind, as she may have, she will no doubt table a Question to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the conduct

  1133
  of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who, in an interview in the New York Times, published yesterday, chose to indulge in splashing mud on his country—his own description of it—while at the same time the Leader of the Opposition goes about calling generally for public expenditure cuts—not specifying where they should be—which, if acted upon, would damage the social life of this country no end?
  The Prime Minister: I was sorry to see the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who has high standards, following the lead given by his Leader in what he said yesterday in the matter of—to use his own phrase—" throwing mud against his own country". I think that the whole House will agree that political bile is one thing, for our domestic exchanges, but it is a singularly unattractive form of export abroad.
  Mr. Hooson: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the great deficiencies in the National Health Service at the moment is the high proportion of its income that is spent on administration? Does not that stem directly from the reform introduced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)? What do the Government intend to do about what seems to be the Achilles heel of the National Health Service?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. Indeed, when answering questions about the Royal Commission, I indicated that I agreed with the view that he expressed. Considering the increases in public expenditure, bureaucracy, and the public sector borrowing requirement, it is clear that a high responsibility rests on right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen opposite in respect of the so-called reorganisation of health, water and local government.
  Mr. Bryan Davies: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Secretary of State for Social Services the warmest congratulations of Labour Members of Parliament and of all fair-minded people in the country on winning for the Health Service a greater share of resources than before? Will he encourage my right hon. Friend to pursue her policy of directing these resources to areas where they will do most good, rather than to specialities which
  1134
  attract the greatest attention from members of the medical profession?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The House has already been given the figure. I think that 5·4 per cent. of the gross national product is now going to the National Health Service. We have still to hear from the unspecific expenditure cutters opposite whether, in the coming year, they wish us to cut expenditure on the National Health Service.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: As the Prime Minister is rightly concerned with political bile, may I ask him to state the Government's attitude towards the two hospital porters in Portsmouth who recently carried their political prejudice to the point where they were prepared to discriminate between the dead?
  The Prime Minister: I know nothing about this case. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will table a Question to my right hon. Friend. I have in the past expressed, and would again now express, the strongest revulsion against any political action of that kind, even against the living, not to mention the dead.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  Mr. Grocottasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Burntwood.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Grocott: If my right hon. Friend could arrange his programme so as to be able to visit the highly successful Labour-controlled local authority in Burntwood, would he note that, first as a parish council and then as a town council, it managed quite well without the aldermanic system? Does he not agree that, now that we have largely abolished that undemocratic system in local government, we should turn our attention to getting rid of the undemocratic part of central Government and abolish the House of Lords?
  The Prime Minister: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency in the days when Lord Burntwood was a Member. I am sure that my hon. Friend was casting no reflection on our noble Friend. As for the reform of another place, if my hon.

  1135
  Friend will study the proceedings in this House on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, in 1968 and 1969, he will find that there was a wide variety of views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members, by no means representing the normal political divisions of the House, not to mention the creation of some strange alliances across the Floor.

  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made since 14th October 1975 with the preparation of his evidence for the Royal Commission on the Press.
  The Prime Minister: I hope to be able to present the evidence to the Royal Commission in the very near future, Sir.
  Mr. Lawson: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to write to me conceding the errors that he made last week. How is it that his evidence to the Royal Commission on the Press has been delayed by legal action that he is taking as a private citizen, bearing in mind the Downing Street statement of, I think, 14th October, that no journalists were involved in any way in any of the eight burglaries? What has this to do with the Royal Commission on the Press? Has he withdrawn his writ against the Daily Mail, and, if so, how many more of his writs are still outstanding?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member, who, as he knows, I always thought of as one of the brightest City editors—I am sorry that he has fallen away so much recently—has referred to the letter that I have written to him, in which I said that on different publications there were different figures of a few millions—although he was wrong by a few thousand millions, and, on his own figures, what I said in the House last week is substantiated. As for the Royal Commission, as I say, I hope to present my evidence in the very near future.
  On the question of legal proceedings—they have nothing to do with burglaries; they would be criminal proceedings if those concerned were found—there is no change from the position that I reported to the House on 14th October in relation to legal proceedings about matters which
  1136
  must form part of the evidence justifying the statement that I made a year ago.

  AUSTRALIA
  Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to make an official visit to Australia.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Australia, Sir.
  Mr. Renton: As threats of nationalisation, the public sector deficit, and growing unemployment have been the hallmark of recent Australian and British policies, would not such a visit provide the Prime Minister with a salutary lesson? Does not what is happening in Australia at the moment show the dangers of a federal or devolved form of government?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is wrong, I think, to draw any conclusions for our own affairs from any problems which arise in Australia, for which there is no ministerial or parliamentary responsibility at Westminster. It would be highly improper for any of us to enter into these very difficult problems—constitutional and others—which have arisen in Australia. In so far as the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is anything for any of us to learn from Australia on the subjects mentioned, of course the situation here is that, on the PSBR that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, proposals are currently being made officially by the Opposition which would lead to a massive increase in unemployment.

  CBI
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he expects to meet the CBI before the meeting of Heads of State and Governments on the international economic situation taking place in Paris on 15th November.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 27th October, Sir.
  Mr. Duffy: If my right hon. Friend gets another opportunity, will he impress upon the CBI, as he did on his audience last night, the fact that, notable though Britain's export achievement has been so far this year, even greater export opportunities will be presented by world

  1137
  trade recovery, and that Britain is better placed than many of her competitors to take advantage of them?
  The Prime Minister: One has to go back quite a while to find a period in which our proportion of world trade has increased. Although there have been many difficulties in world markets, in my view—indeed, I said this last night in Guildhall—when world trade picks up, we are in a stronger position than we have been for many years to take advantage of the increased opportunities abroad.
  Mr. Hurd: Is it not becoming clear that no one in the CBI or abroad will take the Government's new industrial strategy seriously if their first action under it is to prop up a proven failure like Chrysler?
  The Prime Minister: The CBI and the TUC take these proposals very seriously, and I hope that the House will, as well. It was a very important meeting that we had at Chequers. Although there were differences between the CBI and the TUC, and between both of them and the Government, they accepted the objectives, as the House has been told, and welcomed the proposals that we have put forward. As for Chrysler, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, for reasons given in the House already by my right hon. Friend and myself, it is better at this stage to say nothing at all—[Interruption.] We are talking about the jobs of many thousands of people, which at any rate my hon. Friends who represent the affected constituencies and some hon. Members opposite take as a serious issue. I had hoped that it would be possible to say something before Prorogation. I do not think now that it will be, but the Government will make a statement to the House as early as possible. Certainly, the situation that we have been presented with is something which, I am sure, when all the facts are known, will turn out to be distasteful to hon. Members in all parts of the House.

  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  Mr. Radiceasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an extra economic adviser to the CPRS.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Radice: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side fully support the Government's decision not to cut public expenditure this year? I agree that there is a strong case for checking the growth in public expenditure in future years, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are no cuts across the board, and that any policy of cutting is carried out according to the top priorities of Labour's programme?
  The Prime Minister: It must be on the basis of priorities. I have explained to the House that successive Governments examine expenditure over a five-year period. I have already made it clear that the expenditure programmes for this year have been settled. Indeed, in his Budget Statement, my right hon. Friend also indicated certain significant reductions—£900 million—in the earlier projections for this year.
  Mr. Ridley: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that in the new national plan, if one may call it that, evolved at Chequers, the extra costs of any aid to industry will be met by compensating cuts in the social programmes, in order to contain public expenditure?
  The Prime Minister: I have answered this in what I have just said. We are examining the forward programme of expenditure. What was agreed at Chequers was not a detailed national plan; it was an approach to a national strategy, which got a wide response in the CBI and the TUC. We are continually under pressure from both sides of the House in the matter of employment in particular areas. Obviously, any cuts which are required there—whether more or less than existing plans—will have to be made within a total limited programme, and that is the Government's job to decide.

  SCOTTISH TUC
  Mr. George Reidasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the STUC.
  The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so, although I hope to do so in the not-too-distant future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met representatives of the STUC on 10th October to discuss the Scottish economic situation.
  Mr. Reid: As the right hon. Gentleman has no immediate plans to meet the STUC, will he assure the House that in any negotiations over the future of Chrysler (UK) the rights and jobs of workers at Linwood will not be sacrificed to ensure continuity of employment in Coventry?
  The Prime Minister: We are paying special attention to the problems of Linwood. I think that the whole House knows—and knew before there was an SNP member in the House—the importance of Linwood, not only to the immediately surrounding area but to a much wider travel-to-work area. We are certainly bearing that in mind as one of the high priorities in anything that we hope—I use the word "hope"—may come out of our discussions with the Chrysler Corporation.
  Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the shop stewards at Linwood would strongly deprecate the kind of political remarks made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid). The shop stewards and the STUC both stand solidly with the workers in the Midlands to fight these proposed closures. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they are not too keen that money should necessarily be wasted in propping up that corporation, but would much prefer that it be used to take it over?
  The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I know he speaks not only for the trade union representatives and workers at Linwood but for all Chrysler employees. One of the factors in this situation, about which I warned last May, is that there have been a considerable number of disputes and man-days lost in the Chrysler Corporation, but it was not until last week that we learned there were Luddites on both sides—in the management and ownership as well as on the other side. However, it is only fair that I should say that, while the Linwood strike record was bad until a year ago, as was the record of Coventry, the situation at Linwood this year has been extremely good, and only a few hundred man-hours have been lost in the first 10 months of this year.
  Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Scotland are getting fed up with the
  1140
  spurious attempts by members of the SNP to try to create grievances between the people of Scotland and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that any policy concerning Chrysler is based on the principle that it will be fair to all the people throughout the United Kingdom?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. As my last answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) showed, that should be our approach. The hon. Member does not need to get too worried about the party to which he referred. The House would wish it to settle its differences with the Orkney and Shetland Islands before its Members come here to speak with any authority, particularly on the question of North Sea Oil.
  Mr. Les Huckfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his attitude of deep and serious concern over the Chrysler situation is infinitely preferable to the cheapjack politicking of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid)? We in Coventry have never advocated discrimination against any of the Chrysler workers, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire is just the kind of thing that might trigger it off?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his question but for the attitude he has taken on a matter which deeply affects many people in his constituency and surrounding constituencies. We do not impute motives in this House, but it is a fact that the SNP has made very little inroads, apart from one short and unhappy episode, in west central Scotland.
  Mrs. Bain: Oh! I am here.
  Mr. William Ross: Not for long.
  The Prime Minister: No doubt they are looking at these matters like carrion crows, hoping that there will be some pickings for them.
  Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Orkney and Shetland are very pleased at the interest which a fellow islander is taking in their welfare? Will he come up there and assure us that we shall have a reasonable and effective power devolved to Scotland within the United Kingdom, so

  1141
  that we can take maximum advantage of the possibilities which oil opens up for us?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has a later Question on the Order Paper, inviting me to visit part of his constituency. It may not be reached, as it is about No. 40. The right hon. Gentleman has made the point more than once that the Chairman of the SNP is, I understand, committed to the doctrine that the people of Orkney and Shetland should have the right to decide their own future, not excluding a Faroese solution. The statement from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency last weekend might have used more complimentary phrases when it spoke of "better the devil they know in London than the devil they do not know in Edinburgh". That made clear the hollowness of the pretentions of the SNP.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the White Paper on devolution is likely to be published, as this is a very important matter? Will he also say, in view of the enormous constitutional importance of this question, about which many hon. Members on both sides are very perturbed, whether there will be in the White Paper an estimate of the costs of any proposals?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". Costs will be set out in terms both of finance and of manpower—something we introduced into Bills. I certainly hope, though I cannot give an absolute commitment, that the White Paper will be laid in the House before the end of this month.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Ogden: I wish to raise as a matter of Privilege, Mr. Speaker, an article in the November issue of the Liverpool Free Press entitled
  "Eric Ogden MP—who does he serve?"
  This is the earliest opportunity I have had of bringing this matter before the House since I obtained a copy of the newspaper.
  The article, which is inaccurate in content and malicious in motive, accuses me of false and unavowed motives in
  1142
  matters on which I have spoken and voted in this Chamber. I seek not the protection of this House but its judgment as to the truth or falsehood of this article. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the complaint with a view to giving precedence over the Orders of the Day to a motion concerning it.
  Mr. Speaker: In accordance with modern practice, I shall rule upon this matter tomorrow.

  MORTGAGES (LOW INCOME EARNERS)
  3.38 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require building societies to lend 10 per cent. of their advances annually to local authorities for providing mortgages to applicants unable to obtain them from building societies.
  As part of their economic cuts, the Government have recently required local authorities to reduce the amount they lend to would-be house buyers to half of the £520 million they lent in the previous financial year. As a result many councils are now having to turn down every application for a mortgage, however desperate for a home the family might be. When I applied to my own council at Salford, I was told that it had already had to refuse 135 applicants during the month.
  Local authorities grant mortgages to people who have failed to obtain them from building societies, whether because the house involved is too old, the home-seeker is on a low income or he cannot afford a deposit. Councils, however, frequently grant 100 per cent. loans for house purchase. At the same time, the building societies are bursting with funds.
  After discussions with the Department of the Environment, the 10 largest building societies agreed to lend £100 million to families who would not normally be favourably considered. This may sound a large sum, but compared with the £4,000 million a year that the building societies are now lending it is peanuts—about one-fortieth of the total. It is a modest request, therefore, that they should be required to provide four times the amount they agreed to lend—that is, £400 million a year—to help the less-well-off section of the community.

  1143
  Under my Bill, the money would be provided by the societies to the councils, which in turn would grant the mortgages, rather than their being granted directly through the building societies. We could then be more certain that the mortgages were being granted in the required total quantity and to those most needing them. It is obvious that far more low-priced homes could be bought than if an equal total of mortgage money were devoted to financing the purchase of luxury mansions.
  The building societies are under some moral obligation to assist in this way since it was not so long ago that the Government lent them £500 million to keep their lending rates down to 11 per cent. This would give a great boost to the whole building industry, which is now in a serious slump with nearly 200,000 workers unemployed in the building and related trades. There are many owners of poorer types of house who wish to buy better houses but cannot do so until they have got rid of their existing homes. If more mortgages were available for the purchase of the poorer types of house, the sellers would be able to buy the better homes they seek. This would have an effect which would be felt throughout housing. It would help to kill two birds—homelessness and unemployment—with one stone.
  The Bill would also require the societies to lend the money to the councils at reasonable interest rates, at not more than their current lending rates. Why should councils have to borrow, as they do, at 14 per cent. or even 15 per cent., thus having to charge high rates to mortgagees, when building societies can borrow at lower rates and charge not more than 11 per cent.?
  Another clause of the Bill would permit the Government to require building societies to grant more than 10 per cent. of their annual loans to local authorities if it is thought that they can well afford to do so, if the situation so required and if Parliament gave its permission by Order. No one would be involved in loss
  1144
  —not the Government, not the building societies and not the local authorities. As we say in Lancashire, "There's nowt so safe as houses". The houses themselves provide ample security should there be default in repaying the loans and interest. Indeed, there has been an infinitesimally small loss to the lending bodies.
  As this is almost the end of the parliamentary Session, and since it is hardly likely that the Bill will become law this year, I intend to reintroduce it in the coming Session of Parliament.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Douglas-Mann, Mr. James Callaghan, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Joseph Dean, Mr. Arthur Latham, Miss Maynard, Mr. Madden, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Silverman and Mr. Sedgemore.

  MORTGAGES (LOW INCOME EARNERS)
    MORTGAGES (LOW INCOME EARNERS)
    Mr. Frank Allaun accordingly presented a Bill to require building societies to lend 10 per cent. of their advances annually to local authorities for providing mortgages to applicants unable to obtain them from building societies; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

  COMMUNITY LAND [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable local authorities and certain other authorities to acquire, manage and deal with land suitable for development, to make other provision for and in connection with the public ownership of land, and to amend planning law and the rules for assessing the value of land where compensation is payable, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants made by the Secretary of State to bodies other than authorities who acquire interests in land from the Crown.—[Mr. Oakes.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COMMUNITY LAND BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Community Land Bill be considered by reference to the following order of Clauses and Schedules, namely, Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 7, Schedule 2, Clause 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 15, Schedule 4, Clause 16, Schedule 5, Clause 17, Schedule 6, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 7, Clauses 20 to 23, Schedule 8, Clauses 24 to 46, Schedule 9, Clauses 47 to 55, Schedules 10 and 11.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I must protest strongly at the sordid way in which the House is being treated over this Bill, even in its dying stages. The Bill was disgracefully handled on Report. A mass of Government amendments was flung at us very late in the day and we made our views clear on the matter then. Today we are faced with exactly the same situation. We are being asked to deal with 186 Lords amendments, with the Government seeking to disagree with or amend some 29 of them. The grouping of those which have been put forward allows for nearly 50 debates, and of course some of the Government amendments to the Lords amendments are quite new.
  We received the printed paper setting out these amendments only today, and only today have we received the Government's intentions on them. They arrived in the Vote Office only this morning, at which time they became available to hon. Members. We did not receive the grouping of the amendments until after one o'clock. In no sense is the House of Lords to blame for this. The other place has done a very thorough job on the Bill, to which I would pay tribute. It has not tried to spin things out. I believe that the Government must acknowledge that their spokesmen in the other place have never suggested that it has.
  The reasons for the chaos are quite simple. First, it is a product of serious mismanagement of Government business throughout the Session. Secondly, the Bill was brought in far too late in the Session anyway. Thirdly, the Bill is very badly constructed and drafted. Fourthly,
  1146
  it contained so much which was objectionable both in terms of common sense and human liberty that many changes have been forced on the Government. They themselves have had to make a vast number of changes during the passage of the Bill. They have been trying to buy acceptance in that way, but the Bill remains utterly unacceptable.
  I do not invite my hon. Friends to vote against the motion on this point, but I hope that hon. Members and people outside this House will recognise that the way in which the Bill has been handled is a grave discredit to the House.
  The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on finding a new means of delaying the House at this stage. I well recall that when consideration by the Commons of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill took place, over 600 amendments were involved. We did not receive them until an hour or so before we were to debate them. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was in charge at that time.
  Most of the 186 amendments were made by Conservative Peers. There was only one amendment on Third Reading in the other place. Their Lordships finished their consideration of those amendments last week.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments considered.

  COMMUNITY LAND BILL
    Clause 1

      DEFINITIONS
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 27.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 14, 15, 17 to 30, 32, 85 and 175.
      Mr. Oakes: This whole batch of amendments deals with definitions which are now contained between Clauses 3 and 6. The definitions have been moved from various clauses in the Bill to these

      1147
      clauses and they are now bracketed together as an interpretation clause. That is purely the purpose of the amendments, and they are in accord with what the Opposition argued in Committee should be done.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for rearranging the Bill in this way. I said in Committee that it would be far easier for those who are called upon to operate the Bill if all the definitions were put together and a few more were added—although I do not know why we should try to make this horrible Bill easier. Perhaps it would have been better if we had made it more difficult to understand, and impossible to operate. I am glad to say that the definitions follow the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which we talked about very much in Committee.
      There are two points to which I should draw attention. First, Amendment No. 17 is rather more material than just a drafting amendment. It removes the definition of "development land", and that is a major point in the Bill.
      Secondly, the removal of subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Clause 4, those relating to material interest, will be a little puzzling to those who are looking at the amendments to the Bill at this stage. So that we may have it on the record, will the hon. Gentleman say why the subsections concerning material interest are being removed?
      Mr. Michael Latham: The House is in some difficulty in dealing with a Bill which is still as it was before the Second Reading in the Lords. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. It is nothing to do with him, but we have no Lords amendments in the Bill before us, which makes it very difficult for hon. Members to follow exactly what is going on. It is difficult even for those of us—of whom there are many in the Chamber now—who have been closely following the Bill throughout its passage through Parliament.
      Mr. Oakes: I thank the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for what he said at the beginning of his intervention. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman advocated in Committee the change that we have made. My right
      1148
      hon. Friend and I saw the sense in what he proposed, particularly as all three of us are practitioners. We hoped to make the change on Report, but it has been done properly and adequately in another place.
      Lords Amendment No. 17 deletes the definition of "development land" only because that definition is now contained in Clause 3.
      Lords Amendment No. 26 merely deletes things that are now dealt with in the new Clause 3A, which is to be inserted by Lords Amendment No. 13.
      Mr. Hugh Rossi: I am trying hard at this short notice to find my way through the variety of definitions and groupings before us. I do not have the number of the amendment in question, but I see that there is to be a new Clause 52D, which states:
      "Any direction or consent given by the Secretary of State under this Act may be—
      (a)either general or limited to any particular case or class of case,
      (b)addressed to any particular authority or class of authority, or
      (c)unconditional or subject to condtions."
      That appears to me to be a substitute for Clause 6(2). The whole of Clause 6 is deleted by one of the amendments in the large group that we are considering. Subsection (3) seems to disappear altogether, because it is not reintroduced in the new clause to be inserted after Clause 52. It may well be that the Minister can tell me that it has gone somewhere else. We have seen, for example, that Clause 6(1) has now gone into the new definition clause. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where Clause 6(3) has gone?
      Mr. Oakes: I certainly can. The provisions of new Clause 52D were previously contained in Clause 6(2), which now disappears. Clause 6(3) reappears in Clause 4 by the operation of Lords Amendment No. 18.
      Mr. Rossi: I am much obliged.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 29, leave out from "authorities" to end of line 31 and insert
      "whose areas include the land."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it is convenient to take Lords Amendments No. 84, 121, 122, 146 and 147.
      Mr. Oakes: The amendments are to correct a minor drafting error. The main purpose of subsection (8) is to make it clear that any reference in the Bill to an "authority" is a reference to that authority operating within its own area. But the subsection goes on to provide that a reference to a given class of authority—for example, a reference to "local authority"—is also to be interpreted as referring to the authority of that class within whose area the land is situated. This was needed for some provisions in the Bill, but in other places it has the wrong result.
      For example, Clause 39 gives the Secretary of State power to make grants to local authorities—a class of authority—when they buy land from the Crown. We want this to apply whether the Crown land which is being bought is inside or outside the area of the particular local authority, but the second half of subsection (8), which it is proposed to delete, would have restricted the power to give grants only to cases where the land was in the area of the local authority. Similar considerations occur with Clause 26, dealing with the compensation payable when one local authority buys from another.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 2

      JOINT BOARDS
      Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment, which is an old friend of ours from Committee and the Report stage, would remove the power for an Order setting up a joint board to modify legislation. We discussed the matter at length upstairs and on Report. The other place has chosen to delete the provision entirely. I can only assume that their Lordships did not understand what they were doing, for the power to amend legislation is essential in order to ensure the proper functioning of the joint board, for reasons explained when the Government
      1150
      amendments were discussed here on Report.
      Moreover, the power may also be needed to protect the position of the constituent authorities. Let us suppose that a joint board was set up. The order might then transfer the functions of the constituent authorities under the Bill to the joint board and the constituent authorities would be left with no powers at all under the Bill. Therefore, they could not even use the powers under the Bill to acquire land for their own use. This is certainly not what the Government would wish to achieve.
      I have demonstrated that this is a necessary power and I believe that all hon. Members have accepted that, as amended on Report, the power is now a limited and reasonable one. Therefore, I can think of no reason why this House should accept the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Graham Page: I do not put much weight on precedent when discussing this matter. I dare say that there are precedents for some such wording as the Government wish to retain in the Bill. However, we are dealing with exceptional circumstances and entirely new powers.
      The powers to be given to the joint boards and to the Minister in setting up the joint boards go far beyond what is necessary and, indeed, what is necessary compared with what the Minister will have if this paragraph is removed.
      Clause 2 sets up the joint boards:
      "as an authority for all or any of the purposes of Part III, Part V or Part VI of this Act"
      The index of the Bill indicates what the various parts are concerned with. Part III deals with the acquisition of land, the duties of the local authorities in acquiring land, and land compensation. Part V deals with the acquisition of land by the Crown, and the acquisition from statutory undertakers. Part VI deals with supplemental matters and in particular the important clauses about reserve powers whereby the Minister can set up a new body altogether or take over the powers in the Bill himself.
      Therefore, the purposes are fairly wide. Whether they are to be all the purposes of Part III, Part V or Part VI of the Bill depends on the contents of the Order because Clause 29(1)(b) says that the Secretary of State may:
      "constitute a joint board as the authority to act in that district for those purposes",

      1151
      which I take to be all or part of the purposes of Part III, Part V and Part VI which are specified in the Order. Therefore, quite an extensive power will be given to the joint boards.
      Clause 2(4) defines what can be put in the Order and it mentions Section 241 of the Local Government Act 1972. That section gives power to modify existing statutes but it is drawn narrowly. It says:
      "Where any enactment, whether passed before or after 1st April 1974, authorises the formation by a provisional or other order of a joint board"
      —this is what we are talking about in this Lords amendment—
      "or joint committee, the constituent members of which are local authorities, for the discharge of any of the functions of those authorities, the provisional order or order may apply to the joint board or joint committee, subject to any necessary modifications, any of the provisions of this Act."
      It is true that the Local Government Act 1972 gives powers by Order to the Secretary of State to modify existing statutes. Sections 252 and 254 give that power. However, they go into great detail and set out exactly what the Secretary of State can do by Order. The Act deals with joint boards in local government and the duties and functions of local government, but it does not go anywhere near as wide as paragraph (b) of Clause 2(5) of the Bill. Clause 2(5)(b) gives the Secretary of State, if he thinks it expedient, the power to make an Order to:
      "adapt or modify any of the provisions of this Act or of any other enactment concerning the acquisition of land."
      It may be argued that the first few lines of subsection (5) qualify paragraph (b). Subsection (5) says:
      "An order under this section may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient."
      I am not sure whether the Minister will say that the Acts concerning acquisition of land under this subsection can be modified or adapted only to the extent that such adaptation or modification is incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary. I submit that it is not qualified by those words because they are followed—and this is what the Secretary of State can do in addition to the transactional matters—by:
      1152
      "and, in particular—
      (b) may adapt or modify any of the provisions of this Act or of any other enactment concerning the acquisition of land. "
      As this clause reads, it is not qualified by the words "transitional", "consequential "or" incidental". It is a complete power to the Secretary of State by Order—although it is true that he will have to bring the Order before the House—to adapt any statute relating to the acquisition of land. That means the amount of compensation which is to be paid and the procedure for acquisition. That is substantive law.
      Why do the Government want to alter the law in favour of a joint board and to give it those powers? The Bill gives no such power to the Secretary of State to alter the law in favour of local authorities. Thank heavens it does not! However, there would be quite an outcry if we found a clause in the Bill which stated that the Secretary of State could alter the law about the acquisition of land, compensation, procedure for acquisition, compulsory purchase, and so on, in favour of any local authority. However, as the clause was originally drafted for amendment by the other place it gave the Secretary of State that power.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: How will the general public realise that this modification has or could have taken place?
      Mr. Page: I presume that publicity can be given to this point only through our debates in this House. If an Order is introduced which modifies the law of acquisition of land in favour of joint boards—and all hon. Members know how Orders go through this House late at night—and if it is only consequential on the Bill and only a matter of procedure, I shall have no objection. However, as drafted it is not a matter of procedure. It is a matter of substantive law and it gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the law relating to the acquisition of land. Their Lordships were perfectly right in taking paragraph (b) out of subsection (5).
      Mr. Walter Clegg: I should like to support what was said about this matter by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The Under-Secretary led off by saying that it

      1153
      is a matter that we have discussed at length in Committee and again on Report. That we should have done so indicates the importance of the issue.
      One of the distinguishing features of the Bill is the powers that it gives to the Secretary of State, and this is a typical example of them. When we have argued this previously we have often been met by the argument, "But of course, the Secretary of State is a reasonable man, and his Under-Secretary of State is, if anything, an even more reasonable man." We are not to be persuaded by those arguments because, while they are reasonable men, I can think of quite a few hon. Members on the Government side of the House, and perhaps one or two right hon. Members on that side, with whom I would not trust any powers whatsoever. Therefore, the House should not rely on the reasonableness of Government in carrying out the powers which the House bequeathes to them by its legislation. The House ought to be very careful about delegating its powers in any way.
      As my right hon. Friend has said, the Order concerned comes on late at night. The biggest sin about delegated legislation, however, is that we have no procedure by which such Orders can be modified. We have either to accept them or to reject them in toto. With an Order of this kind, one may want merely to alter part of the powers which the Secretary of State was using, but we would be unable to do that without rejecting the whole of the Order. If the House had the means whereby it could amend delegated legislation, I might take a different view of the powers being sought by the Secretary of State under these provisions, but until that time comes I must support the arguments that my right hon. Friend has used.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I think that in our deliberations on this particular aspect we came to the conclusion that the key word was the word "incidental". It is true, certainly for myself, that I was influenced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and by the Under-Secretary that that was the key word. However, when one discusses this matter in the country one realises that the key word is not "incidental", and that the key factor is the word "incidental" within the context of joint
      1154
      boards. One has to draw on one's experience of joint board activities and, within a joint board, what happens to consequential items, incidental items and supplementary items.
      From my own experience of joint boards between the London boroughs and the Greater London Council, and more recently from the evidence which has come to light in relation to a district council and a development corporation, I am led to believe that when a joint board is operating the key factors are not so much the elected representatives of the people. They are not, on the whole, very much in control of the actions of joint boards. On the whole, the joint boards are run very much by the officials and officers concerned. There is a great degree of difference between what an officer may consider to be consequential or, indeed, supplementary—because it may, instead of affecting 5,000 people, affect only 10 or 15 people—and what an elected member may consider to be incidental. There is a great area of concern here that elected representatives will not have proper control over what is going through.
      Therefore, although we listened to the proposition that was put on the last occasion on which this matter came before this House, I must say that I now share the worries that their Lordships have raised. Having talked to my own people and bearing in mind their experience in the field, I now feel on balance that the powers listed in the Bill under this clause are worrying. They are still too wide, and I do not think that the reservations and assurances that we received last time are adequate in terms of protection for individual people and, indeed, in terms of protection for councillors and elected representatives in relation to looking after the interests of those they seek to represent.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Latham: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), I am not only uneasy about the suggestion that we should disagree with the Lords amendment—indeed, I absolutely disagree with the idea that we should disagree with the Lords; I think that they are quite right—but I am also uneasy about the whole of

      1155
      Clause 2. I shall not go into that matter because I should soon be ruled out of order.
      However, during our hours and hours of deliberations on this matter many of us have felt a sense of unease about the whole possibilities under the clause, by which, even after a public inquiry, it might be possible for local authorities which did not wish to take part in a joint board to be forced into one. Therefore, it is all the more likely that we shall look carefully at amendments to restrict the power of the Secretary of State. We on the Opposition side of the House will look carefully at the reasons why they should be resisted, rather than the contrary, because we feel that the Secretary of State's power is much too wide.
      One of the dangers with a Bill which has been going on for as long as this one, with the enormous complications of it, is that those of us who have had the privilege of being closely concerned with it over the last six months have reached the stage of talking to ourselves. We know more or less what it is all about. The Minister and the Under-Secretary probably know more about it than we do, because they have very thick briefs and we have to think as we go along. We know more or less what it is about, but millions of people outside the House have no idea what it is about.
      It needs to be stated clearly that in the form in which it went to the House of Lords for Second Reading, the Bill gave power to the Secretary of State, provided that he could get an Order through this House without it being annulled, to make
      "such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient."
      In particular, it gave him power to
      "adapt or modify any of the provisions of this Act or of any other enactment concerning the acquisition of land."
      I shall not follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in his textual criticism of the use of the word "and", because he is a lawyer and I am not. The Under-Secretary is a lawyer, and so is my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde, and I am not. They are all much better qualified than I am. I simply take note of my right hon. Friend's doubt as to whether the use of the conjunction
      1156
      in that position is sufficiently clear to make it clear that any Order under paragraph (b) must be only incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary.
      I am, however, concerned about the use of the word "transitional". In what circumstances would such a transitional Order be made? "Incidental" I can understand. "Consequential" and "supplementary" I can understand. But I hope that the Minister will tell us something more about the use of the word "transitional". That seems to be a particularly important matter.
      When I looked for guidance to their Lordships' House to see what exactly was meant and why the Government were resisting the amendment, I looked at the speech of the Minister in the other place, Lord Melchett—the only person in that place whom, I think, I am allowed to quote directly, because he is a Minister. On 21st October he said, first, that
      "Any joint board would need power to manage and dispose of land, and it might therefore be necessary to modify the 1972 Act"—
      that is, the Local Government Act. I am very surprised that, if that is so, it is not in the Bill. I should have thought that this was such an obvious contingency that if a joint board of local authorities was to be set up—and let us remember that we are talking about the possibility of local authorities either coming together voluntarily or in certain circumstances being brought together involuntarily in order to work this Bill by buying up land, and so on—it seems fairly likely that it would need to be in a position to manage and dispose of land.
      In that case, I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman has not put this in the Bill in the first place, and why he has restricted this matter to Orders, unless it be the fact that many of us have said all along that there is far too much in the Bill at the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman and far too little in the form of statute law or the law of the land.
      The noble Lord went on to say,
      "Beyond this general point, the extent to which the power…would need to be used would depend on the precise functions and the rôle of a joint board. In some areas the local authorities might want a board to take on the whole function of making land available for private development. In another area the local authorities might want to continue to operate their Housing and Planning

      1157
      Act powers while leaving the major job of handling land for private development to the joint board."
      He then went on to say:
      "It was to provide this sort of flexibility that Clause 2(1) was drafted in terms of 'all or any' for the purposes of the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st October 1975; Vol. 364, c. 1310–11.]
      It must be said again that distinctions of the sort which the noble Lord drew in the passage I have just quoted raise wide possibilities for differences in the powers of joint boards. They should, therefore, be covered in the Bill and not be the subject of an Order which contains
      "such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions"
      as the Secretary of State may determine. Parliament itself ought always to look most closely at matters of this kind.
      No doubt the Minister will say that there is full parliamentary scrutiny, with the possibility of annulment and so on. That is so, but I remind him of what has to be done by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is Chairman of that Joint Committee, in which I have had the honour to support him now for some 12 months. My right hon. Friend knows better than anyone else how many instruments are made by Ministers—of both parties—which then come before the Joint Committee, giving us an enormous task in sifting through them. Second, he knows how long these instruments are, and how difficult they are to understand in many cases.
      There will be all sorts of complicated distinctions regarding what should be the powers of joint boards. Although my right hon. Friend is second to none in his defence of the citizen and in his careful scrutiny of Orders, a great burden will be put on the Joint Committee if it has carefully to scrutinise all these Orders and see whether they cover matters only
      "incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary"
      as the Secretary of State may consider expedient.
      If any Order goes beyond that, it is at once the job of my right hon. Friend and the Joint Committee to tell the House that the Minister has exceeded his powers. Although we discharge that duty to the best of our ability, it is a duty which we would sooner not have, because we should
      1158
      prefer to have these things clearly stated in the Bill.
      As I said earlier, the reason why we are so concerned about Clause 2 is that it has so many worrying aspects. We are concerned at the possibility that local authorities might be forced into joint boards against their will as a result of a public inquiry of which the Secretary of State himself is the ultimate arbiter. We are concerned that this might be done for political or gerrymandering reasons having nothing whatever to do with land use planning or the benefit of the citizen.
      That is why we are examining these provisions most carefully and why, in our view, the other place was right to delete paragraph (b) from the Bill.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: The truth is that the whole concept of joint boards under the Bill has not been thoroughly worked out, and the Government are uncertain about what changes would be required in the Bill and any other land acquisition enactments if joint boards came into being. We have been told that changes might be necessary to preserve the position of local authorities acting in their own right in the area of a joint board and to ensure that the joint board was in the same position as that of its constituent authorities. If that be right, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). Why cannot such changes be spelt out in the Bill?
      Without doubt, paragraph (b) gives the Secretary of State a sweeping power—power to change the provisions of the Bill and of any other enactment dealing with land acquisition. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, it is an open-ended power since it is not limited by the words "consequential, transitional or supplementary" occurring earlier in the subsection.
      Thus, the net result might well be that the powerful joint boards would be set up for specific ad hoc purposes. Moreover, the power given to the Secretary of State is an enormous personal power, and the House of Commons does not like allocating personal power as freely as it would be allocated under this subsection.
      Mr. Raison: This has been a significant debate on a clause which is itself

      1159
      of great significance, and I hope that the Minister will reply seriously to the points which my right hon. and hon. Friends have raised.
      We on this side acknowledge that at earlier stages of the passage of the Bill the Government modified the original clause by introducing words which made clear that the Order would refer only to matters, which were incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions. I acknowledge also that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) expressed his satisfaction about that. However, the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends today have special importance since they reflect the fact that we have had rather more time to consider the matter than we had at earlier stages.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—I refer to him first—made several strong points against the clause as it stands. I pay special tribute to him. He seems to me to be a one-man Opposition in himself. [Hon. Members: "No."] Obviously, I have said something wrong about my right hon. Friend, since he certainly acts not on his own but always with our party. However, his mastery is superb and he has a wealth of learning, skill and subtlety which commands the admiration of the whole House.
      Several of my hon. Friends made serious comments on the nature of delegated legislation. In our view, even if an Order establishing a joint board requires a public inquiry and the negative resolution procedure, it remains nevertheless an extraordinarily wide-ranging instrument. That has been made only too clear in our debates. We are bound to be concerned at any provision of this width which depends on delegated legislation.
      At this stage, however, it is wise to bear in mind that the clause covers essential provisions in the Bill, apart from those which concern Wales. In particular it covers Part III, the part of the Bill which deals with the acquisition and disposal of development land. In other words, the clause gives to authorities and to the joint boards which we are here discussing the power, and eventually the duty, to acquire development land on a
      1160
      massive scale, and compulsorily if need be.
      Subsection 5(b), if it is not amended, will be part of the wholly fearsome apparatus brought into being by the Bill, and I wish to make clear our attitude to this entire apparatus. We are absolutely pledged to repeal the Bill. I shall not go into that at length now, but the reasons are manifold. First, it confers on local authorities and joint boards, or whatever other bodies the Government choose to employ, powers and duties which, first, are wholly irrelevant and unnecessary for good planning. Second, they are unnecessary for the recoupment of development gain. Third, they are odious in their attack on the liberty of the individual, on his right to own property and on his protection against the power of public bodies. This is especially obvious when one see the excessive use of delegated legislation here proposed. Fourth, the Bill is calculated to promote both bureaucracy and public expenditure. At the end of it all, therefore, the Bill is purely and simply a Socialist measure about land ownership, and the clause now before us is a good illustration of that.
      4.30 p.m.
      The fact is that local authorities already have enormous powers to acquire land compulsorily for planning purposes. There is no question about that. This measure does not give them something that they do not have already. It is a measure which they do not need except to satisfy their political lust.
      The crucial phrase in the Bill comes in Clause 17, where reference is made to
      "the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership".
      That we cannot accept. That is why we shall repeal this measure if it becomes an Act of Parliament. At the same time, we shall ask all those concerned—for example, local authorities, builders, professional associations, developers and planners—whether they feel that there are any serious limitations in the present system which prevent them from doing their job. We shall consider such representations carefully and fairly. We shall retain some means of taxing development gains.
      Let me make it clear that we find this measure unacceptable. It is the worst of all the Labour Party's efforts to

      1161
      approach the problem. My hon. Friends have put forward a number of highly pertinent points on the amendment, and we shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say before we make up our minds how we shall respond.
      Mr. Oakes: If I were to reply fully to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) I would be replying to his third or fourth Second Reading speech. However, I shall deal with the points he has raised before dealing specifically with the amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman says that this is a piece of purely Socialist land legislation. It is Socialist legislation and I am proud of it. I think that the hon. Gentleman would find that his party would meet severe opposition from many Conservative-controlled local authorities—they will benefit under this measure in the same way as Labour-controlled local authorities—if it were to attempt to repeal this measure. The hon. Gentleman would find many difficulties within his own ranks if he were to seek to repeal it.
      Mr. Nick Budgen Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose—
      Mr. Oakes: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Aylesbury has tempted me to go outside the bounds of order, and I shall not presume upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I think that there have now been equal bites of the cherry. Perhaps the Minister will get on to the amendment.
      Mr. Oakes: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I did not intend to be tempted to stray further by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
      As the hon. Member for Aylesbury has said, we introduced amendments on Report and made it clear that the powers we sought for joint boards were subsidiary powers. As he rightly said, his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) withdrew his own amendments in favour of the Government amendments. In my view it was quite right for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.
      Mr. Rossi: It has been stated that I expressed satisfaction at the way in
      1162
      which the matter was dealt with on Report. However, I was teased by name in another place for having taken a different view from that taken by some of their Lordships. The Minister is now doing very much the same thing. If he looks at the record carefully, he will see that the words I used in relation to his amendment were that in so far as the amendment proposed by the Government appeared to meet the concessions we had asked for in Committee, I was content. I went no further than that.
      The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Report we had many amendments thrown at us as we have had today, and we had little time to give them consideration. Throughout these proceedings I shall be entering the same caveat. Amendments may be thrown at us which appear to be all right, but we have had no time to study them. The explanations that are offered may sound facile and acceptable, but on studying the amendments we may find that we disagree. That is what has happened to this amendment. On further consideration we find that the concession was not given to the extent we requested. Even though I may have expressed qualified satisfaction on an earlier occasion, I shall have to support my right hon. and hon. Friends on this occasion if they decide to declare their dissatisfaction.
      Mr. Oakes: I was not trying to tease the hon. Gentleman. There are times when friendly teasing takes place between us, but on this occasion that was not my intention. I thought the House felt that as a result of the amendments we introduced on Report there was a general acceptance, on both sides of the House, that there were limitations on the power of the Secretary of State in introducing modifications for a purely subsidiary rôle. The subsidiary rôle was spelt out in the amendments that were dealt with on Report.
      I believe that their Lordships have totally misinterpreted the situation. Had they followed on from the debate that took place in this House and introduced specific amendments, I could have followed their reasoning. Of course, we may have disagreed with their Amendments. I believe that they have misdirected themselves and failed to understand the position that the House had reached on Report.

      1163
      The hon. Member for Hornsey has said that the Opposition has never had the opportunity to consider the amendments. From an Opposition that cannot consider the amendments we have had some very good speeches. For hon. Members who cannot understand the amendments and who have had no opportunity to study them, they have made good speeches.
      I repeat that the powers of the Secretary of State in the narrow sphere of joint boards are subsidiary powers. If I may tease the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), by way of contrast the Local Government Act 1972 in Section 254(2) gives the Secretary of State power by order
      "for applying…or amending, repealing, or revoking…any provision of an Act passed…before 1st April 1974".
      The drafting in that Act was somewhat similar except that the powers given to the Secretary of State, on the face of it, would be far more Draconian. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to give Draconian powers to a Secretary of State. Similarly, that is not our intention. I repeat that we have made it clear in the House that these are subsidiary powers.
      Mr. Graham Page: Section 254(2) of the 1972 Act sets out about a dozen paragraphs of exact explanation. However, none of those paragraphs includes the phraseology that is found in paragraph (b).
      Mr. Oakes: I would say that the paragraphs in the 1972 Act go much wider. The definition that we are considering severely limits such powers.
      I continue with the reason for our needing the clause in its present form. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked about the meaning of "transitional". Perhaps an example provides the best explanation. Transitional provision may be necessary where authorities are currently considering whether to serve a notice of intention to acquire following a planning application. It may be appropriate in those circumstances to allow the authorities to continue dealing with the case, notwithstanding the formation of a joint board. No sinister interpretation should be given to "transitional".
      1164
      The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) made an interesting intervention because there are similar powers in regard to Wales. If the paragraph were to be removed, there would be no way of enabling the constituent authorities to retain power under the Bill. We need the provision to enable constituent authorities to have some powers under the Bill, in the same way as local authorities in Wales have power to make land available for development despite the fact that the land authority there will be the Land Authority for Wales. There is a parallel here between the constituent local authority and the powers of a joint board. I thought that we were in accord on these matters when we dealt with them in this House on Report. Therefore, I hope that with this further explanation I have now fully satisfied the Opposition.
      Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Minister comment on a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and, indeed, by me—namely, whether he is satisfied with the wording in line 21 and with the fact that the phrase "and in particular" is sufficiently precise to make sure that subsection (5) and modifications flowing from it can be only
      "incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary'?
      I should not like to set up my drafting expertise against the Minister's, but if my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is worried about the provision, I am too.
      Mr. Oakes: It is right that Oppositions should delve suspiciously into any provision, because that is what Oppositions are for, but it appears that sinister hidden meanings are being seen in every word in the provision. It is a narrow provision dealing with the appointment of joint boards and also with the restricted powers of the Secretary of State to modify legislation in relation to joint boards.
      The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) spoke of development corporations and joint boards. In subsection (2) we are dealing with elected members of boards. In regard to planning matters dealt with in the Local Government Act 1972, one-third of such members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State. At least within the provisions

      1165
      of subsection (2) we are dealing with democratically-elected members.
      I hope I have dealt with all the points that arise on this provision. It contains nothing sinister, despite what appears to have been implied by their Lordships, who seek to delete these words. I emphasise that the situation is exactly as it was when the Bill was dealt with in this House on Report, and that at that time hon. Members found the situation satisfactory. I hope that the House, having heard a full explanation of the situation, will agree to disagree with the Lords amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      MEANING OF RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 39, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 40.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that it will also be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 12.
      Mr. Silkin: The effect of the amendments would be to remove the building of a single dwelling-house from excepted development under Clause 3(1)(b) and place it in exempt development in the First Schedule.
      There are two strong objections to this approach. The first is that there might be circumstances where it would be right for an authority to buy land for the building of a single house. By putting the building of a single house into "excepted development" we have recognised that such cases would inevitably be rare, but I can think of a case where the authority might want to build a single house—for example, for a park keeper or a local authority worker. However, equally within the terms of the land scheme if there are such cases an authority should have the power to buy the land for such development. In previous legislation—for example, the Housing Acts—local authorities already have powers to buy land for single houses.
      1166
      Therefore, I cannot see what possible objection there can be to bringing this development within the scope of the new acquisition powers.
      The second objection is that the amendment will have a much wider effect on the operation of compulsory purchase powers. Let us suppose that an authority proposed to buy an area of land for the erection of 100 or 150 houses. If these amendments were accepted, it is conceivable that the vires of the compulsory purchase order could be challenged on the basis that what was proposed was the building of 100 or 150 single houses and that each house should be regarded as exempt development. I do not regard that as a realistic approach to the situation, but it is a possible approach.
      What is more possible is that the owner of a single plot in the middle of such an area might be able to challenge the order on the basis that the plot is suitable for exempt development and that he intended to carry out such development by building a single house. I do not think the second challenge is likely to arise in practice because I assume, as a practitioner of law and an officer of the courts that the court would take a reasonable view of what Parliament intended to do in this legislation. I also believe that the courts will not accept as a general rule that the fact that the land was suitable for exempt development as well as for other development would take it outside the acquisition power—otherwise, all agricultural land would be outside the power because it would be suitable for development within paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. Therefore, to include some housing developments as exempt developments could, from a practical point of view, introduce uncertainty into the exercise of the acquisition power.
      The Government are not prepared to run that risk, especially as the case for including such housing within exempt development is so weak, and we believe that the matter would already fall within the existing powers in the Housing Acts.
      Mr. Clegg: I listened with interest to the Minister's explanation. The Bill has an amoeba-like quality. It constantly changes shape and its clauses appear and disappear, jargon is spawned one moment and recycled the next.

      1167
      In the earlier days following the White Paper certain single plots were to be exempted. In other words, plots held by people on "White Paper day" were to be exempted from the operation of the Bill. However, following Government amendments the matter appears to have been widened in one sense since they brought all single plots into the Bill, but this has acted to the detriment of the man whose land was exempted in the White Paper. One merit of the Lords amendment is that it places those people back into the position in which they were.
      The amendment sets out to exempt the single plot by putting it in Schedule 1. That, I understand, takes it out of the operation of Clauses 15 and 25. Clause 15, which covers the powers of acquisition, excludes any development specified in Schedule 1, and the Lords amendment has the effect of including the single plot in that schedule. We are concerned that it should be included in the schedule to do justice to the people who originally though that they would be exempted, and there appears to be a strange difference between "exemption" and "exception".
      Clause 25 deals with assumptions as to planning permission on or after the second appointed day. After the second appointed day, any land which is not covered by the exemptions in Schedule I can be bought at current use value. If the single plot were included in the schedule and exempted thereby it could be bought by the State at current use value plus the value of the planning permission to develop it as a single plot.
      That was the position of the owner of a plot on White Paper day. Now, his position has been materially changed. A person who owned a plot would, after the second appointed day, have received market value compensation under the White Paper. Under the Lords amendment he would not get market value compensation but current use value, and there could be a difference in value between those two figures.
      Mr. John Silkin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, which charms me as always, but we are due to debate exactly that issue on a later amendment which specifically deals with that point. I think it is Lords Amendment No. 150.
      Mr. Clegg: I shall be delighted if we are to have two bites of the cherry.
      Mr. Silkin: So long as the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to bite the cherry on this occasion, I shall bite it on a later occasion.
      Mr. Clegg: We shall be a right bunch of cherry pickers before we have finished. I turn from cherries to the mutton of the argument. Those who say that single plots should be exempted have a good argument in the general sense of equity. I do not dispute that it is a major exemption from the Bill, but it will make the operation of the Bill more practicable. People with single plots will he able to develop them more easily if they are exempt.
      The Minister said—I have no doubt that he is right because the same argument was used by the Lord Chancellor—that local authorities have considerable powers under other legislation to purchase single plots, and they might need to. But that argument cannot be fully applied to the powers given under the Bill which are blanket powers for more specific purposes.
      The Minister used the illustration of a local authority which wanted to build a cottage for a park keeper. There are others who say that a local authority might want to build a house for a town clerk or another official. That might not be greeted with so much enthusiasm. Local authorities would have power to do that, and to do it without justification.
      For those reasons the House should not disagree with the amendment but should vote to keep the single plot exempted, as was the original intention of the White Paper. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to go further than the concession which has already been given by him. We are asking him to do the job thoroughly by putting the single plot into Schedule 1.
      Mr. Michael Latham: In speaking to an earlier amendment I said that we were in danger of talking to ourselves because we have lived with the Bill for so long. On this amendment, which is so important, it is essential not only for those who have lived with the Bill but for the people in the Press, who have the unenviable task of trying to report our deliberations, to know what we are talking about. It is

      1169
      also important that those in places to which I am not allowed to refer who may be listening to the debate should know what we are talking about. We are talking about the word "exempt" which, throughout our discussions on the Bill during the past six months, has changed its meaning.
      In the White Paper which appeared 14 months ago, just before the General Election—it was published for the purposes of the General Election, not for the good of the people—the proposal was that persons with dwelling-houses in a certain category should be exempt from the Bill. To avoid using the term of art "exempt" I shall say that the intention was that those persons should be completely outside the scheme. The local authority would not be able to acquire the land of persons who had dwelling-houses of a certain sort either under its general powers to do so between the first and second appointed days or under its specific duty to do so after the second appointed day.
      That was a very limited concession. It was limited to "uncles, cousins and aunts", in the words of W. S. Gilbert, that is to say, to people who on White Paper day were building a house either for themselves or for certain named relatives.
      There were two nightmare clauses, Clauses 4 and 5, which we discussed at great length in Committee, and to understand them one needed to be a positive Solon. All the different forms of relationships were involved. I remember that at one stage my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I queried whether in areas where Pakistanis and Indians were numerous the family concession was sufficient because of the family pattern of Pakistanis and Indians.
      On Report the Government brought forward a new proposal. They produced a new schedule of exempt development. Although I have lived with the Bill for so long, I do not know much about it because it changes every week, but I understand that the present position is that exempt development will be outside the scope of the Bill. It will require a new Act of Parliament to get rid of Schedule 1, which contains the limited categories outside the acquisition powers.
      1170
      Exempted development is a non-statutory exercise. Concessions were made by the Government. I refer, for example, to the building of houses on land of up to 10,000 square feet. Special concessions are to be made on an extra-statutory basis by means of regulations that we have not yet seen. Their Lordships rightly took the view that the scope of Schedule 1 was limited. The Opposition's attitude is simple. We believe that the Government should carry out their election pledges. People living in owner-occupied houses should not have their land compulsorily acquired from them by the local authority. That is what the Government promised the people. That promise was in the White Paper and the manifesto. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to carry out that election pledge.
      5.0 p.m.
      Their Lordships seized on the Minister's concession. They said that the Minister had at last admitted that the powers of the Bill were too wide. It is not enough just to state that certain matters may be exempted by regulation made by the Secretary of State. On Report the Secretary of State produced proposals to be included in the Bill rather than the nightmare Clauses 4, 5 and 10, to give exemption to some categories of development. Their Lordships said "The Minister has seen the light. He has exempted some categories. What could be better than now to give him the chance to honour his election pledges? We shall insert into that exempt category an amendment." However, the Minister said "No, I am not in a position to keep my election pledges. That might lead to abuse." The Minister painted a fantastic picture. He and I are good friends. We have always got on very well.
      Mr. John Silkin Mr. John Silkin indicated assent.
      Mr. Latham: The Minister said that the Government must resist the Lords amendment as otherwise speculators, developers, profiteers and other wicked men would be able to break up large sites into 100 plots and to obtain 100 different exemptions.
      I work in the building industry. It is often said that people using land look for mistakes and for means of evading legislation in Bills dealing with complex matters. From time to time I lecture to

      1171
      builders about the workings of the Bill. I am obliged to re-write my lecture every week or so when the Government amend the legislation. Builders ask me the question that the Minister posed to the House—"Is there any way by which we can obtain individual plot exemptions?" I reply "No, that is not possible under the Bill, even with the Lords amendment." That amendment is not susceptible of the interpretation that the Minister has placed on it. Even if the Minister were right, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the right hon. Gentleman to put down an amendment to the Lords amendment, as he has to Lords Amendment No. 13.
      The Minister could have said "I agree that the Government must keep their election pledges to the effect that owner-occupied houses and single plots should come outside the duties and the powers of the Bill. But I am worried that the odd person may make a quick buck if I am not careful. Therefore, I shall put down an amendment stating that for the avoidance of doubt the provision shall not be taken as meaning that estates can be broken up." It is not beyond the resources of the Minister to draft such an amendment. I go further. If it is beyond the resources of the Minister, he can ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who would be delighted to draft the legislation for him and who would do a good job.
      This is the most important of the Lords amendments. Their Lordships made it for the reasonable purpose of asking the Government to keep their election pledges. I am not the custodian of the Labour Party manifesto. However, if the Minister is the custodian, all he has to do is to agree with the amendment.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). The Minister said that there were two factors which caused the Government's reaction against the Lords amendment. The first was that the local authorities already had powers under the existing housing legislation. We accept that. Surely the Minister accepted that those powers existed when the White Paper was drawn up.
      The Minister is on slippery ground. The White Paper, which was published before the last General Election, aroused
      1172
      excitement in my constituency. Section VII referred to "Permanent Exemptions from Acquisition". Great play was made with the word "permanent". Paragraph 34 said
      "The Government propose to exclude from the scheme the building of a house for owner-occupation on a single plot which was owned by the prospective owner-occupier on the date of this White Paper (12th September 1974)."
      In normal circumstances that could be regarded as a firm pledge. Indeed, a garbled version of it was repeated in the Labour Party manifesto. People in the marginal constituencies may have been influenced by those words in the manifesto. They may have acted upon that White Paper. It would not be proper to go back on those words.
      The Minister attempted, by means of the wording of the exception, to tidy up the Bill and to remove the complicated dimensions of the extended family relationship and the other doubtful points that we debated in Committee. The Government issued a White Paper in September and produced a Bill the following March. They took another four or five months to make this change. Therefore, they run the risk of being accused of misleading the people. It is the rôle of the Opposition to point out that the Minister has misled the public. I do not think that that is stretching the position too far.
      This afternoon the Minister has a chance to think again, to accept that he misled the public and to say that their Lordships acted wisely, for they have had time in which to reflect on these changes and to put the matter in its true perspective. I do not think that it is too much to ask the Minister to admit that he has misled the public. That is the last thing he would want to do. He is an honourable man. Therefore, he should accept the amendment.
      Mr. Tim Sainsbury: We should not spend too long discussing whether people should base their actions on a programme which was set out in the Labour Party manifesto but which has not been published with the imprimatur of the Government and the authority which should go with a White Paper. It is important that we should refer to the contents of the White Paper. If there had been a more enlightened reaction by the electorate to the situation in which the country found itself over a year ago,

      1173
      we should not have to worry now. However, we can assume that after an election a Government attach some authority to their own publications
      The Minister did not deny that the intention, which was set out in non-statutory language in the White Paper, was to give exemption to the person wishing to develop a single plot. It was read in that way in the Press, whatever was said in the Cabinet, and that served to reinforce that assumption.
      The problem that the right hon. Gentleman found himself facing was whether, as a result of the omission of Clauses 4 and 5, the exemption would be slightly widened or somewhat restricted in practice. We are reminded of the nightmare of trying to follow the debate as clauses change their meaning. Searching through the reports of what happened in Committee one finds that the debate took place on 10th June and that we were discussing the matter at about mid-day on 11th June. This adds an extra dimension to the nightmare quality, as it was by then my birthday, and I could not have been more beneficially employed than in pleading the case of the single plot.
      With the leaving out of Clauses 4 and 5, on which we spent so many happy morning hours, the question is whether we widen the exemption a little or restrict it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) pointed out, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that by widening it a little there is a small risk that some person might be able, by arranging his affairs in an unnatural way, to seek to take some advantage, surely that could be prevented by an appropriately worded amendment, or perhaps by some other measure.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government or local authorities needing on occasions to develop single houses. I know that he would not deny that the Government have powers under other legislation to acquire land, subject to all the appropriate safeguards of inquiry and the Secretary of State's approval. They might use those powers, or try to buy the necessary land by agreement, if they did not already own some land on which to carry out the development.
      The Lords amendment quite rightly gives priority to ensuring that the undertaking contained in the White Paper is
      1174
      carried out. The impression that was spread abroad was that the developer of the single plot would be exempt—totally outside the provisions of the Bill. I do not think that a case has been made out for rejecting the Lords amendment. The small disadvantages could be dealt with in other ways. I therefore support my hon. Friends in saying that the Lords amendments ought not to be rejected.
      Mr. Costain: I suppose that as I own a house with an acre plot beside it, I ought to declare an interest.
      As has been said, those hon. Members who were on the Committee are, in a sense, talking to themselves. I do not have that benefit, because I was involved with other Bills at the time. It ought to be pointed out that the clause is very much against the Labour Party's manifesto, so that it is surprising that the House is not being urged to reject it on that ground. Looking around the Chamber, one finds that there are no Liberals here, no Ulster Nationalists, and only a few members of the minority party, so that we have not a sporting chance.
      The Minister started by saying that the clause was not necessary because he was able to take over or to buy a house under his other powers. He says that he does not need the clause, but it appears that he wants to have it. Why does he want it? Why is he resisting the amendment? As I see it, the amendment to the Lords amendment would give him the right to purchase property below its market value and to confiscate property. I suppose that he will press it through the House as a further confiscation measure, and that is why we must resist it.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: There is only one major point that I need to answer. The others relate to differences that have emerged—if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, without being taken to task—from a course that we have cantered round many times before.
      The affection in which the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) holds me is more than reciprocated, in the politest, most political way, but I felt that there were two contentions that he put to us that stretched credulity beyond all imagining. One is that I am responsible for the changes in the Bill during the past few weeks. I can assure him that I should have been delighted if the changes

      1175
      that we have been debating, and will be debating all through the night, had not been made. It is a little too late for him now to influence his noble Friends.
      When he offers me the prospect of their Lordships' House as the custodians and guardians of the Labour Party manifesto, as his noble Friends did, that, too, stretches credulity to the ninth degree. I agree on this occasion with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—with whom I rarely agree—that it is to the White Paper that we should look as the only begetter, in a parliamentary sense, of the Bill. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Melton and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) pointed out, that the White Paper refers to the building of a single house. The paragraphs in question are 34 and 35.
      I should like to read a little more of the White Paper than the hon. Member for Northampton, South chose to read. I noticed a slight glottal hesitation when he reached the word "acquisition" because, of course, he had seen the words following. Paragraph 34 begins:
      "The Government propose to exclude from the scheme…".
      Then paragraph 35 reads:
      "Other permanent exemptions from acquisition under the scheme will be set out in due course…".
      It is paragraph 26 that deals with compulsory acquisition. In that paragraph it is very fairly stated that:
      "Local authorities also buy some land for private development under powers in the Housing and Planning Acts. Local authorities, however, should be enabled to do much more positive and comprehensive planning through ownership; and for this purpose they will be given new and very much wider powers to acquire land for development."
      What we are really talking about is the scope under the scheme and the scope of the acquisition power.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not read right to the end of paragraph 35 of the White Paper. I understand that it is because they are out to make, as they believe, a good, solid electoral point, but it is not as solid as they think. The words in paragraph 35 cover not just the single house, the single dwelling. Let us read it a little further:
      "buildings used in agriculture and forestry; and development related to the extraction of minerals."
      1176
      Two lines later it says:
      "the exemptions will also take account of the need not to constrain important industrial development and expansion."
      Paragraph 35, with one or two small exceptions, is basically talking about what became the excepted development and was always intended to be.
      Mr. Michael Latham: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously trying to persuade the House that the specific concessions announced in paragraphs 34 and 35—particularly paragraph 34—were to be treated as being qualified by the general remarks in paragraph 26? There is nothing in the Labour Party manifesto about that.
      Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman must have been enormously tired while we were cantering round that course, because we have dealt with it over and over again in Committee and on Report. There is a difference between a global scheme and the individual situation within it.
      What one is saying, therefore, is that outside the general scheme, outside the scope of the scheme, is the individual plot, but an individual plot might be in the middle of a huge circle to be developed. Common sense would dictate to the hon. Gentleman that that must be so, and that that must have been in our minds at the time of the presentation of the White Paper. Incidentally, I take it, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, as one of the nicest compliments ever paid to us that we won the last election on the White Paper on Land.
      Mr. Michael Latham: Now what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that, in normal circumstances, owner-occupiers or plot owners are to be treated as exempted, but when it is a local authority it will no longer be exempted. There was nothing in the manifesto about that.
      Mr. Silkin: I have said over and over again that of course there may be global development that will inevitably override. That is the whole point. The point of public ownership of development land is precisely that we must plan properly. But in the normal course of events the building of a single house is outside the scope of the scheme. Of course it is not outside the compulsory

      1177
      acquisition power. It never was. It was not under the Tory Government or under the Liberal Party when it was in office. It has not been for 100 years.
      Mr. Michael Morris: But the White Paper says in black and white, "Permanent exemptions from acquisitions". That is in Section VII. It is not in Section V. If it came under Section V, it would be acceptable, but it comes under "permanent exemptions".
      Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman must read something beyond headlines. He must read what they relate to as well. Paragraph 35 says:
      "Other permanent exemptions from acquisition under the scheme will be set out in due course but they will include…".
      The hon Gentleman has not made the point about, for example, minerals being exempted, but that is also under paragraph 35.

      Division No. 391.]

      AYES

      [5.23 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hardy, Peter

      Allaun, Frank

      Davidson, Arthur

      Harper, Joseph

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Archer, Peter

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hatton, Frank

      Ashley, Jack

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Ashton, Joe

      Deakins, Eric

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hooley, Frank

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dempsey, James

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Bates, Alf

      Doig, Peter

      Huckfield, Les

      Bean, R. E.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Dunn, James A.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hunter, Adam

      Bishop, E. S.

      Eadie, Alex

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Boardman, H.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Booth, Albert

      Edge, Geoff

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      English, Michael

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      John, Brynmor

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Campbell, Ian

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Judd, Frank

      Cant, R. B.

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kelley, Richard

      Carter, Ray

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Kerr, Russell

      Cartwright, John

      Forrester, John

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Lambie, David

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lamborn, Harry

      Coleman, Donald

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lamond, James

      Concannon, J. D.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Conlan, Bernard

      George, Bruce

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lee, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Ginsburg, David

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Golding, John

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Gould, Bryan

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lipton, Marcus

      Cronin, John

      Graham, Ted

      Litterick, Tom

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cryer, Bob

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Luard, Evan

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point made by a number of my hon. Friends. Does not he think it incredible that the ownership of land and the amount of compensation will depend on the difference between the words "except" and "exempt", with exclusions thrown in? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the public will understand that?
      Mr. Silkin: I said earlier that we should be dealing with that aspect under a later amendment. We had a long discussion on cherries and mutton and agreed that there would be another bite later on. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber at the time.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 266.

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Palmer, Arthur

      Swain, Thomas

      McCartney, Hugh

      Park, George

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      McElhone, Frank

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Parry, Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Maclennan, Robert

      Radice, Giles

      Tinn, James

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Tomlinson, John

      Madden, Max

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tomney, Frank

      Magee, Bryan

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Torney, Tom

      Mahon, Simon

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Marquand, David

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Roper, John

      Ward, Michael

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rose, Paul B.

      Watkinson, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Weetch, Ken

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Weitzman, David

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wellbeloved, James

      Millan, Bruce

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Selby, Harry

      White, James (Pollok)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Molloy, William

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Whitlock, William

      Moonman, Eric

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Moyle, Roland

      Sillars, James

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Silverman, Julius

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Small, William

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Nowens, Stanley

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Noble, Mike

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Oakes, Gordon

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woodall, Alec

      Ogden, Eric

      Stallard, A. W.

      Woof, Robert

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stoddart, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Stott, Roger

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Strang, Gavin

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Ovenden, John

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Miss Margaret Jackson and

      Owen, Dr David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Padley, Walter

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clegg, Walter

      Goodhart, Philip

      Alison, Michael

      Cockcroft, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Arnold, Tom

      Cope, John

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Costain, A. P.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Crawford, Douglas

      Gray, Hamish

      Baker, Kenneth

      Crouch, David

      Grieve, Percy

      Banks, Robert

      Crowder, F. P.

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Grist, Ian

      Benyon, W.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Grylls, Michael

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hall, Sir John

      Biffen, John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dunlop, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Blaker, Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Body, Richard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hannam, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Elliott, Sir William

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Emery, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Paul

      Brittan, Leon

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fell, Anthony

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Brotherton, Michael

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Henderson, Douglas

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Heseltine, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Hicks, Robert

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Buck, Antony

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Holland, Philip

      Budgen, Nick

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fox, Marcus

      Hordern, Peter

      Burden, F. A.

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Freud, Clement

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fry, Peter

      Hunt, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Channon, Paul

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Chuchill, W. S.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      James, David

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wansl'd & W'df'd)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Spence, John

      Jopling, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Mudd, David

      Sproat, lain

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Neave, Airey

      Stainton, Keith

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Klmball, Marcus

      Newton, Tony

      Stanley, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Nott, John

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Stokes, John

      Knox, David

      Pardoe, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Lamont, Norman

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Tapsell, Peter

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Penhaligon, David

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Percival, Ian

      Tebbit, Norman

      Lawson, Nigel

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Loveridge, John

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Luce, Richard

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, George

      MacCormick, lain

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Raison, Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      McCusker, H.

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      MacGregor, John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Reid, George

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Viggers, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Madel, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Marten, Neil

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mates, Michael

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Wall, Patrick

      Mather, Carol

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Walters, Dennis

      Maude, Angus

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Watt, Hamish

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mawby, Ray

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wells, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sainsbury. Tim

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mills, Peter

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Scott, Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Moate, Roger

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Younger, Hon George

      Molyneaux. James

      Shepherd, Colin

      Monro, Hector

      Silvester, Fred

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 51, line 4, after "permission" insert "(a)".
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall also discuss Lords Amendment No. 8, in page 51, line 5, after "force" insert—
      "or
      (b) would be so granted but for a direction given under the order."
      and Lords Amendment No. 9, in page 51, line 7, after "is" insert "or would be".
      Mr. Oakes: These amendments arose from the point raised in the Lords in Committee, when Lord Sandford questioned whether paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, as originally drafted, covered the case of development which would normally be permitted under the general development order, but where, for special reasons, an Article 4 direction had been made requiring express planning permission to be applied for in respect of that development. It was always intended that in such cases the development should remain within exempt development.
      But the original drafting did not achieve this. The present amendments remedy the defect, and ensure that the definition of exempt development remains the same in all areas even if there are Article 4 directions in force in some.
      Mr, Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation and also for meeting the point raised by my noble

      1183
      Friend in the House of Lords. Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House by explaining what is an Article 4 direction? It is nothing within the contemplation of this Bill and must therefore emanate from other legislation. For the purpose of the record, it would assist the explanation if it could be defined.
      Mr. Graham Page: Will the hon. Gentleman personally supervise the reprinting of this paragraph? Since we have inserted two paragraphs, (a) and (b), in line 5, which contains the words "which is carried out," I would suggest that a fresh line should be begun there so that those words qualify both paragraphs. If the printing is not altered, it will look as though the last few words qualify only the new paragraph (b), whereas I believe that they will qualify both paragraphs. I am sorry to be pedantic about the printing, but this is something that will assist those who have to put this measure into operation.
      Mr. Oakes: I will certainly look at that point. It is essential that a measure such as this should be correctly drafted and easily understood. I am certain that we shall eventually achieve that. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
      An Article 4 direction is made very rarely. It is made by the Secretary of State to exempt from a general development order a particular development in an area because of the nature of the development. Since becoming a Minister, I can recall only one. It related to agricultural development. It was in an area where development was taking place as very marginal agricultural development to such an extent that it altered the planning conditions of the area. An Article 4 direction was made in that case.
      The amendment cures a defect in the original Bill. It was always intended that the development should remain within exempt development. If an Article 4 direction were made in some areas, as the Bill stood it could come out of that category. The amendment cures that defect and ensures that the definition of "exempt development" remains the same in all areas even if an Article 4 direction is in force in one of those areas.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 51, line 11, leave out from "dwelling-houses" to end of line 15.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment deletes the restriction on the definition of "agriculture or forestry" in paragraph 2 of Schedule I which excludes from "exempt development"
      "operations for the erection, improvement or alteration of buildings used for the purposes of market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yards or for other purposes not connected with general farming operations or with the cultivation or felling of trees".
      The problem of horticultural buildings was raised in Committee in some detail by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), and he returned to the matter later on Report. I agreed to look at whether we had the exception right in its new context.
      The Opposition returned to the point in another place and carried this amendment deleting the restriction on paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 and thus bringing horticultural buildings within exempt development. This change is acceptable to the Government so far as its effect on the scope of the acquisition power is concerned. They were, however, bound to resist the amendment as originally presented because it would also have brought the value of the ability to erect horticultural buildings within the definition of current use value in Clause 25. However, in the other place the Opposition themselves recognised that the current use value implications were unacceptable, for they brought forward an amendment to Clause 25 which would have the effect of restricting the current use value implications of Schedule 1 to paragraph 1, which deals with GDO development alone. On this basis, the amendment to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 is acceptable, and the Government are prepared to accept it.
      At the end of the day, therefore, though it has taken the hon. Member for Buckingham a long time, he has won the principle of his argument.
      Mr. W. Benyon: I cannot refrain from thanking the Minister for this sensible solution. I recall that

      1185
      on Report there was a long and inconclusive discussion on this subject between the Minister and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). In the other place, their Lordships got to the heart of the matter to a much greater degree. I am sure that this outcome will be greatly welcomed by the farming community.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is missing from the Chamber at this very important moment.
      I welcome the Government's decision, though perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Minister one question. I presume that glasshouses in excess of 10,000 sq.ft. will come under this Bill and into the definition of "exempt development". However, I presume also that they will still come under the planning requirements and have to go through the normal planning controls, even though they are exempted under this clause. This was a point which I raised on Report. I do not know that it has ever been answered. However, I have no wish to be awkward at a moment when the Government are

    New Clause A

      OUTSTANDING MATERIAL INTERESTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 13, after Clause 3, in page 4, line 8, at end insert the following new Clause A—

      "A.—(1) A material interest in land shall be treated as out-

      standing for the purposes of this Act unless—

      (a) it is owned by an authority, a local or new town authority,

      a parish or community council or, in Scotland, the

      5

      council of a district within the area of a general planning

      authority, or

      (b) it is owned by a charity, or

      (c) it is of a description specified in an order made under

      this subsection by the Secretary of State.

      10

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a material interest

      in land shall be treated as owned by any person mentioned in

      that subsection at any time if, at that time, that person—

      (a) has entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

      (b) subject only to completion of the administration of a

      15

      deceased person's estate, is entitled to it under the terms

      of the deceased person's will.

      (3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to

      annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of

      Parliament. "

      Read a Second time.
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 7, leave out
      'it is owned by a charity'
      and insert
      'during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the
      showing their generosity. I welcome this concession.
      Mr. Michael Latham: The Minister has just accepted, subject to a minor change which the other place itself made, an amendment forced on the Government in the other place in a Division. I wish only that members of the Tribune Group had been present to hear about it. If they had been, we might be hearing less about abolishing the House of Lords.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Oakes: I can assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that this amendment does not affect planning. He is right in what he says about horticultural buildings of more than 5,000 square feet.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), I might point out that in this instance their Lordships made an error initially. They corrected their own error and presented a reasonable form of words to this House. In some other legislation they have not been so reasonable.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      relevant time, it has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are also considering the following amendments to the Lords amendment:
      In line 13, after 'has' insert 'or had'.
      In line 15, after 'is' insert 'or was'.
      It will be convenient also to consider the following Lords amendments:
      No. 92, in Schedule 6, page 73, line 27, at end insert—
      "(dd) the needs and obligations of charities"
      No. 148, in Clause 25, page 24, line 11, leave out from beginning to "this".
      No. 149, in page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to "that" in line 1 on page 25 and insert—
      "(2) For the purpose of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed—

      (a) subject to subsection (3), (3B) and (3C) below, that planning permission would not be granted for any development either on the land or on any other land, and

      (b) subject to subsection (3B) below"

      As an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 149, in line 6, leave out '(3B)' and insert '(3C)'.
      No. 150, in page 25, line 6, leave out from beginning to "any" in line 7 and insert—
      "(3) The assumption in subsection (2)(a) above shall not be made as respects development of any class specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act or in Schedule 8 to the Act of 1971 or Schedule 6 to the Scottish Act of 1972 (development which is not new development.)
      (3A) for the purposes of subsections (2)(a) and (3) above no account shall be taken of—
      (a)".
      No. 151, in page 25, line 11, leave out "(ii) and insert "(b)".
      No. 152, in page 25, line 20, at end insert—
      "(3B) The assumptions in subsection (2) above shall not be made where at the date mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) above, the interest in land is owned by a charity.
      (3C) Where during the whole of the period of one year immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

      (a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

      (b) the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof), has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes,

      then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, if the charity entitled to the compensation so elects, notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) above, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use
      1188
      which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
      (3D) for the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

      (a)has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

      (b)is or was indefeasibly entitled to it under the terms of a deceased persons' will."

      As an amendment in lieu thereof, in page 25, line 20, at end insert—
      '(3B) Where during the whole of the period of seven years immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

      (a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

      (b) the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof) has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes,

      then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, subject to subsection (3C) below, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
      (3C) The assumptions in subsections (2) and (3B) above shall not be made where—

      (a) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (l)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

      (b) that period is a period of not more than eleven years.

      (3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

      (a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

      (b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate, is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.'

      No. 153, in page 25, line 24, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)".
      No. 154, in page 25, line 28, after "section" insert:
      "other than subsection (3C) above".
      Mr. Silkin: The Government ask the House to agree with the Lords in Amendments Nos. 92, 148, 150, 151, and 153, and to disagree with Lords Amendment 154. We also ask the House to agree with the Lords in Amendments Nos. 149 and 152, subject to modifications.

      1189
      The House will recall that on 15th July I made a statement in Committee describing the special provisions that the Government would be making for Church and charity land in the context of the land scheme. Two of the four main provisions I then announced were introduced and accepted on Report. The third the Government sought to provide in another place. The fourth, relating to development land tax, will of course be presented in the Development Land Tax Bill.
      I think that it will be convenient for the House if I restate what these provisions are, including extensions of them that the Government have still decided to make, and then to explain why the Government cannot accept the very wide changes made in another place in these contexts.
      First, the acquisition duty and the consequential suspension of planning permission will not apply to land owned by any charity on White Paper day for any kind of development. This will cover the situation where a mixed development is proposed—for example, on a city centre site—and where the charity is dependent on realising the commercial value of the site in order to fund that part of the development which is intended for its use. The powers of acquisition will of course apply to charity land just like any other land, as they do under existing legislation, but the Secretary of State will not expect to confirm any compulsory purchase orders for such land unless there are special planning reasons for doing so.
      Second, when authorities acquire such charity land the valuation basis will continue to be market value for 11 years or until the second appointed day, whichever period ends later. This has been extended from 10 years from 12th September 1974 in order to take account of the year that has elapsed since the publication of the White Paper.
      Third, after that time they will get prevailing use value for land acquired—in perpetuity. Prevailing use value will also apply to land that came into their ownership after White Paper day so long as it has been kept in continuous charity ownership and use for a certain period. This period I originally announced as 10 years but, following discussions of the point in our debates and those in another place, the Government have decided that
      1190
      a seven-year period should be sufficient and this is what is now proposed.
      Moreover, the earlier requirement that there should be a building on such land which should have been in charitable use for 10 years has now been removed and the provision will now apply to the relevant charitable land. This I believe is a really important further relaxation.
      Fourth, development land tax will never be charged on any development or disposal of land owned by a charity on White Paper-day.
      These are the main special provisions, but the Government are also providing a number of others which will be of significant benefit to charities. Some are unique to them, and some will also apply to other kinds of landowner. They are as follows.
      First, authorities will be required by statute to have regard to the needs of charities in exercising their functions. That is the effect of Lords Amendment No. 92. Second, the special provisions referred to will apply even though the land changes hands directly from one charity to another.
      Third, in the case of direct testamentary bequests of land to charities, the date when the ownership transfers to them will be the date of the death of the owner and not the later date of the conveyance. Fourth, in other cases the time will be the date when the charity enters into a binding contract to acquire the land.
      Fifth, when a Church acquires land for a place of religious worship, it will be able to do so freehold. This will be provided for in the arrangements for general consents under Clause 41. Sixth, under the excepted development regulations, development of under 10,000 sq.ft. total floor space will be permanently exempted from the acquisition duty.
      I now turn to Lords Amendments Nos. 13, 149, 152 and 154, which were carried against the Government's advice in another place. For reasons which I shall explain, I must ask the House not to accept Lords Amendments Nos. 152 and 154 altogether, and not to accept Lords Amendments Nos. 13 and 149 in their present form.
      First, perhaps I should tell the House that there is another slight mathematical

      1191
      error. On the supplementary sheet of the Order Paper concerning Lords Amendment No. 149, "Line 6," should read "Line 7".
      The amendments consist of two major extensions. First, they would provide that all charity land, irrespective of when it came into the ownership of the charity, would be exempt from the application of the acquisition duty on authorities and the consequential suspension of planning permission. That is the effect of Lords Amendment No. 13. Secondly, they would provide that when authorities acquired their land, charities would always get market value for it for evermore.
      Moreover, after the second appointed day, or after 11 years—whichever is the later date—charities would get either market value or prevailing use value, even where the latter might result in compensation greater than market value itself would provide. Not only that, but it would enable the Churches and charities on occasion to receive compensation beyond what they would be able to get now under the existing compensation code, which was introduced by the previous administration. That is the effect of Lords Amendments Nos. 152 and 154.
      This is a proposition that I cannot believe that even Conservative Members would accept. Certainly such overreaching is quite unacceptable to Labour Members.
      The final important change made in another place is the reduction of the period for land acquired by a charity after White Paper day to qualify for prevailing use value treatment from 10 years to one year. This would open the door to abuse whatever the good intentions of the sponsors might be. However, the Government have looked at the matter in as positive a way as possible and they are prepared to bring the qualifying period down to seven years.
      These changes in another place are unquestionably in conflict with the Government's basic aims in making special provisions for Churches and charities which, as has been made clear throughout the deliberations on this Bill, must be consistent with the principles of the land scheme. These aims, I need hardly remind the House, were clearly set out in the White Paper, and since hon. Gentle
      1192
      men were at pains to quote the White Paper—if not as extensively as I should like—in a previous debate, perhaps I may quote it in full on this occasion. The aims are
      "to establish a permanent means:

      "(a) to enable the community to control the development of land in accordance with its needs and priorities; and

      (b) to restore to the community the increase in value of land arising from its efforts."

      A great deal has been said in both this House and another place about the effects that the community land scheme will have on the work of the Churches and charities in this country. It has always been the Government's intention to help the charities to make the transition to the new system. The House will realise from my description of all that we intend to provide for charities that they will in most cases be assisted to an exceptional degree so that they can continue their charitable activities. We are simply ensuring that they, like everyone else, will be able to operate in the knowledge that development land is to be controlled by the community. There can be no getting away from that.
      I must therefore ask the House to accept Lords Amendments Nos. 148, 150, 151 and 153—which are paving and minor drafting amendments and do not in themselves affect the charity provisions—and also to accept Lords Amendment No. 92. However, I ask the House to disagree altogether with Lords Amendment No. 154, and Lords Amendments Nos. 13, 149 and 152 in their present form, but to agree to the Government's amendments in their place.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I suspect that the reaction of the Churches and charities to the Minister's words
      "assisted to an exceptional degree"
      will not be favourable. I accept that we have come a long way since 12th September last year and the White Paper, when the present Labour Government and especially the right hon. Gentleman, had forgotten all about the rôle of the Churches and charities, the work they do and their relationship to land. We have reached the situation where I suspect that this is the biggest thorn in the Government's side.
      It is worth reflecting for a few moments on the path which the Churches and charities have trod concerning the Bill and how

      1193
      we come now to consider this large number of important amendments. The Churches and charities were amazed to find that they were left out of the White Paper, but they assumed that when the Bill was presented they would be exempt. In fact they quickly discovered that, far from being exempt, their own work was to be made impossible by the Bill as it then stood and that it would impoverish and impede their work, which, I am sure, is recognised on both sides of the House. They made representations to none other than the Prime Minister, who spared an hour of his time for representations from no less figures than the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and the representative of the Archbishop of Wales.
      6.0 p.m.
      In the early Committe stage the Churches and charities had expected a categorical statement by the Government that, as other parties were beginning to be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, they also would be considered exempt. We had to wait until the very end of the Committee stage. Halfway through the Committee proceedings the Undersecretary of State mentioned that some charities—lucky devils—would be put into a special category, but others clearly would not. However, that morning it was made clear that it was to be all charities.
      Mr. Michael Latham: Not that morning.
      Mr. Morris: Not that morning. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It was a few mornings later. We had to wait until 15th July for any form of substantive indication about the detailed situation regarding charities. Then, as the Churches and charities had time to reflect on those considerations during the summer months, they began to see that what the right hon. Gentleman was offering was woefully and wholly unsatisfactory.
      Indeed, we come to the early autumn. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman met representatives from the National Council of Social Service and the Churches who were trying to find out how far the Minister would extend exemption and how the interpretation of certain
      1194
      words would affect Churches and charities. There was a further meeting on 17th October. The surprising thing was that, despite these meetings—in fact, as the Lords went into Committee—their Lordships themselves were unclear about the Government's concessions. Indeed their Lordships, at the behest of the Minister in another place, recommitted the Bill.
      At that point the Churches and charities wanted a clear definition of what their "own use" was. The right hon. Gentleman has given some clarification this afternoon, but I hope he will repeat and clarify exactly what "own use" means.
      The Churches and charities sought a clear definition of the word "curtilage' as it affected them. They put to the right hon. Gentleman substantive reasons why one year was more than adequate for a continuation of use. I find it extremely worrying that the right hon. Gentleman should impugn the good work of charities and Churches by suggesting that if he reduced the period from seven years to one year it would create a major loophole. If there is no loophole between 10 years and seven years, I fail to see how much greater a loophole there can be between seven years and one year.
      The charities remain extremely worried because of the impact of development land tax and the great difference that the imposition will make to the pre- and post-White Paper day dates. They pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that even as late as the Finance Act 1974 concessions were given to charities. They do not believe that there is any need for local authorities to have the duty to acquire their land. Time and again they have said, and the media have repeated, that the 10-year period is too short. They know from practical experience that they will have problems in raising loans on their land value, and that will restrict their work. They know from practical experience that this 10-year period will mean that the value at which they can sell their land will be diminished, because it will be well known in the market that if a charity has only 18 months to run buyers will hold off and there will be depreciation in the value of the land.
      The charities and Churches have warned the right hon. Gentleman that the development of church schools will be

      1195
      affected. I am surprised that the Minister has not yet checked with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, because the church schools have a rôle to play in this country. We are led to believe that the Labour Party still believes in church schools. If so, we would have expected the Government, as they are making concessions all the way along, to have exempted church schools and the universities.
      I have repeatedly asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises the impact that this legislation will have on the older universities. I do not think he has turned his attention to the implications of the Bill for those bodies.
      I do not think that adequate compensation arrangements have been made for the Free Church bodies which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have a policy of buying land ahead of requirements as the population in certain areas develops.
      The Minister suggested that all legacies and gifts will be at the date of the death of the persons concerned. We welcome that marginal concession. But many people have written their wills at this point and left money and land—land in particular—to charities and Churches and they, hopefully, will not die in the next 10 years. Are we to say that a gift of land is no longer to be of any value?
      The charities believe that the rigidity of the pre-White Paper date land versus post-White Paper date land will prevent the swapping and exchanging of land which has been the tradition in development in the older parts of our urban areas and in some of the newer development corporation land areas. The charities are to be precluded from undertaking swapping arrangements.
      By resisting the Lords amendments, in particular Nos. 13, 152, 154 and 149, the Government will be depriving an area of our national life of the means of doing its work. They do not yet realise the serious nature of what they are undertaking.
      In another place the Lord Bishop of London made clear the long historical exceptions for Church and charity land in terms of legislation—over 400 years. That is a fair length of time. For four centuries Governments of all political
      1196
      persuasions have protected the land of charities and Churches. Yet we now see a Labour Government determined to overthrow 400 years of exemption.
      Some people say or pretend that charities are not properly regulated. To those who voice those opinions I say that the charities are strictly regulated by the Charity Commissioners. Church land is held in trust and looked after by the Church Commissioners. All other religious bodies are covered by either trustees or Acts of Parliament. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone feeling that there are loopholes here.
      Why do the Government want to go against the traditional policy of Parliament? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government, within the Land Commission Act—in some ways very much in the same sphere of activity as the Bill we are considering—followed the traditional policy towards Churches and charities. The Minister is an honourable man. If it was Government policy from the start to wish to change the status of charitable land, it behoved the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to have made it clear to the population at large openly and in full debate.
      What we have seen in the months that this matter has dragged on is a take-over by stealth. Every time we have tried to pin the right hon. Gentleman down, we were told that further deliberations and consultations were taking place. So they were, but not in an open manner which enabled the public to understand the Government's view. I find it difficult to understand why the Government do not recognise that those who run Churches and charities, particularly the latter, do not wish for material gain. They have the sole objective of furthering the work of the community.
      We all know that no State, no Government, can possibly hope to cope with the requirements and demands of those in need. In particular, no Government have ever yet been able to do the experimental work and take up the individual cases that so many charities do. I suspect that the whole policy behind this move to remove the traditional status of charity and Church land is somehow tied up with the Socialist dogma that the local authority knows best.

      1197
      It is wrong, when there are these great areas of need in our community and so many charities for so long have done so much, that one of their chief livelihoods should be taken away. I readily concede that the Government have made concessions. The Lord Chancellor himself said that there was a ready recognition of the fact that the charities could not foresee what the Government meant to do.
      Even at this late stage, if the Government believe that statutory undertakers, certain other commercial undertakings and agriculture should be exempt, surely the demands of charities far exceed anything else. My contention is supported by the result of the vote in the other place, when, with a majority of 99, their Lordships told the Government—[Interruption.] I would say to the Undersecretary that this is not a laughing matter. I know that they wanted only some charities exempt, but no charity workers are laughing—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but even the Bishops, the Cross-Benchers and long friends of the Minister's party have spoken out against this aspect of the Bill.
      It is wrong that the Government should ensure that the supremacy of the State should go over the traditional rights of our charities. If the Government are seeking by stealth to take over the work of our charities, they are doing so in a way which will create what one can only call an economic crucifixion of the Churches and charities. The only redeeming element is that the charities have been given a 10-year lifeline. I am grateful that the point we made on Report has been picked up and that the period, which could have been only nine years, has been put back to 10 years.
      I see in this area great sorrow, great problems for the poor in our community who have been helped for so long by our charities and great problems for our schools and universities which are not wholly State-aided. The only redeeming feature is the 10-year lifeline and the hope that within that time there will be a change of Government.
      My hon Friend has said that we will repeal the Bill. I hope that the charities and Churches recognise which side of the Chamber is supporting their interests and has honestly and loyally supported
      1198
      them from the first day and pointed out to the Government the error of their ways.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Douglas Crawford: To adapt a metaphor used earlier by the Minister, I think that we are off for another plod around the course. I thank him for what he has done already—some concessions have been made—but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not think they are enough. They are essentially short-term.
      I intend to confine my brief speech to the Churches. Because the concessions are short-term, they cannot by nature or by definition take future changes into account. It is wrong to legislate in such a way that limits are set to the activities of Churches, of all denominations. Populations shift, people move from city centre to outskirts, from one decaying centre of economic activity to a growing centre of new economic activity, from old towns to new towns. This has been going on since before the Church was founded and it will go on for many years—certainly more than the 10 years' grace that the Minister has allowed.
      If Churches are to meet the social and spiritual needs of a shifting population, they should be able freely to dispose of land and buildings which are no longer needed and to use the proceeds to purchase land and build buildings where they are needed—in perpetuity.
      The Churches' Main Committee and the Church of Scotland—I am speaking primarily on the latter's behalf—has said in a memorandum that the Government's proposals would safeguard the position for 10 years but that once a piece of pre-White Paper day land was given up the replacement land would become subject to the restrictions imposed by the Bill as regards development greater than 10,000 sq.ft. As they say, that is a very low figure for the development of children's and old people's homes.
      Finally, the Churches are still subject to normal planning controls. I believe I am right in saying that when they dispose of land they will do so at the same market value as local authorities in a similar situation. I would ask the Minister and the Government to think again. If they accept the Lords amendment, the only difference—to use the felicitous phrasing

      1199
      of the Churches' Main Committee—will be that
      "the Churches would remain free to develop land without the intervention of the local authority and…instead of any development value flowing to the community through the local authority and the State, it would flow to the community direct, through the work done for the community by the Churches in the moral and spiritual values which they sustain and the social services they provide."
      I would ask the Government, for that reason, to think again.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: The question of prevailing use value will lead to enormous problems in the years ahead. I understand from the Official Report of the debate in the other place that the Lord Chancellor said:
      "'prevailing use value' is the term used to describe a method of valuation, originally conceived in the Planning Act 1947, in which it is assumed that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the land round about. "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th November 1975: Vol. 365; c. 1028–9.]
      I can foresee enormous problems in this and arguments about what the prevailing use of the land is in the district. Valuers acting for charities might claim that it is residential land while local authorities might argue that it is gardens or public open spaces. Cases will go to land tribunals and be argued at great length.
      Mr. Rossi: Does the hon. Member agree that this amendment is not as generous as the Lord Chancellor would have us believe? In another place he spoke of the prevailing use in the neighbourhood or area of the Church land concerned, but the amendment refers only to contiguous or adjacent land. This is a very precise definition which means only the adjoining piece of land.
      Mr. Ross: I accept that. I would have great difficulty in deciding how to evaluate the prevailing use. The term "prevailing use" might have been used in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, but that measure was repealed and I do not think that the expression has been used in planning circles since. I can understand why Churches and charities are so worried and I can see great difficulties ahead.
      1200
      Churches and charities have been involved in development and have in some cases become speculators. They have had to do this in order to bring in some money. They have sold land at the highest market prices they could obtain. They have not done the actual development because they have not possessed the necessary specialised expertise. I have been concerned with some such developments and have been unhappy about them because the planners have not always agreed with what local people wanted to see done. A development has sometimes moved out of local control.
      However, if we are to take away this right of Churches something must be put in its place. One trembles to think what might happen to the Haig Fund, the Cheshire Homes or the Churches in 10 years' time. They are already facing enough difficulties. I appreciate the Government's point of view, but, if they are not prepared to accept that the Churches and charities should be able to deal with their own land as they wish, some sort of compensation fund must be set up to enable these bodies to continue their good work, which take an enormous load off the State.
      I support the Lords amendment because there is nothing else coming forward to deal with the situation after 10 years has elapsed. I hope that the Government will reconsider whether there is something they can do to help Churches and charities to overcome this enormous problem.
      Mr. Michael Latham: In local government and in this House I have always agreed with the party system and party discipline, and I accept that when the Division Bell rings the Government troops will support the Minister. However, if ever there was a case for having a full House to listen to an argument, this is it. I know that hon. Members on all sides have many other engagements, but I regret that there are only five hon. Members on the Government Benches—four Ministers and one PPS. If Labour Members had heard the arguments, I am sure they would strongly oppose having a Whip on this matter. We feel strongly on this subject and we deeply regret that the Minister has chosen to disagree with the Lords in the amendment.

      1201
      I have always been dissatisfied with the Government's concessions. When the statement was made by the Minister in Committee, I and a number of colleagues asked detailed and specific questions about how charities would be affected and we were particularly critical about the 10-year rule. On Report, the Minister gave the impression that the Opposition were carping by pursuing their objections. He accused us of exaggeration, and when we claimed that charities were not satisfied he said that the Government were having full and frank discussions with them and would meet their points.
      I cannot quote what the Bishop of London said in another place, but it is an accurate paraphrase to say that he regarded the concessions as very meagre and dry crumbs falling from the Government's table. The Lord Chancellor said of the amendment moving back the 10-year period to 11 years:
      "I agree that it would be wrong to build that up into a great and important matter; but, at any rate, it will be an addition of convenience that, in the decade now ahead, will help the Churches and charities to meet the situation which the Bill presents them with."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th November 1975; Vol. 365, c. 998.]
      The Churches Main Committee sent a memorandum to all hon. Members on 6th November stating that it is very far from satisfied with the concessions made by the Government so far. The memorandum states:
      "unfortunately, most of these special provisions were essentially short-term in their effect and would leave the churches and charities eventually in much the same position as they have always feared ever since this legislation was first proposed."
      The exemption on White Paper day land does not concern them. That is satisfactory. The difficulty they face is what happens about land they did not own then. It is not practicable for all Churches, as the Government suggest, to arrange their affairs in respect of their White Paper day land within 11 years.
      The memorandum from the Churches Main Committee states:
      "Not only is such a period no time at all in the history of churches and charities, many of which have been in existence for hundreds of years, but quite apart from the special difficulty of doing this in present economic circumstances, who is to say what the social needs will be 20, 50 or 100 years hence which the churches and charities must seek to satisfy?"
      1202
      The long-term and on-going work of Churches and charities is very important. For instance, the British Legion, which is very much in our thoughts at this time of year, is building new homes on land which it may have only just acquired. This is one of the reasons why we regard the concessions as so unsatisfactory. I shall not go into the argument of whether Churches should be what the Lord Chancellor described as a special privileged body, but let no one come here and try to pretend that the Churches are satisfied with the concessions. They are certainly not satisfied with them.
      6.30 p.m.
      I move now from the general to the particular and to a matter which I raised on Report. The Government promised then to look at it. It concerns post-White Paper day land which is owned by one charity and is subsequently disposed of to another charity but which in between is owned by a non-charity owner.
      The amendments to Lords Amendment No. 13 and to the later Lords amendment refer specifically to the fact that the land has been owned by a charity, but not necessarily by the same charity throughout. On Report I suggested that this seemed an unreasonably narrow restriction. I could see that the right hon. Gentleman was worried about evasion. I put it to him that it was perfectly possible to imagine circumstances in which one charity found that it had land which was surplus to its requirements but disposed of that land to a developer who subsequently sold it to another charity. The land which was sterilised would therefore be released for a satisfactory community purpose. In such circumstances, two concessions would be lost entirely because the land had gone out of charity possession, if only for a few days, during conveyancing. That is nonsense.
      Mr. Rossi: It would not necessarily be out of charity hands even for a few days. Recently I had drawn to my attention a situation in which a former Baptist church had for a number of years been used as an industrial storehouse. Subsequently it was used as a synagogue, and it has remained in that use since. The situation of which my hon. Friend speaks could arise there.
      Mr. Latham: I am grateful for that constructive example. I understood the

      1203
      Minister on Report to say that he would look at this matter again. As far as I know from a fairly careful reading of the proceedings in another place, this point was not raised there. Have the Government considered it? If they have, why have they done nothing about it.
      Dr. Keith Hampson: I rise with great trepidation at this stage of the debate on a complicated Bill, but it is essential for me to do so because it is important to wave the flag on behalf of British universities. They are great international institutions. I am sure that the Minister has had representations from them, although I am not sure what views they have put to him since his so-called concessions. I have an interest in universities, and I am not satisfied with the present state of affairs.
      I wonder what co-ordination and liaison there is between Departments of State over provisions which clearly have wide ramifications in other sectors. At a time when everyone is complaining about the financial stringency affecting universities, when they are beset at every level with calls to economise, they are facing a provision which potentially could do them great damage simply because their property operations, which are crucial to them, will be hit by these provisions.
      The universities have as good a history of estate management as local authorities. They have worked very closely with the local authorities. They are required by their charters to make such deals in the public interest, and it is extraordinary for the Government to hang the sword of Damocles over their heads. It is not possible for them to sort out their planning affairs within the time scale that the Minister has provided.
      Perhaps I may give a couple of examples to highlight a situation which affects many universities. The Bill will distort and confuse the long-term forward planning of these institutions, and that will be to no one's benefit. Already there have been examples in some parts of the country of an exchange of land between the universities and the local authorities. Or a valuable piece of land owned by a university, but possibly on the periphery of its developments, is offered to a local authority or sold in exchange for a more central site.
      1204
      In other instances it is important for the universities to be able to sell land to raise money to pay for other developments on the campus. This practice has come to the fore in university planning on student housing and on developments involving housing associations. Such programmes will be seriously affected. I received a letter which explained how in one of the University of London colleges such developments can arise at short notice. In one instance a very desirable piece of property, suitable for housing, came on to the market but the cost was very high. The university had to do a deal with the National Westminster Bank to lease part of that property in order to secure the money to buy the property and convert it.
      Another instance concerned an old house with land attached to it. By selling the land the university realised £12, 000, which assisted the cost of new student accommodation to the extent of £1,000 per unit. Without that deal the university would have had to charge an extra £2 a week in rent to the students. The Government, like everyone else, are conscious of the pressures on students in housing, yet a system by which the universities can alleviate that pressure is threatened by Government measures. The Minister's concessions do not ease that position.
      There is, therefore, little purpose but potentially much harm in refusing to exempt universities. If we are to maintain standards in our universities, we must allow them freedom in planning so that they may release surplus land and buy land that they require, and to carry out the sort of deals I have described. As things stand, the Government risk causing the universities either to push forward too hastily with their planning activities or to distort their forward planning.
      Mr. Tony Durant: I feel strongly on this subject. I wish to deal with charities such as old people's homes. These charities require greater flexibility than the Government's proposals will afford them. The needs which they seek to meet change frequently, and if they can sell property or land which they may own this will assist them in meeting that changing need. If they wish, therefore, to move into another area of charitable activity, they can do so. The Government must take that into account.

      1205
      Often the charities move into areas of new need well ahead of the State. Take, for example, the provision of centres for drug addicts, battered wives or single-parent families. Charities often move in long before the State catches up. The Government's proposals will detract from their ability to carry out those activities. They will be deprived of realising the means to meet changing needs since they will be unable to sell their land.
      Mr. Graham Page: It is a most serious matter that this issue has not been left to a free vote of the House. All parties agreed in Committee that there should be substantial concessions for charities and the Churches. Representations which we received from the Church leaders almost invariably stated—rather strangely, perhaps—that they supported the principles of the Bill. I do not think they understood what those principles were, but nevertheless they were friendly towards the Government. Now, we are being called upon to vote down what the Churches and charities should be receiving from the Government.
      When the Government announced in Committee that they would accede to the requests of the Churches and charities to be relieved of the burdens of the Bill, we all received pleasant little letters saying "We are so glad that the Government have given us what we asked for." But the Government had done nothing of the sort. Among Members of all parties there was a desire to give the Churches and charities freedom from the Bill—in short, to leave them in control in the management of their properties for charitable purposes, and not to hand over that control to local authorities. That is what will happen if the Bill sees its whole life through to the second appointed day.
      Churches and charities, which are the best people to know how to manage Church and charitable property, are being told that eventually that property will be taken away from them and put into the management of local authorities. The main point is that the Government have conceded some relief to the Churches and charities only in respect of land held on 12th September 1974. That is no concession at all, because it takes away the whole possibility of managing that land to the best advantage of the charity. I beg the Minister to think again. He still
      1206
      has time to give the Churches and charities what they believed they were getting.
      We have been talking in shorthand by speaking of charities. The word covers a great number of bodies without which this country could not operate. If those bodies—the universities, the schools, the almshouses, the old people's homes, the British Legion, the Salvation Army and the Cheshire Homes—are to be deprived of the right to manage their property as they think fit for charitable purposes, they will be hampered by the fact that it will be taken away from them eventually, at current use value, and then kindly handed back again, perhaps, on the basis of a ground lease with variable rents—another taxation on them. We shall then destroy a whole part of our society.
      It is a serious matter that the Patronage Secretary and other Government Whips have not allowed Labour Members to express the sort of feelings expressed by one of them, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) in Committee and on Report. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is out of the country on a mission, but he could at least have persuaded some of his colleagues to speak in the House according to their conscience.
      Mr. Joseph Dean: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) painted only one side of what he described as charitable or Church institutions. Some of us who represent the larger cities have in our constituencies property that has been held for a number of years by various denominations and is now in a terrible state. I do not suppose that any hon. Member present could quantify the number of half-demolished chapels in some such areas.
      I, too, have received objections to some of the clauses relating to churches and chapels, but my correspondents seeking exemption were more concerned not with the redevelopment of a chapel on a site which was in a shocking state, one that had been unused for some time, but with exploiting the land on the open market. I do not consider that that would be in the best interests of the ratepayer or the taxpayer, or of the public generally. It is only right that land which has obviously become surplus to requirements, because a church or chapel on the site can no longer be sustained, should be subject to the Bill.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Graham Page: The local authorities have complete power to purchase such properties now, if they think that they are derelict, unsightly or unrepaired. The charities have power to sell them. We are talking not about properties which may be in a bad state of repair but of valuable properties belonging to charities and Churches.
      Mr. Dean: I take the point, but is not the right hon. Gentleman only highlighting the fact that it is difficult to apply a set standard to deal with every contingency? I am the first to admit that there are valuable properties on valuable land that may require consideration. But certain areas are dotted with half-derelict chapels. That is particularly true of the area in which I live and which I represent. I could take hon. Members to any number within a short distance of one another that are an eyesore by any standards, because the church authorities which should have maintained them have never had the money to do so.
      It is true that the local authority could purchase them and perhaps put them in order. I know a local authority that tried to do that with a church, making a compulsory purchase order to retain the building because it had some architectural merit. But the cost of putting the building in a reasonable condition was astronomical, and the whole preservation scheme had to be abandoned. Public spending priorities would not allow the authority to use money in that way.
      Although there may be a case for certain charities, I believe that the Bill is correct and that it contains enough safeguards.
      Dr. Hampson: If local authorities do not have enough money to do the work under existing powers, how on earth will they do it on a wider scale under the Bill?
      Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am talking about areas where the people concerned have no intention of rebuilding a church but are trying to capitalise on a derelict site. Whether a building is a chapel, a church or an old folk's home, if it has become derelict and is on a derelict site it should be covered by the Bill. I have no qualms about supporting the Bill.
      Mr. Durant: There was a Private Member's Bill which covered the very point the hon. Gentleman is making. Its provisions could be included in the present Bill. That Private Member's Bill would have given a local authority the right to ask the church to do up the kind of building to which he refers, a building of architectural interest.
      Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about a definite matter. I am talking about a large number of derelict churches or chapels within a short distance of one another, for whose preservation there is no provision. Anyone who is naive enough to think that local authorities will waste money on conservation of that type, when economic stringency is interfering with high-priority schemes, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I think that the Bill will do the job that it is supposed to do.
      Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) suffers from the fact that he has only recently entered the argument about the possibility of exempting Church and charity land. If he had been with us on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, he would have found that the essence of the case made by the Churches was that they possessed in inner city areas chapels and church buildings which had become derelict because of the shift of population away from those areas. The Churches need to be able to realise the value of those buildings at a market rate so that they may build new churches and new chapels in the areas to which the population has gone. That case has been accepted by the Government. That is why I say it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has come so late into these discussions.
      Mr. Dean Mr. Dean rose—
      Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government have accepted the argument about redundant buildings in city centres. What we are quarrelling about is that the Government are giving only 10 years' grace to derelict chapels.
      Mr. Dean: Too much.
      Mr. Rossi: During our debates in Committee and on Report we were painfully aware that there was great antipathy

      1209
      on Labour Back Benches towards churches and chapels.
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: Nonsense.
      Mr. Rossi: What were we told when we were discussing whether charities as well as Churches should receive some grace? The Government said "Some may receive grace, but we do not like the look of others." There were discussions as to whether educational establishments were worthy charities deserving of special consideration by those of Socialist mentality. We were told that there was a range of charities that should not be given any assistance. Why should this be so? It seems that it is the Socialist mentality that the State shall do all. In their thinking there is no room for any help to be given to a member of the community other than that which is provided by bureaucrats obeying politicians' orders. That is why they want to mop up as much land as they can into what they call public ownership. They do not trust other people to manage, dispose of and deal with land responsibly.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said, we started our discussions on Churches and charities with the Government not prepared to give them any help. There was nothing in the White Paper or the Bill that gave any help. It was only when enormous pressures were brought upon the Government from both outside and inside the House that they suddenly realised they would be in enormous trouble if they failed to give assistance to the powerful voices that were being ranged against them.
      What are the crumbs of comfort to which reference has been made? I must censure some of my hon. Friends for talking about the Government giving concessions. The Government go about clobbering everyone they possibly can. When they say "We shall clobber him a little less than everyone else", they regard that as a great deal. That is their so-called great concession. It is an abuse of the English language. No concession is being made by adopting that attitude.
      The charities and the Churches are greatly disturbed by what is being done. Interestingly enough, in the Divisions in another place two Lord Bishops acted as
      1210
      Tellers. That was a historic occasion for Parliament. That is an indication of the concern that the Bishops feel for the future of their institutions. It is for those reasons that I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we must support the Lords in their amendments and reject the amendments that are being proposed by the Government.
      It is significant that apart from one lone and uninformed voice on this subject—I refer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West—the Government have had no friends. Not one Labour Member, apart from the hon. Member for Leeds, West, has had the temerity to face the embarrassment of listening to the case being made against the Government, let alone coming in and defending the Government's position. Where are Labour Members? Look at the empty benches behind the Minister. It seems that Labour Members do not have the courage to defend their Government on these matters.
      First, we complain that the period of grace is given to Churches and charities only in respect of land they happened to own on White Paper day—namely, l2th September 1974. We have been told by those who manage the lands of Churches and charities that this will cause them considerable hardship. It is part of their land management to transfer and exchange property with others. That movement of property does not necessarily take place between one charity and another; it can take place between a charity and a private owner. It takes place so that a Church or charity may obtain a piece of land that it needs for its purposes. If these bodies continue with that kind of exercise, the land that is acquired by that kind of prudent estate management will not be exempt from the operation of the Bill. The result will be to fossilise the activities of Churches and charities to the detriment of the community at large, which benefits from the activities of Churches and charities.
      The second matter that causes us and the Churches and charities great concern is that the acquisition of their property by local authorities is something over which they have no control. There is no exemption and they are subject utterly and completely to acquisition when a local authority considers that a certain piece of land is suitable for development. The charity or church concerned will get the

      1211
      market price for that land for only 10 years.
      It might be said that the Churches and charities should start disposing of their land straight away so that they may get their price within the 10 years. However, matters are not quite as easy as that. The value of land in 10 years' time has a bearing on the amount that can be borrowed on it today. If the value of a piece of land owned by a Church or charity reduces substantially in value in 10 years, as it will do under the Bill, the amount that can be borrowed to build a new church, an old people's home or a home for the mentally handicapped, for example, will be restricted. That borrowing being restricted, the activities of charities and Churches will be severely inhibited.
      Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Churches and charities—in a way in which the Labour Government and members of the Labour Party are not prepared to support them—by voting for the Lords amendment.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) took the foolish step of seeking to mix religion with politics. They appeared to suggest that all the virtue in these matters was with the Opposition, whose Members had done their utmost to wring concessions out of the Government. They know that there is not a grain of truth in that proposition.
      The Opposition know that on Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that negotiations and discussions were in progress at that stage with the Churches and charities. They also know that in Committee I said that following discussions with the Churches and the charities a new clause had been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)—who, in this context, I must emphasise, sits on the Government side of the House and is not an Opposition Member—a provision to which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) added his name. However, it is almost being sug
      1212
      gested that the Government on these matters are anti-religion and anti-charity—
      Dr. Hampson: And anti-university.
      Mr. Oakes: I am now being told that we are anti-university too.
      It is being said that the Opposition are trying to wring concessions out of the Government in order to assist the charities. Let us look at the matter as a whole and not merely in its historical context. I do not know whether any count has been taken by those upstairs in the Gallery who examine the private interests of hon. Members and their outside activities, but I would lay odds that if we were to count the number of lay readers and lay preachers far more of them would be found on the Government Benches than among Opposition Members.
      Mr. Raison: Where are they?
      Mr. Oakes: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman where many of them are. Many are upstairs at a meeting discussing the economy. I remind Opposition Members that absence from the Chamber is often as a result of contentment and not a matter of embarrassment. Certainly, if my hon. Friends were here I am sure that they would be more embarrassed after having heard some of the Opposition speeches than by anything that has been said on the Government side of the House.
      We have many times been over the ground covered by these provisions. Let us examine the essential difference of approach by hon. Members on the Government Benches and that adopted by their Lordships' House—an approach which is now being backed by the Conservative Opposition. We are saying, and we have said throughout, that Churches and charities are by their nature in a special position because of the good they do and also because of their status. I think that is agreed on both sides of the House.
      We are now considering a land scheme for the future, and attempts have been made by the representatives of the Churches, charities and universities in consultation with the Government to find a way in which their interests will not be overridden, as Opposition Members appear to suggest will happen. This is the reason why so many amendments

      1213
      have been made to the Bill. We want special provisions in relation to Churches and charities that will assist them and to make the transition to the new situation, without prejudice to any commitment into which they have entered in respect of land they owned before they had any knowledge of the scheme. It is not intended, and it never has been intended—this is where the Labour Government and the other place are at issue—that Churches and charities should remain permanently outside the scheme altogether.
      The effect of the amendments would be widespread. They would have the effect of including in "current use value" the value of any planning permission obtained by a charity in respect of any land acquired at any time. It would mean that the charities would be outside the scheme in respect of receiving the market value for their land in perpetuity. It would create a special category of land, with all the difficulties which that would entail for local authorities.
      A number of valid points have been made in the debate, and I wish to answer them. The hon. Member for Northampton, South and the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), whom I welcome to our coterie on land matters, mentioned the universities, particularly the older ones. Do those hon. Gentlemen realise that 99·9 per cent. of land held by the universities benefits from the White Paper day exemptions? We are, therefore, talking of a tiny, indeed minuscule, fraction of land acquired since White Paper day.
      Let us get the matter in perspective in regard to the question of the payment of market value. The situation in future will be no different from the present position. Local authorities pay market value for the land they now buy, and they will continue to do so.
      Dr. Hampson: Is it not a fact that universities go in for exchanges of the kind I mentioned? Therefore, does not the use come within the provision, and will the Bill apply? Is it not also possible that land could be acquired at below market value which had been purchased with UGC money and later could be sold by local authorities at a much higher price, and will not this take that profit out of the Treasury?
      1214
      Do not these matters amount to an anomaly?
      Mr. Oakes: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "exchange" in the university context, because if universities or charities exchange land for a charitable use the provisions of the Bill will hardly affect them. We are talking here of disposal of land rather than of exchange.
      Dr. Hampson: The Minister will remember that I gave an example of land in a peripheral area outside the campus.
      Mr. Oakes: That is another category, but it is still not exchange of land but rather the sale of land. It may be surplus to requirements, but it does not fall within the ordinary meaning of "exchange".
      The hon. Member for Northampton, South asked about the difference between statutory undertakers and charities. One important difference is that statutory undertakers are ordered by statute to undertake a particular job. It is not true, as the hon. Gentleman implied, that statutory undertakers are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. They are not. They are exempt from its provisions only as they relate to operational land.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I thought I had made it clear that I was not talking of operational land. If not, I do so now. If the charities and Churches could have their operational land exempted, we would be going some way towards what they are looking for.
      Mr. Oakes: Very largely as a result of the amendments that have been made, much of the operational land of Churches and charities is exempted. It is not stated as being exempted, but that effectively is what happens as a result of what we have done during the course of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said that charities and Churches were especially subject to shifting changes. I do not deny that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) made the same point. Churches in the city areas become derelict because of population changes. But there is no cause to believe that charities will be better off in getting their land from the private rather than from the public sector. The reverse might apply. There is no

      1215
      argument for the proposition that they would be better off. Furthermore they will still buy at market value. This question of buying has to be made quite clear. Churches and charities will be buying at market value, as is the position now.
      The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)—I am not inviting him to intervene now, but I recall that I made an offer to give way to him during the course of my reply—dealt with the question of prevailing use value and what it meant. He also raised the issue of the words used by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords. There is no doubt that there are problems here. In some cases, for example a disused church in the High Street, it is obvious that the prevailing use will be shops. As for the point about contiguous and adjacent, "contiguous" means adjoining but adjacent land need not be physically adjoining. "Adjacent" means "near to". Thus the Lord Chancellor inevitably was right. If there is dispute as to whether something is contiguous or adjacent, or about what the prevailing use is in an area, it can be settled by the Lands Tribunal, as such matters are settled now in respect of market value, which can be difficult to assess.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: The Churches chose their sponsors cleverly. We had these original amendments sent to us. I shall not dwell on that point. As regards the issue of prevailing use, the Minister has illustrated what the problems will be. Obviously local authorities will argue when a Church or charity is selling land and claiming prevailing use value, which may be approaching market value. This will lead to enormous problems which may end up in the Lands Tribunal. This could take a year or two to deal with. This is what the Churches are scared about.
      Mr. Oakes: It will lead to some disputes. Anything can lead to disputes. On the whole, I think that these will be exceptional. The terms "prevailing use value", "land contiguous", "land adjacent" and so on are fairly easy to understand. In the vast majority of cases agreement will be reached about the value. The obvious example is the church in the High Street surrounded by
      1216
      shops and office development. In that case there is a high prevailing use value.
      Mr. Costain: Does that mean that the church in the High Street will be pulled down prematurely so that this extra value may be realised?
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Oakes: We are not talking about pulling down churches prematurely. That is returning to the argument about derelict churches and chapels. It is an important strand but not the main strand in our debate. It has been dealt with basically by the Government amendments put forward in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked what would be the position if land was sold from a charity to a non-charity within a short period of time. The answer is that it would lose its charitable status. If the land is bought by another charity, the time starts to run again. The time would begin from the time at which it was bought by the other charity. If the land left the charity, went to another use—I remember answering this point on Report—and could then revert to its charitable status and the time elapsed ran from the first charity, it is clear that all sorts of difficulties could be created and there would be the possibility of using such a method as a device for evasion, not by the charities but by others.
      Mr. Michael Latham: The point that the hon. Gentleman has described me as making earlier was not the point I made at all. He said on Report that he would consider the matter carefully and see whether anything could be done. Is he now saying that he has done so and that nothing can be done?
      Mr. Oakes: Yes. We considered it carefully when these amendments were considered in Committee in another place. On balance, because of the arguments I have given, we think that no harm will be done by leaving this provision as it is but that much harm could result by seeking to amend it in the way suggested.
      The hon. Member for Reading, North Mr. Durant) mentioned centres for drug addicts, battered wives and so on. We are not talking about such things in this amendment because overwhelmingly such charities use existing buildings. They

      1217
      take over a building and that building is not affected.
      Mr. Durant: My point is that a charity might find that its original charitable purpose had declined and it might decide to enter a new area. It might need to move away from its existing base. That is the point—moving from a need which has declined to another need and a changing location.
      Mr. Oakes: When the time arises, that may be so. When it bought other premises, that charity would have to do so in the same way as it does now. There is no change.
      Let me sum up the position with regard to charity land, given not only the amendments made in Committee but the valuable amendments concerning the seven years and the building on the land made by my right hon. Friend today as a result of some of the amendments from the other place. What is the position with charity land, post-White Paper? On buying, I repeat that the charity will buy at market value, as now. There will be a liability to duty if relevant development is being sought. If the charity owned the land, it would have prior right to get it back for development. In the carrying out of exempted development, only the power of acquisition would apply. My right hon. Friend has said that he would not expect to confirm compulsory purchase orders where development was for a charity's operational use, which is similar to what I was saying about statutory undertakers and so on. The charity will also attract the minor benefits in the seven-year period.
      Considerable progress was made after the Second Reading debate. The Secretary of State for Wales announced that negotiations were proceeding. Long transitional provisions are necessary. These have been provided by the Government and meet many of the points made by the Churches and the charities.

      Division No. 392.]

      AYES

      [7.24 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Bean, R. E.

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Allaun, Frank

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Anderson, Donald

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Archer, Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Campbell, Ian

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bishop, E. S.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashley, Jack

      Boardman, H.

      Cant, R. B.

      Ashton, Joe

      Booth, Albert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Carter, Ray

      Atkinson, Norman

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Cartwright, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Buchan, Norman

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Bates, Alf

      Buchanan, Richard

      Clemitson, Ivor

      I do not think that the Churches and charities ask for permanent exemption, in perpetuity, from this land scheme. The Government could not accept such exemption in perpetuity. We have moved a long way in making the transitional arrangements. Most charities, some of the Churches and many churchmen accept that position.
      Mr. Raison: The Minister said that the Churches had not asked for long-term exemption from this scheme. I received a letter from the Churches' Main Committee, which reads:
      "The Government have explained the short term nature of their new provisions by their desire not to allow the establishment in perpetuity of a specially privileged class of land-owner. But Churches and charities are by their very nature in a unique position, as the Minister himself recognised in his speech on 15th July, and they have traditionally been treated as such since Tudor times on grounds of the benefit which they bring to the community and the fact that the whole of their resources are devoted solely to the community. None goes into private pockets. What the Churches and charities are asking, there fore, is not that they should be given a privilege which they have not hitherto had, but that they should retain the position which they have always had, and which Governments of all political persuasions have been at pains to maintain."
      That contradicts what the Minister said. In the long term the Churches will find it much harder to carry out their charitable and social work. They will find it much harder to pay their clergymen and their ministers, who are the most abysmally paid people in the entire population. The same criterion applies to charities generally. It is not good enough for the Minister to speak as he did this evening. I ask the Opposition—indeed, the whole House—to support the Lords amendments.
      Question put. That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes, 273, Noes 265.

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Coleman, Donald

      Janner, Greville

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Radice, Giles

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      John, Brynmor

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roper, John

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Judd, Frank

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kelley, Richard

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kerr, Russell

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Selby, Harry

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lambie, David

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lamond, James

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Dempsey, James

      Lee, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Sillars, James

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Silverman, Julius

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Small, William

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dunn, James A.

      Litterick, Tom

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dunnett, Jack

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Eadie, Alex

      Luard, Evan

      Stallard, A. W.

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Stoddart, David

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Stott, Roger

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Strang, Gavin

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McElhone, Frank

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Swain, Thomas

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Flannery, Martin

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Madden, Max

      Thome, Stan (Preston South)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Magee, Bryan

      Tierney, Sydney

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mahon, Simon

      Tinn, James

      Forrester, John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Tomlinson, John

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tomney, Frank

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Marquand, David

      Torney, Tom

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      George, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mikardo, Ian

      Ward, Michael

      Golding, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Watkins, David

      Gould, Bryan

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Watkinson, John

      Gourlay, Harry

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Weetch, Ken

      Graham, Ted

      Molloy, William

      Weitzman, David

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Moonman, Eric

      Wellbeloved, James

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Harper, Joseph

      Moyle, Roland

      Whitlock, William

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Hatton, Frank

      Newens, Stanley

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Noble, Mike

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Oakes, Gordon

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Ogden, Eric

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Hooley, Frank

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Horam, John

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Woodall, Alec

      Huckfield, Les

      Ovenden, John

      Woof, Robert

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Owen, Dr David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Padley, Walter

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Hunter, Adam

      Park, George

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Parker, John

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Parry, Robert

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Alison, Michael

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Gray, Hamish

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Arnold, Tom

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mudd, David

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Grist, Ian

      Neave, Airey

      Baker, Kenneth

      Grylls, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Banks, Robert

      Hall, Sir John

      Newton, Tony

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nott, John

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Benyon, W.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Biffen, John

      Hannam, John

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pardoe, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Body, Richard

      Hastings, Stephen

      Penhaligon, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hawkins, Paul

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Heseltine, Michael

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hicks, Robert

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Brotnerton, Michael

      Holland, Philip

      Raison, Timothy

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hordern, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Buck, Antony

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, John

      Reid, George

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hurd, Douglas

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Burden, F. A.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Carlisle, Mark

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      James, David

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Channon, Paul

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Johnston Russell (Inverness)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jopling, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Clegg, Walter

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cockcroft, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cope, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Cormack, Patrick

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Crouch, David

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shepherd, Colin

      Crowder, F. P.

      Knox, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lamont, Norman

      Sims, Roger

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawson, Nigel

      Speed, Keith

      Dunlop, John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Spence, John

      Durant, Tony

      Loveridge, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luce, Richard

      Sproat, Iain

      Elliott, Sir William

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stainton, Keith

      Emery, Peter

      MacCormick, Iain

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanley, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      McCusker, H.

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      MacGregor, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fell, Anthony

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stokes, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Madel, David

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Marten, Neil

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      Mather, Carol

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Maude, Angus

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Freud, Clement

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Thompson, George

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Mills, Peter

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Goodhart, Philip

      Moate, Roger

      Viggers, Peter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Molyneaux, James

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Coodlad, Alastair

      Monro, Hector

      Wakeham, John

      Gorst, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Younger, Hon George

      Wall, Patrick

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Walters, Dennis

      Wigley, Dafydd

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Watt, Hamish

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

      Wells, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made to Lords Amendment No. 13: In line 13, after 'has' insert' or had'.
      In line 16, after 'is' insert 'or was'.—[Mr. Crosland.]
      Lords Amendment No. 13, as amended, agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 4

      EXPRESSIONS RELATING TO LAND AND PLANNING LAW
      Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 4, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 5.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 60, 130, 164 and 171.
      Mr. Oakes: The amendments have the effect of bringing together into the new clause all the references in the Bill to private interests in Crown land.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 5

      STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS
      Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 8, line 23, leave out second "the" and insert "planning".
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 53, 54 to 59, 62, 65, 67, 68, 78, 91, 94, 98, 105, 106, 110 to 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123 to 126, 128, 139, 143, 145, 161, 169, 170, 172, 177, 178, 179 and 184.
      Mr. Oakes: The amendments are, with one exception, drafting or consequential amendments arising from changes made
      1224
      in the other place, or in response to undertakings that we gave on Report. That exception is Lords Amendment No. 57, which was accepted in another place.
      It is a Scottish amendment, which was accepted in another place in error. I therefore ask the House to agree with the said amendments except for Lords Amendment No. 57.
      Similar amendments to Schedule 4 and Schedule 10 were accepted as bringing into the Bill the more appropriate legal formula in Scotland where there is a reference to a legal suit. Unfortunately, Lords Amendment No. 57 to paragraph 12 of Schedule 4 was accepted, but that paragraph has no application to Scotland, and the amendment must therefore be removed.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      THE APPOINTED DAYS, ETC.
      Lords Amendment: No. 33, in page 9, line 23, at end insert—
      "(1A) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than the first date when a draft of regulations under section 3 of this Act excepting one or more classes of development from relevant development has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment is not highly significant. It precludes the first appointed day, when the transitional arrangements for the scheme come into force, from being appointed before a draft of relevant development regulations made under Clause 3 has been approved by Parliament. The relevant development regulations are an essential feature of the scheme, as they will define the categories of development which will be permanently outside the duties under Clauses 17 and 18. Moreover, until the regulations are in force, there will be nothing in Clause 21 procedure to bite.
      We have always accepted the necessity for such regulations to be in force and

      1225
      available publicly before the first appointed day, and would in any case have ensured that this was done. There is, however, something to be said for writing such provision into the Bill. That is what the amendment does, and I am sure that it will find favour with the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) accordingly.
      Mr. Rossi: I rise to quarrel not with the amendment, which we accept wholeheartedly, but with the way in which the hon. Gentleman presented it. He said that it was not a very important amendment. He said that it would be convenient to have it in the Bill rather than outside it. I recall all the debates when we have asked the Government to spell out in the Bill what are the rights of citizens and not leave it to be dealt with by ministerial action. I wonder that the Minister can say now "It is not very important for this to be in the Bill, because the Minister will do it anyway." What is the legislative process all about, unless it is to define what the private citizen's rights are, unless it is to lay down what a Minister may or may not do in the exercise of his office?
      In contrast to the hon. Gentleman's rather churlish introduction to the amendment, I think that the Lords deserve thanks for forcing it on the Government. The amendment makes it plain that the regulations, which define what is and is not relevant development—we all know that the definition of "relevant development" is the key to the operation of the land scheme—must be before us before the Minister can declare the first appointed day and bring the Bill into operation. I am grateful to their Lordships for having forced this amendment on the Government and having written into the Bill the date upon which the Minister shall deal with this matter. It is on that basis, and not on the basis on which the hon. Gentleman introduced the amendment, that we support it.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Graham Page: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that this amendment is of considerable importance. How the Bill could have operated without having the regulations, I do not know. I accept the assurance that it was the intention of the Government to bring in these regulations before the commencement order on the
      1226
      appointed day, but it is right to have it written into the Bill.
      Can the hon. Gentleman give some estimate of the time when the regulations will be put in draft before the House, and therefore of how soon the first appointed day will be? I imagine that the regulations are in draft already, that we shall be seeing them fairly soon, and that the appointed day will be when we approve them in the House. To have such an estimate would be of great help to those who have to prepare for the operation of the Bill.
      Mr. Oakes: I can only reply to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that it will be done as speedily as possible. I cannot give a more precise date, but work is proceeding on the regulations.
      The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) never ceases to amaze me about two aspects of this matter. He is always saying that this is of urgent priority and he always uses flamboyant language to describe it. He says that the House of Lords forced the amendment on the Government. We always said that it would be rather stupid for the first appointed day to be in operation before the regulations were in operation, because there would be nothing for the regulations to bite on. We have said that throughout. We have also said that the Government intended to do this and therefore we did not need to spell out the obvious in the Bill. Very well—we are now spelling it out in the Bill, and that is the enormous, tremendous, moral and political victory that their Lordships have won over us.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      COMMENCEMENT DATES, ETC.
      Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 52, line 4, after first "Act" insert:
      "in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves as to".
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following Lords amendments:
      No. 35, in page 52, line 7, leave out "2.—(1)" and insert "(1 A)".
      No. 36, page 52, line 11, at end insert "all".
      No. 37, in page 52, line 12, at end insert—
      "2. As soon as practicable after the making of an order under section 18 of this Act, each of the authorities whose areas include land to which the order applies—

      (a)shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality, of which one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper, and

      (b)shall deposit a copy of the order at their principal office and shall keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment."

      Mr. Silkin: These amendments are all designed to give greater publicity to relevant date orders, that is, the orders that bring in the full duty prohibition provisions of Clauses 18 and 21. Lords Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 strengthen the provision governing the registers of such orders, which the Secretary of State must keep because they are required to be available at all reasonable hours and to be kept in such a way as to enable the public to inform themselves of the details of an order. Lords Amendment No. 27 inserts a new provision requiring each of the authorities affected by an order to do two things—to publish a notice of its effect in the Press and to keep a copy of the order available for free public inspection at its main office at all reasonable hours. Lords Amendment No. 35 is simply a drafting amendment.
      These requirements, in addition to those already provided in the Bill—there are administrative arrangements which will be made for regional registers to be kept in the Department's regional offices—should provide all that is necessary to ensure that members of the public have all the information they need about the relevant date orders.
      Mr. Graham Page: I do not know what the Minister has in mind as to the way in which the public will inform themselves. Is this to be a register of which there will be something like a requisition for a official certificate of search? Or does it merely mean that the public have to call personally to see it? Is it possible to have some official form which could be sent in, and is there to be a fee for the answer? What is meant?
      1228
      I am sure that it is a very useful phase and leaves the Minister with what he has claimed that he requires throughout the debates on this Bill, and that is flexibility. But flexibility is not always so very helpful to the public. I hope that the Minister is about to get advice.
      I envisage personal search—I presume at Marsham Street. If so, on what floor is this register to be kept? As the Minister knows—he is on the 18th floor himself now—when the lifts go out of order, it is almost impossible to reach the 18th floor. If the register were to be kept up there, it would not be in such a way as would enable members of the public to inform themselves. That is just a practical point. If the Minister now has that fortunate piece of paper from along the row, perhaps he can perhaps answer my question.
      Mr. John Silkin: How fortunate it is that the right hon. Gentleman and I waited for the answer, because he will be delighted to hear that once again the words are taken from the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. It is a general duty, and we shall consider how best to do it as we approach the point of bringing in the Clause 18 orders. There will be an opportunity to look at it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 14

      MANAGEMENT, ETC. OF LAND HELD BY THE AUTHORITY
      Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 13, line 32, at end insert:
      "(4A) As soon as practicable after the making of any arrangements under subsection (4) above for the discharge of any functions of the Authority by a local authority the local authority shall—

      (a)send a copy of the arrangements to every other local authority within whose area the functions are to be so discharged, and

      (b)deposit a copy of the arrangements at their principal office and keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment."

      The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

      1229
      The amendment arises from one in Committee in the other place by Lord Sandford and Lord Aberdare. Their amendment was unsatisfactory in that it provided only for information to be sent by district councils to county councils and not from county councils to district councils. It only required county councils to make information publicly available. It was also suggested that possibly district councils should also make relevant agency arrangements available for inspection.
      The Government are in favour of this type of publicity and openness. They had proposed to achieve this for these agency arrangements by requiring the Land Authority itself to keep and make available for inspection a register of agency arrangements into which it had entered. The Opposition criticised this as being remote and less favourable to the Welsh public than the corresponding arrangements in England in relation to land acquisition and management schemes.
      The Government introduced their own amendment on Report, when it was approved. It requires each tier of local authority to give publicity to the agency arrangements into which it has entered, and is thus more useful than the Opposition proposal would have been.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: We approve of the amendment. It is obviously very important that the left hand should know what the right hand is doing in this matter, but I must confess to being a little surprised that the actual duty of informing each local authority lies upon the local authority itself, rather than upon the Land Authority for Wales, which will presumably have been the initiator of whatever arrangements are made with the district or the county authority. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why the duty lies with the local authorities as opposed to the Land Authority itself.
      Secondly, I should like the Minister to comment on the publicity aspect of this. According to the amendment as it stands there is no duty upon the authorities to give publicity as such. They are required only to let each authority know of the arrangements. There is no duty laid upon them that they shall inform the public that these arrangements have been made.
      1230
      There is a great deal of concern in Wales about these agency arrangements, and I am sure that the public—and, indeed, the local authorities themselves—would like to know the Government's latest thinking on these arrangements.
      Mr. Alec Jones: The amendment was drawn up in response to the proposal produced in the other place by Lord Sandford and Lord Aberdare. It was then felt that, since the matter of agency arrangements was chiefly a question of administrative arrangements to operate the scheme, this was principally a matter of concern both to the district and to the county councils. Since we require that the Land Authority shall work in the fullest co-operation with district and county councils, it was felt that this could best be done by having the responsibility of notifying the agency arrangements arranged in this way.
      As to making extra publicity, the point we are making in the amendment is that the fact of having the arrangements available at local authority offices will extend the opportunities for local people to become as fully aware of these agency arrangements as they may care to make themselves.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 15

      POWERS OF ACQUISITION AND APPROPRIATION
      Lords Amendment: No. 39, in page 14, line 20, leave out from "any" to end of line and insert "development land".
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss the following Lords amendments:
      No. 40, in line 21, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 41, in line 24, leave out "any" and insert "development".
      Mr. Silkin: These amendments would limit the acquisition power under Clause 15(1) to acquiring development land only—that is, land which in the opinion of the authority concerned is needed for relevant development within 10 years.

      1231
      If this amendment were accepted, authorities would no longer have power under the Bill to acquire land for excepted development. They would not be able to acquire land which was suitable for relevant development but was not needed within 10 years—even if the landowner, for good reasons, wanted to sell to the authority by agreement and it would be sensible for the authority to buy and to keep the land in its existing use until needed for development.
      The basic fact to be considered here is that the Government's proposals for defining the scope of the scheme by reference to the potential scope of the duty leave excepted development outside this category but still within the scope of the acquisition power. The whole concept of excepted development is based on the assumption that, though normally it will not be right for authorities to acquire land for such development, there will be circumstances in which they should do so.
      Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to give a couple of examples where authorities should be able to acquire land which is necessary to facilitate development. It would, for example, be possible to use the acquisition power as the only way of ensuring that desirable recreational development was carried out. Second, authorities should be able to buy land for excepted development in order to achieve better planning. There could be instances when an authority would need to buy land for rebuilding within the terms of Schedule 8 to the 1971 Act, because that would be the only way to achieve the best results in planning terms.
      The effect of these amendments is to remove the power for such acquisitions and, viewed in that way, wreck completely the concept of excepted development. For that reason, I ask the House to disagree with the other place.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Budgen: The two points made by the Minister might be valid if this were the only power of compulsory acquisition in the hands of the State. But it must be emphasised that these proposals are in addition to the existing powers of compulsory acquisition.
      It is wrong for the Minister to represent the position as being that the State
      1232
      could not acquire either excepted development land or land not needed for 10 years but for the Bill, even as amended by the Lords. It would be perfectly possible for local authorities to get permission from the Minister to acquire both these categories of land under other Acts, admittedly in circumstances giving a higher rate of compensation to the landowner and admittedly in circumstances giving additional rights to the landowner.
      It is about confiscation that we are arguing and it is about confiscation with reduced powers of objection to the individual citizen that we are arguing in this case. Therefore, the Opposition believe that the Lords were right to restrict the powers given to local authorities in confiscating the private citizen's land.
      We take this view not because we believe that local authorities are by themselves bad organisations. But if the Government thrust vast powers upon local authorities, there are possibilities at least that local authorities will misuse those powers. At present, we see the opportunities that local authorities have for misusing their powers in the provision of subsidised housing. At present, subsidised housing is used and has been used as no less than an electoral bribe. If in the future local authorities are to become the monopoly buyer and seller of development land, their opportunities for malpractices will increase vastly.
      For this reason, we believe that the discretion accorded to local authorities when they are acquiring land under the penal provisions of the Bill should be limited as far as possible. Therefore, if a local authority wishes to acquire either excepted development land or land that will not be required for 10 years, it should do so under previous Acts and not under the Bill.
      It must be made clear that, under the preceding Acts dealing with compulsory acquisition, the scheme was broadly that the acquiring authority would acquire at market value and that the landowner would have a wide right of objection and the right to an individual inquiry concerning each piece of land. But the Bill much reduces the rights accorded to any landowner, whether he be rich or poor.
      This is a Bill for confiscation at current use value. It is a Bill for confiscation at a value that takes no account of the

      1233
      development value of land. It is also a Bill giving the States the right to confiscate, with reduced powers of objection and a reduced right to demand a public inquiry.
      We are mindful of our duty to try to preserve the rights of individual citizens, whether they be rich or poor, and many landowners are very poor people. [Laughter.] I see one or two Government supporters laughing at that statement. Many individual landowners, in urban areas especially, own one or two houses. Often those houses have been reduced in value, both in capital value and in income, by the interference of the State as a result of rent control. Today we are fighting for the little people who will be ground into the dust by the forced acquisition through the confiscation of the Bill.
      The Opposition believe that it is quite wrong to allow local authorities the wide discretion which previously was built into the Bill by allowing local authorities to decide what would be development "in their opinion". The proposals made by the Lords are good. They are proposals that a second Chamber should be making, because they enhance the right of the individual citizen and say to the State "If you want to acquire two types of development land, you should do so at market value and you should do it in a way that gives the individual citizen the old and considerable rights that he had under the preceding legislation for compulsory acquisition."
      Mr. Arthur Jones: I have not taken part in these proceedings since the Second Reading debate, but I tried to follow carefully the discussions in Committee and the proposals now before the House.
      As I understand them the powers of acquisition lying with the local authority depend significantly upon its proposals for planning and use of land on a 10-year rolling programme. I was interested to hear what the Minister said, because there seems to be some contradiction between this situation and the term
      "…which, in their opinion, is suitable for development."
      Those words seem to take the power given to local authorities far beyond that intended to be linked to planning proposals.
      1234
      The Lords amendment restricts that right—I think wisely—to land for which a planning use is proposed. But the terms of the Bill as drafted in using the words "suitable for development" seem to take the powers outside those upon which great emphasis was placed in the past and which I thought formed a significant factor in the proposal behind this legislation.
      Mr. Rossi: All the reasons given by the Minister for rejecting this Lords amendment are the very reasons, taken inversely, why the Opposition feel that it is right for the House to accept them. There is this great difference between the two sides of the House as to the effect and extent of this land scheme.
      The first of the amendments contains what to us are the highly objectionable words "in their opinion". As drafted, the clause reads:
      "An authority…shall have power to acquire…any land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development."
      That is a totally selective judgment by the local authority.
      We have argued through this matter at all stages of this Bill, and I shall not detain the House by arguing the case again. However, the Opposition would like to see an objective judgment taken here. If the words "in their opinion" were omitted the clause would read:
      "An authority…shall have power to acquire…any land which is suitable for development. "
      Whether the land was suitable for development could be tested elsewhere, if necessary, by the impartial courts of our land. The moment that we introduce the phrase
      "land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development"
      or land which may be acquired by the local authorities, no one may intervene apart from possibly the Secretary of State. We know what the Secretary of State's views are on land acquisition. That is why we are considering the Bill.
      Therefore, on this matter there can be no agreement between the two sides. The right hon. Gentleman says that these amendments seek to turn excepted development into exempted development. Of course, that is precisely what we want to see. We have already expressed our

      1235
      view on the question of the single dwelling. We have said that that should be exempted from acquisition by a local authority and not, as the Minister would like, only exempted until such time as a local authority thinks that the dwelling is suitable for comprehensive development purposes. In such a situation the private citizen's rights would be much at risk and indeed in danger as became clear from the answer which the Minister gave during the debate on that matter.
      The Minister announced some weeks ago with a great fanfare of trumpets the exceptions concerning the building industry. He told the industry not to worry. He said that the Government would enable it to carry on its work because there would be excluded from the operation of this scheme any development for industrial or commercial property of up to 15,000 square feet or, for housing, up to 10,000 square feet. The building industry was told that this would mean that schemes involving 10 or 12 houses would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Those schemes are only excluded to the extent that they are "excepted" and we know that "excepted" means that a local authority can always override a proposal if it decides that the land is suitable for development on a more comprehensive basis. Therefore, these exceptions are really not worth the paper they are written on. Although we may be told that it is intended that it will be done this, that, or the other way, we should like those intentions to be spelt out in the Bill, even at risk of the Undersecretary—who is no longer present—saying that I get over-excited when I ask that matters be properly spelt out in the Bill.
      Mr. John Silkin: He is at dinner.
      Mr. Rossi: I hope to join him, if I may, in the not too distant future.
      We oppose the Government on this matter. I support their Lordships and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: I shall not go over the ground again, because, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has said, there is a philosophical gulf between the two parties. However, unlike his hon.
      1236
      Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) I believe that one Second Reading speech is enough.
      I know that the hon. Member for Hornsey fully accepts and understands the position. However, he always seems slightly to miss the point that if a local authority when dealing with an excepted development makes a CPO, because it has the power, it is still the Secretary of State who decides whether it can exercise that power. I suppose that it is a matter of emphasis between us, but I do not know.
      I should like to deal briefly with some of the other points. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made his usual all-stages speech. It was not a Second Reading speech, but it was an all-purpose one. He makes it very well, whether it is apposite or not. As it happens, on this occasion it was not really apposite, because the amendments have no implications concerning compensation. However, I like listening to him and I have grown to listen to what he says with interest. He always says everything well.
      I should like to tell the House what I believe are good reasons why we should not have left acquisition to the existing housing and planning Acts, including the Housing Act 1971, which was the child of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The Land Authority for Wales is not a local authority, and therefore we should have had to make some provision anyway in the Bill for it to be able to acquire. In general, if we made arrangements under the existing housing and planning Acts there would be two types of fragmentation. First, there would be fragmented compulsory purchase orders. They would not be insuperable, but they are messy, difficult and time consuming. Secondly, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Crosby, when considering the matter purely as a draftsman—I accept that he dislikes intensely the whole principle of the Bill—would accept that it is desirable in a Bill to get all the powers together. Therefore, that would be much better than leaving this to be done, as has been suggested, under the existing housing and planning powers. Indeed, as these powers already exist, the only real objection to them along that line of argument is duplication. However, in my view, as a

      1237
      matter of tidiness, we should put them in this legislation.
      I promise not to keep the House long on these amendments, because there is this difference which, as the hon. Member for Hornsey fairly said, exists between us. I am sure that I would weary the House if I kept on repeating myself

      Division No. 393.]

      AYES

      [8.18 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Anderson, Donald

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Archer, Peter

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Litterick, Tom

      Ashley, Jack

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ashton, Joe

      Flannery, Martin

      Luard, Evan

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Forrester, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Bates, Alf

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      McElhone, Frank

      Bean, R. E.

      Freeson, Reginald

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Bidwell, Sydney

      George, Bruce

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Boardman, H.

      Ginsburg, David

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Booth, Albert

      Golding, John

      Madden, Max

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Gould, Bryan

      Magee, Bryan

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Graham, Ted

      Mahon, Simon

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Buchan, Norman

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Buchanan, Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marguand, David

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hardy, Peter

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Harper, Joseph

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Campbell, Ian

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Meacher, Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hatton, Frank

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Cant, R. B.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Mikardo, Ian

      Carmichael, Neil

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Millan, Bruce

      Carter, Ray

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Henderson, Douglas

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Cartwright, John

      Hooley, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Horam, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Coleman, Donald

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Moyle, Roland

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hunter, Adam

      Newens, Stanley

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Noble, Mike

      Crawford, Douglas

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cronin, John

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Ogden, Eric

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cryer, Bob

      Janner, Greville

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Orbach, Maurice

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ovenden, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Owen, Dr David

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      John, Brynmor

      Padley, Walter

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Deakins, Eric

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Park, George

      Delargy, Hugh

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Parker, John

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Parry, Robert

      Dempsey, James

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Doig, Peter

      Judd, Frank

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kelley, Richard

      Radice, Giles

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kerr, Russell

      Reid, George

      Dunn, James A.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Edge, Geoff

      Lamborn, Harry

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lamond, James

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      English, Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lee, John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Rose, Paul B.

      beyond saying that I ask the House to disagree with their Lordships in the said amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 281 Noes 237.

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (KilmarnocK)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Selby, Harry

      Thompson, George

      Whitlock, William

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

      Tomlinson, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Tomney, Frank

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Torney, Tom

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Sillars, James

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Silverman, Julius

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Small, William

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Woodall, Alec

      Stallard, A. W.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Woof, Robert

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Ward, Michael

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Stott, Roger

      Watkins, David

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Strang, Gavin

      Watkinson, John

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Watt, Hamish

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Weetch, Ken

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Swain, Thomas

      Weitzman, David

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fell, Anthony

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Alison, Michael

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Knox, David

      Arnold, Tom

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lamont, Norman

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Awdry. Daniel

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Fox, Marcus

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Banks, Robert

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Freud, Clement

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Fry, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian

      Benyon, W.

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Loveridge, John

      Biffen, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Luce, Richard

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Blaker, Peter

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Body, Richard

      Glyn. Dr Alan

      McCusker, H.

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Bottomley, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      MacGregor, John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Brittan, Leon

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Madel, David

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gray, Hamish

      Marten, Neil

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Grieve, Percy

      Mates, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mather, Carol

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Angus

      Buck, Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Budgen, Nick

      Hall, Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Burden, F. A.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hannam, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mills, Peter

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Moate, Roger

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Molyneaux, James

      Clegg, Walter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Cockcroft, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Cope, John

      Holland, Philip

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morgan, Geraint

      Costain, A. P.

      Hordern, Peter

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Crouch, David

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hunt, John

      Mudd, David

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hurd, Douglas

      Neave, Airey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Neubert, Michael

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Newton, Tony

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      James, David

      Nott, John

      Dunlop, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Durant, Tony

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Pardoe, John

      Emery, Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Eyre, Reginald

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Kimball, Marcus

      Penhaligon, David

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Percival, Ian

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Shepherd, Colin

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Sims, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Raison, Timothy

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Speed, Keith

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Spence, John

      Wakeham, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Sproat, Iain

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Stainton, Keith

      Wall, Patrick

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walters, Dennis

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Stanley, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Wells, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Stokes, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Younger, Hon George

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Tebbit, Norman

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Adam Butler and

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

    Schedule 4

      ACQUISITION AND APPROPRIATION OF LAND
      Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 55, line 43, leave out "2".
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 46.
      Mr. Silkin: This is a concession made to the Opposition in another place, since the existing wording under the present compulsory purchase legislation has been considered by the Government and we believe that it is adequate. The effect of these amendments is to restore in respect of compulsory purchase orders under the Bill relating to development land the requirements of Schedule I to the Acquisition of Land Acts, or Regulations made thereunder, that the purpose for which the land is required has to be specified.
      Mr. Keith Stainton: The paragraph which has in being deleted on page 56 of the Bill, which I think is comprised in Lords Amendment No. 46, would appear to the layman to be comforting. Is the Minister saying that it was an entire superfluity?
      Mr. John Silkin: Is the hon. Member's point that there is no need for the amendment? I cannot see why that should be so.
      Mr. Stainton: My point is that the Minister said that he is prepared to concede this amendment to the other place on the ground that adequate protection existed in the basic legislation of 1946 and 1947. On the face of it, the layman could find comfort in paragraph (2) which is being deleted. Therefore, one is caused to ask how it comes about that we have this superfluity introduced into the Bill at a drafting stage and persisting within the text of it for such a long time when the Minister can now say with such abandon that it is superfluous.
      Mr. Graham Page: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is confusing to see the removal of a paragraph which seems to be for the citizen's benefit when he is involved in compulsory purchase. As I understand it, however, the purpose of removing the paragraph is that, as it stands, it says that although, under normal compulsory purchase procedure, the acquiring authority has to specify the purpose for which the land is being acquired, the paragraph states that, far from specifying the purpose, if the authority specifies the reasons for its acquisition, that will be taken to be the purpose.
      It emerged in Committee that we were urging that in the procedure under the Bill we should have the same procedure as normally applies on compulsory purchase orders—that the acquiring authority must say the purpose for which the acquisition is being made, so that the person from whom the property is being acquired can say that it should not be acquired for that purpose because it is not a true or worthwhile purpose.
      We got an amendment to that procedure by abolishing the specifying of the

      1243
      purpose, a concession that if the reasons why an authority wanted to acquire the property were specified, that would be sufficient. The reason might be that the town clerk rather liked the look of the land, with perfectly good reason; but that would not be the purpose for which it was required. It might be required for housing or development or because it was a good planning objective. I now understand that the Minister has conceded the whole of our point and has restored the normal compulsory purchase procedure to this new procedure so far as the acquiring authority must specify the purpose for the acquisition. To that extent, we would support the removal of this paragraph.
      Mr. John Silkin: I am doubly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, first for explaining the thoughts which were in my mind, although I shall come back to them, but second and much more for explaining what his hon. Friend meant, which I found some difficulty in understanding, though no doubt he was totally clear in his own mind.
      As between reasons and purpose—this is really what it is about—I have never understood where the difference lies. I understand that in Spanish, a language with which I have no great acquaintance, there are two words for "why"—perque and porque. No doubt, if one can make a distinction between two uses of the same word, one can make a real distinction between "reasons" and "purpose". But the plain reason why the purpose we undertook was to change "reason" into "purpose" was that it seemed not to make all that much difference, it created an equality with previous compulsory purchase provisions and seemed to satisfy my hon. Friends, noble Lords and hon. Members opposite. So who are we to complain?
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 43, in page 55, line 45, leave out "the land" and insert:
      "there are no material interests".
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient at the same time to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 44 and 45.
      Mr. Silkin: I think that we should consider Lords Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 together and No. 45 separately.
      Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 treat land with no outstanding interests in the same way as excepted development for compulsory purchase orders. The reason for this amendment is one of logic. There are two ways in which the Bill provides for taking things outside the normal scope of the scheme—one by means of the excepted development Regulations under Clause 3 and the other by the use of the concept of outstanding material interests under Clause 4. The different approaches are needed because in one case the exclusion depends on the nature of the development and in the other on the nature of the interest. But from the point of view of Schedule 4 it is logical to have the same treatment, however the exclusion is achieved.
      Lords Amendment No. 45 provides that a certificate to be provided with a compulsory purchase order under paragraph 1(2) cannot be questioned in any legal proceedings. The Bill originally defined a certificate as conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it. The amendment is designed to cover the slight anxiety of some of their Lordships that, if a certificate was to be conclusive, it could bind the Secretary of State in considering a compulsory purchase order. It is difficult to see how this could happen because the Secretary of State would be exercising his discretion on whether to reply on the modified CPO procedure to which the certificate is primarily directed, but the amendment is helpful because it makes the position much clearer.
      Mr. Graham Page: If the certificates are not to be questioned in any legal proceedings, it will be impossible to carry appeals on matters of law to the High Court if certificates have been granted without proper consideration or if they are invalid.
      I appreciate that the original version of this paragraph was a useful way of avoiding unnecessary evidence in courts, but, whereas a certificate might be conclusive of the facts stated in it, it might still be subject to legal objections because

      1245
      it was issued in a fraudulent way or without proper discretion being exercised. I am highly suspicious of this amendment. I do not know whether my party supported it in another place or whether it was put into the Bill by the Government, but I do not think it is better than what is already in the Bill. In fact, it is a lot worse because it might preclude a person from questioning the wrong method of issuing a certificate.
      Mr. Michael Latham: Despite listening to the Minister's explanation of the amendment and following what he was saying on the notes he has so kindly shared around, I am at a complete loss to understand the purpose of the amendments, particularly Nos. 43 and 44. Paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 4 states:
      "Modications made by paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 below shall not have effect unless the land comprised in the compulsory purchase order is development land, and…".
      Lords Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would make that part of the Bill read:
      "The modifications…shall not have effect unless there are no material interests comprised in the compulsory purchase order other than outstanding material interests in development land, and…".
      In order to understand this, one must turn back to the definitions in Clause 4 where "material interest" is defined in relation to land as
      "the freehold or a lease, the unexpired term of which at the relevant time is not less than seven years".
      Having read that explanation, I am at a complete loss to understand what change the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to achieve. I understand the Bill as it is at present and I understand the definition of "material interest" in Clause 4, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what is achieved by the proposed changes? Despite having put a wet towel round my head I cannot for the life of me understand these amendments, and I have had a reasonable affinity with this Bill for some months.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: From time to time—one hopes very rarely—a position of confrontation arises between the two Houses of Parliament. When that happens, so the history books tell us, it is always because another place is dominated by a somewhat reactionary political party
      1246
      whereas the natural governors of this House are my right hon. and hon. Friends. The problem that is presented to me by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is that the amendment he dislikes so much—and which my noble Friends in the other place at first themselves did not like very much—was moved by Lord Colville of Culross. It was drafted and supported with considerable vigour by that noble Lord.
      If we are to have confrontation between the two Houses of Parliament which consists of confrontation between the right hon. Member for Crosby and Lord Colville, I prefer to stay neutral. However, I do not think I can. I am there-for in the unfortunate position—and I hope that I have the sympathy of the House in this—of deciding between the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord. I have equal respect, affection and admiration for them, so what am I to do? I regret to say that I have come down on the side of the noble Lord. For these reasons—not very good, I confess—and for these purposes, I think we had better, perhaps, stick with the noble Lord's amendment.
      The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to Lords Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. They are particularly important in the case of a material interest in land by charities on White Paper day which under Clause 4 should not be treated as outstanding. They are, however, also of considerable significance to the other authorities and bodies mentioned in that provision, especially local authorities and parish and community councils, to whose land special parliamentary procedure will no longer apply by virtue of Clause 40. Under that clause, if they objected to a compulsory purchase order under the Bill in respect of their land, an inquiry or hearing would be automatic. That should be welcomed by them as giving their land a special measure of protection.
      Mr. Michael Latham: What is the difference between the word "land" as it stands in the Bill and "outstanding material interests" as in the amendment? What material interest other than land does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind?
      Mr. Silkin: I refer to charity land as an example of this. It could be development land. Thus, with the Bill as drafted,

      1247
      the modified CPO procedure could apply to the acquisition of charity land. Charity interests are not outstanding material interests and therefore, under the amendment, the modified CPO procedures could not be applied.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

      Division No. 394.]

      AYES

      [8.50 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      English, Michael

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Anderson, Donald

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Lee, John

      Archer, Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Ashley, Jack

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Flannery, Martin

      Litterick, Tom

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Luard, Evan

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Forrester, John

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Bates, Alf

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Bean, R. E.

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Freeson, Reginald

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McElhone, Frank

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Bishop, E. S.

      George, Bruce

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Boardman, H.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Booth, Albert

      Ginsburg, David

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Golding, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Gould, Bryan

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Madden, Max

      Buchan, Norman

      Graham, Ted

      Magee, Bryan

      Buchanan, Richard

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mahon, Simon

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marks, Kenneth

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marquand, David

      Campbell, Ian

      Hardy, Peter

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harper, Joseph

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cant, R. B.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Meacher, Michael

      Carter, Ray

      Hatton, Frank

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cartwright, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Millan, Bruce

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hooley, Frank

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Horam, John

      Molloy, William

      Coleman, Donald

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Moonman, Eric

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Moyle, Roland

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hunter, Adam

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Cronin, John

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Newens, Stanley

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Noble, Mike

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Ogden, Eric

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Janner, Greville

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Orbach, Maurice

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Ovenden, John

      Deakins, Eric

      John, Brynmor

      Owen, Dr David

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Padley, Walter

      Delargy, Hugh

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Park, George

      Dempsey, James

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Parker, John

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Parry, Robert

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Judd, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Dunn, James A.

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kerr, Russell

      Radice, Giles

      Eadie, Alex

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Edelman, Maurice

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Edge, Geoff

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lamond, James

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Lords Amendment: No. 45, in page 56, line 1, leave out from "shall" to end of line 2 and insert
      "not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever".
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—[Mr. John Silkin.]
      The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 30.

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Strang, Gavin

      Weetch, Ken

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Weitzman, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wellbeloved, James

      Roper, John

      Swain, Thomas

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Whitlock, William

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Selby, Harry

      Tierney, Sydney

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Tomlinson, John

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Tomney, Frank

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Sillars, James

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Woodall, Alec

      Silverman, Julius

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Woof, Robert

      Small, William

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ward, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watkins, David

      Mr. J. D. Dormand and

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Watkinson, John

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      Stott, Roger

      NOES

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Stainton, Keith

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Costain, A. P.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Thompson, George

      Crawford, Douglas

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      MacCormick, Iain

      Watt, Hamish

      Durant, Tony

      Pardoe, John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Penhaligon, David

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Reid, George

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gray, Hamish

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Douglas Henderson and

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 47, in page 56, line 28, after "development"' insert:
      "of a kind consistent with the purpose specified as that for which the land is required"
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment would limit the Secretary of State's power to dispense with a public inquiry or hearing into a compulsory purchase order on the basis of a planning permission granted on appeal, to cases where the planning permission was of a kind consistent with the purpose of acquisition.
      Sub-paragraph (3) in the new paragraph 4 to Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Acts, inserted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill, deals with the situations in which the Secretary of State has power to dispense with a public inquiry or hearing. They are, broadly, where planning permission has been granted for relevant development following the holding of a public inquiry, or where the grant of such
      1250
      permission would be in accordance with an adopted or approved statutory plan. This definition of the scope of the Secretary of State's discretion to dispense with a public inquiry was inserted at Commons Report stage, following intensive discussion in Committee, and with the Council on Tribunals, which expressed itself content with the approach then adopted.
      This amendment attempts to qualify one of the three heads in sub-paragraph (3)—that dealing with the situation where planning permission for relevant development has been granted after an inquiry. It says that in this case, but not in those cases where the grant of planning permission for relevant development would be in accordance with the plan, the development for which planning permission has been granted must be consistent with the purpose of acquisition which the authority specifies when it makes a compulsory purchase order.
      At first glance, the amendment may appear to have some attraction, but on closer inspection it appears that these attractions spring from a misunderstanding of the basic principle of subsection (3), together with a confusion over the respective rôles of planning inquiries and inquiries into compulsory purchase orders.

      1251
      The principle of the scheme is that development land—that is, land needed for relevant development within 10 years—should come into public ownership.
      Once it has been settled that land is development land, there is a presumption in favour of public ownership. It is on this basis that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to have power to dispense with an inquiry. Any planning permission for relevant development makes land development land. There having been an opportunity for those with an interest in the land to object at the earlier stage—either to the actual grant of planning permission or to the adoption or approval of the plan—there is no case for the Secretary of State to hold a further inquiry into a proposed compulsory acquisition, whatever the purpose for which the authority concerned was proposing to acquire the land.
      We could not accept the general proposition that an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order would be the right place to consider the planning merits of the way in which the authority intended that the land should be developed. Of course, a change in planning proposals will be a matter of concern to neighbouring owners. But, in general, it would not seem to matter to an individual owner whether his land was to be taken for one kind of relevant development rather than another.
      This is the logical and philosophical case against the amendment, and it explains why the Government cannot accept it. But it must be emphasised that all that these provisions do is to give the Secretary of State discretion to dispense with an inquiry where one of the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) is satisfied. It does not follow that the Secretary of State will always dispense with an inquiry wherever he has power to do so. He will have to exercise his discretion reasonably. There may well be cases where it will still be right to hold an inquiry even where one of the conditions is satisfied—and a change in planning intentions may be one such circumstance.
      Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a most extraordinary philosophical argument. When he left his brief for a moment he turned to philosophy. How he can argue this
      1252
      on a philosophical basis I am not sure. His objection to the Lords amendment, as he said when reading his brief at the beginning of his speech, is that it limits the Secretary of State's powers to dispense with an inquiry. It would have been better if he had said that he is objecting because he wants to limit the right of an individual to an inquiry. That is what we are talking about.
      I do not care about the Secretary of State's discretion to limit the individual with regard to public inquiries. I am concerned with whether the individual who is having his land taken away will have the right to an inquiry. By his opposition to the Lords amendment the right hon. Gentleman is depriving certain individuals in certain cases of the right to an inquiry into whether their land should be compulsorily purchased.
      Let me go back to the beginning, because I do not believe that the Minister has put the case before the House. The schedule to which this is an amendment is brought into the Bill by Clause 15—the clause giving local authorities the power to acquire land in circumstances extended far beyond those applying at present. When using these extended powers, they will use an abbreviated procedure, which is set out in Schedule 4. It is Schedule 4 and that abbreviated procedure about which we are talking.
      What Schedule 4, and particularly paragraph 3, says is that if an objection duly made is not withdrawn:
      "then, before confirming the order, the confirming authority may if it considers it expedient to do so, and shall if sub-paragraph (3) below applies—(a) cause a public inquiry to be held".
      It is only if that sub-paragraph applies.
      In the following sub-paragraph we are told when it does apply and when it does not apply. It is always a little confusing to move from the positive to the negative, but this is the way it works. If there has been planning permission given in respect of this land which is to be compulsorily acquired, the Secretary of State may dispense with the inquiry. This is in respect of any planning permission.
      Let us suppose that the planning permission was for desirable residences, perhaps one to the acre, for the development of the land. The local authority may wish to acquire a property for the purpose of

      1253
      building an abattoir. What has the planning permission for desirable residences to do with the new purpose for which the land is being acquired? We can all think of comparisons between different types of planning permission. It is the height of illogicality to say that the Secretary of State shall deprive the owner of a property with planning permission of the right to an inquiry. There is nothing philosophical about it. It is a practical matter.
      It was stated earlier that paragraph 2 of the schedule had been deleted. That paragraph stated that in future the acquiring authority would not need to state the purpose for which it was acquiring a property. However, that procedure has now been restored. The acquiring authority must state the purpose for the acquisition. What is the purpose of such a statement if no one is to be allowed to question it? It is illogical that an owner should be deprived of an inquiry as a result of this irrelevant planning permission procedure.
      Throughout the debates on the Bill we have objected to the fact that the citizen is deprived of his rights as a result of the compulsory purchase procedure. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the local authority to acquire the development land. But the local authority will be allowed to acquire the land for practically any purpose it thinks fit. The Minister argued that we need not worry about compulsory purchase inquiries. He asked what there was to inquire into. The Bill specifies that development land shall be acquired by means of a compulsory purchase order. That being so, why should the Secretary of State have the discretion whether to hold an inquiry? Let us be honest and abolish the compulsory purchase order inquiries procedure and steamroller the measure through in a dictatorial fashion. It seems that that is what the Minister wants to do.
      While there is power to hold an inquiry, let the procedure be sensible. We do not support the inquiry procedure originally suggested. Their Lordships have corrected the procedure in a small but important particular. I hope that the House will support their Lordships.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby
      1254
      (Mr. Page). I am greatly disturbed. From my experience of local government, I know that it is difficult for local authorities to act when dealing with compulsory purchase orders. Many families have grievously suffered as a result of CPOs, but until now owners have had the right to call for a public inquiry. They have had the opportunity at a public inquiry to question the uses to which the local authority states that the land will be put.
      As I understand my right hon. Friend—to whom I am grateful for making matters clearer—the local authority may wish substantially to change the type of development for which planning permission has been given. The residents in the area know that there is an outstanding planning application for a certain type of development to which they have not objected. A completely different type of development may then be proposed because the local authority has changed political colour or has altered its strategy.
      The Minister says that he may on occasion agree to a public inquiry but, depending on how he feels, he may say that there is no necessity for one. Once again the local people will have to create a furore to get a public inquiry. It is wrong to rely on the energy and resources of the local people to make such a fuss that in the end the Secretary of State has no option but to grant a public inquiry.
      9.15 p.m
      Their Lordships have put forward sensible, straightforward arguments to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to safeguard the rights of the individual. He certainly gave that impression in Committee. If he does not wish to do that, he should say so. Their Lordships have made a contribution here which, if not of enormous moment, is useful, because it protects the rights of the individual and is a safeguard against his having to build up a froth of activity to get a public inquiry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again and see the considerable merit of the amendment.
      Mr. Michael Latham: I was surprised that the Minister should ask the House to reject the amendment, which is one of the most meritorious of all the amendments which the Lords have made against the wishes of the Government.

      1255
      As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State has power to refuse a public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order if the confirming authority is satisfied that planning permission for relevant development is in force in respect of the land comprised in the order—not specific relevant development but any relevant development. Their Lordships rightly considered this to be unsatisfactory. Justice was critical of this procedure in one of its memoranda.
      Their Lordships want to make sure that the development shall be of a kind that is consistent with the purpose specified as that for which the land is acquired. It is elementary justice that a person whose land is to be acquired shall not have it taken away from him without having the right to put his case. If a person has his land taken away without a specific inquiry, which would be of use to him, as opposed to a generalised inquiry into the development plan which may already have taken place, it is wrong to say that he shall not have that unusual power if the planning permission which is in force is different from that which is envisaged in future.
      The right hon. Gentleman was less forthcoming than he usually is. He gave only a brief explanation, and I understand why. He wishes to make progress. None of us has any objection to that, but there are many hon. Members in the House, if not in the Chamber, who are not as familiar with the Bill as is the right hon. Gentleman. In particular, they are perhaps not as familiar with the discussion in the House of Lords on 24th October.
      My noble Friend Viscount Colville of Culross moved this amendment. I am not allowed to quote him, but I am allowed to quote Lord Melchett, who was the Government spokesman. I think that Lord Melchett got himself into rather a mess. That is not directly our concern, except that the right hon. Gentleman has not helped much to untangle it, so we need to get it clear now.
      In resisting the amendment, Lord Melchett said:
      "In cases falling within paragraph 3(3)(a), the Secretary of State will need to have granted planning permission after a public inquiry for development falling within the definition of 'relevant development'. In that event, the principle that the land falls within the scope
      1256
      of the land scheme will have been settled. If there was any proposal to carry out relevant development of a kind not covered by the planning permission granted by the Secretary of State, a further planning inquiry would have to be held, if the planning procedure so required."
      That is simply not accurate. There is nothing in the Bill to show that a further planning inquiry would have to be held. The right hon. Gentleman has not made any such suggestion. He has told us that in certain circumstances, he would feel it necessary to grant such a public inquiry even if, on the strict wording of the Bill, he was under no obligation to do so.
      On this matter Lord Colville challenged Lord Melchett, who then said, rather differently from what he had said previously:
      "When deciding whether or not to have an inquiry the Secretary of State would, of course, bear in mind whether the reasons stated by the authority were justified by the previous inquiry. If an authority, having bought land on the basis of a plan, wants to grant permission for some other kind of development…the proposal will be subject to public participation."
      Again I have to correct Lord Melchett. There is no obligation that the proposal should be subject to public participation. Where, in the planning manuals and Acts, in the circumstances I have described, and to which Lord Melchett was referring, is there provision that the proposal will be subject to public participation? I think that Lord Melchett was in error.
      Later in his speech, he qualified what he had said. He stated that
      "the Department encourages local authorities to put their proposals to public participation in cases where this would be necessary if the proposals were being carried out by a private person. We propose to amend the general regulations to make it an obligation on local authorities to do so in such circumstances."
      It is not that they have to do so but that new Regulations are to be made which we have not seen, the contents of which we do not know and which will make it obligatory to have public participation.
      The House may regard this as an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. We are asked to disagree with the Lords amendment based on remarks made by Lord Melchett which have not been fully amplified by the right hon. Gentleman and which are at the least misleading and certainly require elucidation.

      1257
      When the noble Lord was dealing specifically with this amendment—Amendment No. 55A in another place—he said:
      "The reasons given by the authority go to the merits of the order rather than whether the planning background is such that an inquiry or hearing may be dispensed with. But the reasons given by the authority would be taken into account in deciding whether it was expedient to hold an inquiry."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th October 1975; Vol. 354, c. 1774–7.]
      I emphasise the words
      "the reasons given by the authority would be taken into account in deciding whether it was expedient to hold an inquiry."
      That is simply not good enough for the rights of the citizen. The rights of the citizen should be absolutely clear. If his land is to be taken from him, he should have the right to go to a public inquiry and to put his case in terms which relate to his plot of land. He should not have to go to a general development plan inquiry and try to get his oar in there and be told by the inspector, if it be a structure plan inquiry, that it is too general a hearing to deal with his specific point.
      Here we have an even worse consideration, where an inquiry is held and there is then to be another planning permission different from what was originally in force, different from what was originally envisaged, and then, on the basis of the reasons given by the local authority—not the rights of the individual or the specific circumstances of his case, but the reasons given by the local authority—the Secretary of States decides whether it is expedient to hold a public inquiry. I do not believe that anyone here who has considered this matter seriously would regard that as in any way a satisfactory state of affairs.
      When the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate, I hope he will tell us, first, why it was that Lord Melchett, as a member of the Government, in dealing with the amendments, gave to another place what I can only consider a mistaken description of the position. This seems to me to be a matter of some importance. I should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the debate, made no attempt at all to explain it and why he came to the House with so little explanation that he was prepared to stand by and ask this House to allow
      1258
      people to have their land taken away without the right of public inquiry where a different planning permission was envisaged.
      I call that a disgraceful state of affairs, and I believe that the people of this country think so too.
      Mr. Stainton: I warmly support the comments on this matter from the Conservative side. I should not have thought that the House of Lords, in propounding Amendment No. 47, was asking very much. One detected that the Minister seemed to be saying that the amendment neither added nor subtracted anything. I happen to think that it adds quite a lot, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support the House of Lords in this amendment.
      I want to deviate from the general argument and press the Minister about interpretation. It may be that I have come rather too late to the scene. I am by no means a legal or drafting expert, but we are now talking about the contents of paragraph 3, which deals with substitutions for paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. I have been searching the schedule—
      Mr. John Silkin: It is Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act.
      Mr. Stainton: Precisely, and one learns this through going back to the preceding paragraph 2, which is now deleted. Paragraph 2 read:
      "So much of Schedule 1 or of any regulations made under the Act of 1946",
      and so on. That is now deleted. I emphasise again that I am not discussing this matter as a legal expert. But I wonder how anyone picking up this document would be able to identify the schedule in question.
      Pursuing this argument in a little more detail, I notice that in line 12 we start with the opening of quotations, but I look in vain for their closing. We are invited to substitute "the following paragraph". May we be told which is the following paragraph? The quotations do not terminate anywhere.
      I am at a loss about Schedule I, having seen paragraph 2 deleted. I am also at a loss about "the following paragraph" in that the quotations do not terminate, and there is no one paragraph obviously

      1259
      to be substituted, but a series of sub-paragraphs.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Raison: My right hon. and hon. Friends have made out an overwhelming case. The Secretary of State is seeking to limit the rights of the individual to an inquiry, and we cannot believe that that is correct. His argument is that there is an earlier chance to object during the planning permission process. But that is not sufficient. Circumstances change. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should seek to remove this right.
      Again, what is the value of the requirement on the local authority to state reasons for acquisition if there need not be an inquiry? It is possible for the reasons to change. There is no necessary way in which it is possible to challenge.
      The right hon. Gentleman has failed to sustain his argument. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support their Lordships in this amendment.
      Mr. John Silkin: With some diffidence, I had better deal first with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). I confess that I thought that he bowled an extremely fast ball. However, I understand that the quotes terminate in page 57, line 41. The paragraph to be substituted is a new paragraph 4 in page 56, line 12, just after the quotes open. I hope that that explains that difficulty, though I must say that, reading it quickly, it does not really explain it to me. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had time to follow it and has already seen that it is correct.
      Mr. Stainton: I cannot identify Schedule 1 formally within the contents of Schedule 4, and I submit that it should and must be identified within that schedule.
      Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I might be allowed to return to that in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and that we can show it to him in due course.
      I turn then to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). His remarks give rise to three comments. First, he and his hon. Friends do not agree with the purpose of the Bill. That is one of the matters on which we can never agree, and
      1260
      there it is. Naturally, when we introduce a Bill the purpose of which is to give local authorities the power and then the duty to acquire all land on which relevant development is to take place in their areas, I do not expect the Opposition to begin cheering. So when we come to that, of course there is a difference between us.
      Therefore, naturally there is a difference of view concerning development land and whether it should be acquired. Whether the land is development land for one purpose or another logically and philosophically makes no difference. The scheme is concerned with the acquisition of relevant development land by local authorities.
      The hon. Member for Melton spoke about my noble Friend Lord Melchett. On the question of a public inquiry he probably said that there "would" be a public inquiry instead of saying that there "could" be a public inquiry. However, I understand that the position has now been corrected and therefore there should be no misconception about that matter.
      Mr. Michael Latham: This is obviously a most important point. Lord Melchett said:
      "a further planning inquiry would have to be held".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th October, 1975; Vol 364, c. 1775.]
      Is the Minister saying that the noble Lord made a mistake and subsequently corrected Hansard, that he was wrongly reported, or what?
      Mr. Silkin: No. I am saying that the noble Lord in the long watches of the night or day slipped into saying "would" rather than "could". It is a mistake that some hon. Gentlemen make. Even the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has been known to make a mistake. I remember that on one occasion he even called me "learned".
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the Minister explain what would be the meaning if, even in the long watches of the night—we have not reached that stage yet—the noble Lord had said "A planning inquiry could have to be held"? That would be rubbish.
      Mr. Silkin: That is not what I said. I said that the noble Lord slipped into

      1261
      saying that there "would" rather than there "could" be a public inquiry. He said "would" when he meant "could". There is a sense in which the noble Lord was right, but I shall deal with that matter in a moment.
      I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge. I have further news for him. The reference to Schedule 1 derives from paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 which deals with modification to the Acquisition of Land Acts. Therefore, it is Schedule 1 of those Acts which is being modified.
      I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Melton. I was saying that there was a sense in which the noble Lord was right. The noble Lord was talking about participation as well as an inquiry. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that where there is a major departure from a plan, there has to be an advertisement. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) agrees with me about this, because we can revert to the 1971 Act of which we are both so fond. If there is an advertisement, is there not also the opportunity of participation? Surely that must be so.
      Mr. Michael Latham: I am in some difficulty, because under the rules of order I must paraphrase rather than quote. However, on 24th October—c. 1775 of Hansard—my noble Friend Viscount Colville of Culross made the point that the Department had just issued Circular 96/75, which substantially modified the old rules about departures and reduced the number of occasions when local authorities have to advertise such departures. Will the Minister comment on that?
      Mr. Silkin: I was talking about a major departure from the plan and not about what the noble Lord said. I am concerned with the truth of the matter. I want to put this situation to the hon. Member for Melton and to the right hon. Member for Crosby, with whose rather interesting illustration I propose to deal. The point is that where there is a major departure from a plan, it becomes nearly certain—it depends what kind of major departure it is—that the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion.
      Perhaps I may use the illustration given by the right hon. Member for Crosby to show the force of the argument. We are
      1262
      dealing with a compulsory purchase order inquiry, not the planning situation. Someone proposes to sell land which the local authority has said is residential land, but then the authority decides that it will be suitable for the erection of an abattoir. I do not think that an abattoir is a good example because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, other considerations may apply. Nevertheless, let us assume some rather noisome, unfortunate development for those living nearby. We all know that certain other developments might be considered nuisances by neighbours.
      From the point of view of the person selling the land on which a CPO is placed, it does not make any difference. At that stage there has been a planning inquiry. Now the question is whether there should be another inquiry on the compulsory purchase order. It does not matter to the person selling the land. To whom does it matter? It matters to his neighbours, because there will be a total change in the area from residential to something else which they might not find so attractive. In that case the Secretary of State would use his discretion.
      Mr. Graham Page: Would he?
      Mr. Silkin: Yes, he would. The right hon. Gentleman would do it just as I would do it in those cases. There is no question about that.
      Let me take a better illustration, which has been put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to put the argument as strongly as I can. Let us take the case of someone who owns land part of which has been compulsorily acquired. Let us assume that the authority has zoned all the land for residential purposes and, because it was looking only five years ahead, acquired part of it and then on the other part wanted to build an abattoir, or whatever it may be. The Secretary of State would look at that case and say "This is a bit different. There will be a great difference in the planning procedures regarding that land. Of course there must be an inquiry." In those two examples that I have given the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion.
      Mr. Michael Latham: The right hon. Gentleman is giving illustrations of circumstances in which the Secretary of State would grant a public inquiry, that

      1263
      is, would not exercise his right to forbid a public inquiry on the ground that one had already taken place. Will he indicate in what circumstances there would not be a public inquiry?
      Mr. Silkin: I should like to finish my train of thought. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would be very much on it. I was dealing with the point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby who, in his usual histrionic and dramatic fashion, asked "Why on earth does he want to bother with his discretion? He will take it in all cases." I was attempting to give examples of cases in which the Secretary of State would be virtually duty bound to do it. These are important cases, especially as the first one was illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Graham Page: The Minister is persisting in the argument that the compulsory purchase order is for the acquisition of development land and that therefore nobody can argue about it. But the argument which is used in compulsory purchase order inquiries is that there is no reason to acquire the land for the purpose stated by the acquiring authority, that the purpose is not there, or it is a bad purpose. That is the basis of the present CPO inquiries. Is that to go altogether? Is not the objector to have a chance to say that the purpose is wrong, unnecessary, or irrelevant?
      Mr. Silkin: This brings us to our fundamental differences. That is why, although I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was chiding me about talking logic and philosophy, it is logic and philosophy that divide us. Our logic and philosophy believe that land on which relevant development takes place should be publicly owned. That is where we differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I am therefore saying that where land exists on which relevant development is to take

      Division No. 395.]

      AYES

      [9.40 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Allaun, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Campbell, Ian

      Anderson, Donald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Canavan, Dennis

      Archer, Peter

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cant, R. B.

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Boardman, H.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ashley, Jack

      Booth, Albert

      Carter, Ray

      Ashton, Joe

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cartwright, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Buchan, Norman

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Bates, Alf

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Coleman, Donald

      Bean, R. E.

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Concannon, J. D

      place, it does not matter whether it is one development or another. It is relevant development, so the local authority should acquire it.
      Mr. Graham Page: What is the purpose of the sub-paragraph that their Lordships are trying to amend, that the individual will have the right to a public inquiry if there is planning permission for relevant development? Why take that out altogether if he cannot argue that?
      Mr. Silkin: I am trying to explain that the Secretary of State may want to exercise his discretion. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to go along with my philosophy, but, looking at it through the philosophical eyes of believing that all relevant development land should be publicly-owned, surely he would want the Secretary of State to have discretion to say, in the case that he gave us, that residential land to abattoir was a major development and a case for discretion.
      The hon. Member for Melton asked whether there were cases where the Secretary of State would not exercise his discretion: of course—in the general course of events where he was satisfied that the land was relevant development land and there was no other indication of a planning change which was major or would embarrass or cause difficulty to those living in the neighbourhood.
      What divides us is the political and philosophical division. That is a proper division for two political parties. If Conservative Members feel so strongly about it that they wish to test the strength of feeling in the Lobby, I regard that as perfectly within their rights, and I shall be happy to see the result tested.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 267.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      John, Brynmor

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roper, John

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Judd, Frank

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kelley, Richard

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kerr, Russell

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Selby, Harry

      Deakins, Eric

      Lambie, David

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lamond, James

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

      Dempsey, James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Doig, Peter

      Lee, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Sillars, James

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Silverman, Julius

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Small, William

      Dunn, James A.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Litterick, Tom

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edelman, Maurice

      Luard, Evan

      Stallard, A. W.

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Stoddart, David

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Stott, Roger

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Strang, Gavin

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McElhone, Frank

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Swain, Thomas

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Flannery, Martin

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Madden, Max

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Magee, Bryan

      Tierney, Sydney

      Forrester, John

      Mahon, Simon

      Tinn, James

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Tomlinson, John

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tomney, Frank

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marquand, David

      Torney, Tom

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Urwin, T. W.

      George, Bruce

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Meacher, Michael

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Ginsburg David

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Golding, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Gould, Bryan

      Millan, Bruce

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Ward, Michael

      Graham, Ted

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Watkins, David

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Molloy, William

      Watkinson, John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Moonman, Eric

      Weetch, Ken

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Weitzman, David

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Moyle, Roland

      White, James (Pollok)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hatton, Frank

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Whitlock, William

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Newers, Stanley

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Noble, Mike

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Oakes, Gordon

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Hooley, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Horam, John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Huckfield, Les

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Ovenden, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Owen, Dr David

      Woodall, Alec

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Padley, Walter

      Woof, Robert

      Hunter, Adam

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Park, George

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Parker, John

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Parry, Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Janner, Greville

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Radice, Giles

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Awdry, Daniel

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Tom

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Alison, Michael

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Banks, Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hall, Sir John

      Neave, Airey

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neubert, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Newton, Tony

      Biffen, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nott, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hannam, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Blaker, Peter

      Harrison, Col Sir Karwood (Eye)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Body, Richard

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pardoe, John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Penhaligon, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Henderson, Douglas

      Percival, Ian

      Brittan, Leon

      Heseltine, Michael

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hicks, Robert

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brotherton, Michael

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Holland, Philip

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hordern, Peter

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Buck, Antony

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Raison, Timothy

      Budgen, Nick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Burden, F. A.

      Hunt, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Reid, George

      Carson, John

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Channon, Paul

      James, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Clegg, Walter

      Jopling, Michael

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Cockcroft, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cope, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kimball, Marcus

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Crawford, Douglas

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Crouch, David

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Scott, Nicholas

      Crowder, F. P.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Knox, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lamont, Norman

      Shepherd, Colin

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sims, Roger

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dunlop, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Durant, Tony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Speed, Keith

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Spence, John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Loveridge, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Emery, Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Sproat, Iain

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stainton, Keith

      Eyre, Reginald

      MacCormick, Iain

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanley, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McCusker, H.

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fell, Anthony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      MacGregor, John

      Stokes, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fox, Marcus

      Marten, Neil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mates, Michael

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Freud, Clement

      Mather, Carol

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Fry, Peter

      Maude, Angus

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Thompson, George

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mawby, Ray

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mills, Peter

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Viggers, Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moate, Roger

      Wakeham, John

      Gorst, John

      Molyneaux, James

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Monro, Hector

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wall, Patrick

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Walters, Dennis

      Gray, Hamish

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Watt, Hamish

      Grieve, Percy

      Morgan, Geraint

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Wells, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Winterton, Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Community Land Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Ellis.]
      Lords amendments further considered.
      Lords Amendment: No. 48, in page 56, line 33, after "approved" insert:
      "after a local inquiry or hearing".
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The purpose of the amendment is to limit the Secretary of State's power to dispense with a public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order on the basis of an adopted or approved local plan to cases where there had been a public inquiry into that plan.
      The amendment is not concerned with a very wide point. When it was debated in another place there was no dispute that the combined effect of Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Regulations made under it was to ensure that where there is an objection to a local plan there will always be a public inquiry before that plan can be adopted or approved. But the argument put forward was that, in some cases, a local plan might have been adopted without an inquiry because there were no objections to it.
      In practice, it is almost inconceivable that this will happen. But if it were to happen, there seems no reason whatever for binding the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry into the CPO. The only argument that was put forward for this proposition in the Lords was that, whilst there might at the time have been good reasons for a person not objecting to a local plan, circumstances might have changed by the time the CPO was made. But this could arise equally where there had been a public inquiry into the local plan. It is precisely to allow for this possibility that there is simply a power to dispense with a public inquiry rather than an automatic provision for proceeding without an inquiry.
      There is, therefore, nothing special to distinguish cases where a local plan has been adopted without an inquiry from cases where there has been an inquiry. The amendment is therefore misguided. But the fact that circumstances had changed substantially since a previous inquiry—or since a plan had been adopted without an inquiry—is precisely the sort of point that the Secretary of
      1272
      State would need to consider in exercising his discretion on this matter.
      As I have said in many of these debates, the Secretary of State is responsible to the House for his decisions.
      Mr. Graham Page: The Undersecretary said that in no case, if there was an objection, would there fail to be a local inquiry. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the citizen whose land is being taken away from him can require an inquiry into the compulsory purchase order to see that there is a proper purpose for acquiring the land. As the Bill stands, he is to be deprived of that right to an inquiry if there has been an inquiry into a local plan or if there is a local plan which has been approved, whether there has been a public inquiry or not.
      The Under-Secretary of State seeks to justify his argument by saying that a plan would not be approved without a public inquiry if objections were made. That does not meet the case entirely. Under Section 13 of the 1971 Act it is not necessary to have a public inquiry if there is an objection. What is required is another hearing. Even if there were an objection, the Secretary of State need not have a public inquiry but could have some form of hearing which might not be known to the person from whom the property was eventually to be acquired. Secondly, the person from whom the property was to be acquired might not have owned the property at the time of the inquiry into the local plan. Indeed, he might not have been living in the district. In that case, he would not have had the opportunity of objecting. There being no objection, there would be no local inquiry and no other type of hearing.
      I base my objection to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying on the ground that Section 13 does not require the Secretary of State to have a public inquiry in every case where there is an objection. He can avoid having a public inquiry by having another form of hearing before an inspector. In that event, a citizen loses his right to have a public inquiry into a plan to acquire his property by means of a compulsory purchase order.
      Mr. Durant: As, regrettably, the previous amendment was defeated, this amendment becomes even more

      1273
      important. We are debating the rights of the citizen. As a result of the previous Division, we have limited the objections that a citizen can raise at a public inquiry. We must now press for the provision of a second inquiry. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) some of the reasons for taking such a stance. We must seek to protect the rights of the individual.
      In another place, the protection of the individual citizen was the nub of the discussion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), having read the report of the debate I found the proceedings in another place to be somewhat confusing. The Opposition spokesman was the only participant who concentrated on the right of the individual to have his or her case heard before a public inquiry.
      The Bill seeks to turn the local authority in to the planner, the developer and the organisation which takes the cash. It is only right that when that power is put in the hands of the local authority we should seek to strengthen the public inquiry provisions. Justice wrote to Members of Parliament on 26th September and made the very important point that circumstances could change between the first and second inquiries. The letter reads:
      "For example, an area of houses may be zoned in the plan for residential purposes, the zoning reflecting the existing use. A proposal to put flats in that area would no doubt be ' in accordance with the provisions of the plan' because it is residential in character, but whether the area was suitable for redevelopment with flats would not have been an issue at the inquiry".
      That means that the individual would not have the right to object to the change which had taken place between the main plan and the present situation. That is an important aspect of a second inquiry.
      I have been in local government for many years, and I have always thought that provisions to protect the citizen at public inquiries were not good enough. The individual finds himself in a weaker position than a local authority. The local authority often pays for the services of a legal adviser, sometimes a barrister, to put its case, but the ordinary citizen is on his own and often does not do well under cross-examination. Therefore, the
      1274
      House of Commons should always try to assist the individual in his appearance at inquiries.
      I thought that the House of Commons was the place where the individual's rights were protected. However, it would appear that the other place is the defender of the rights of the individual. Their Lordships take that rôle while the House of Commons appears to run roughshod over everybody. This is an amendment of importance, and we should seek to uphold it.
      Mr. Michael Latham: I wish to support the arguments in favour of the Lords amendment. Once gain, I wish to refer to the wit and wisdom of Lord Melchett, the Government Minister in charge of the Bill in another place. When resisting an amendment moved by my noble and learned Friend Lord Colville of Culross, Lord Melchett said:
      "To put all that simply, if there is any valid objection to a local plan there will always have to be a public inquiry into the plan. Therefore, it is our view that the Amendment is not necessary. If there are no objections to local plans—if someone has had the right to object to a local plan and thereby force an inquiry and has not done so—we take the view that the Secretary of State should have the power to dispense with an inquiry."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5th November 1975, Vol. 365, c. 1170.]
      The noble Lord resisted the amendment because he could envisage a situation in which there would be no public inquiry because nobody had raised an objection. However, that is not the point at issue in this instance. The point is whether a private citizen should have his rights removed by having a compulsory purchase order made against him without having the opportunity of a hearing at which the matter would be considered. The person concerned might have moved into the area after the local plan had been draw up and the local situation might have changed dramatically since the plan was laid. That man might be unaware of what had happened at a previous local inquiry, and that again could cause great difficulty.
      The provision in question envisages the Secretary of State having the power to say that a man's land can be confiscated by the State without his having any right to have the case heard in public. The Minister said earlier that there was a great political divide between the two sides of the House on this matter.

      1275
      Indeed there is, because it is wrong that a man should have his house taken away from him without his having the right to put his case in public. That is the simple issue for the public to understand, and that is the important point to be considered as we go into the Lobby in support of the amendment.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Rossi: I reinforce the arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends in support of this amendment. We firmly and strongly believe that no private citizen should be dispossessed of his property, be it his home, garden or any piece of land he may own, without the opportunity to have the matter publicly discussed. The issue must first be arbitrated judicially, in public. We do not accept the proposition that the mere fact that there has been public participation in some kind of planning procedure should deny a man the right to have his own personal situation judicially determined in the open if he so desires, so that not only may justice be done but it may be seen to be done. That has always been a principle of justice in this country and it is one to which we should adhere.
      This amendment seeks to avoid the situation when there may not be any kind of public discussion. If there is no objection to a local plan, there is no inquiry. It is only when there is an objection that there is a planning inquiry. We consider that to be insufficient even for compulsory purchase purposes. Here it is even worse. The purpose of the amendment is to insert words which will ensure that a public inquiry on a compulsory purchase can be omitted only after there has been a local inquiry or hearing. If there has been no such inquiry or hearing, there must be a public inquiry when a man is being sought to be dispossessed. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support their Lordships.
      Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) have shifted their ground considerably since the argument on this amendment was pressed in the other place. What they are now saying is that they are opposed to a hearing instead of a public inquiry. If they read the amendment, they will see that that is not what it says. The
      1276
      amendment says that there shall be an inquiry or a hearing. For the reasons I advanced when I asked the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment, the arguments which Conservative Members are using when they say that there has not been an inquiry or hearing could equally apply when there had been such an inquiry or hearing. The man concerned could have moved to the area; circumstances could have changed. All of these things could have happened when there had been a hearing. In pressing this amendment, their Lordships were not using even remotely the same arguments as those used tonight.
      The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) put forward a somewhat bizarre proposition, namely that their Lordships—that palace of privileges—were defending the rights of the ordinary citizens. I would prefer the rights of the ordinary citizen—I am certain that Conservative Members would too—to be looked after in this matter of inquiries not by their Lordships but by the Council on Tribunals. The Council was quite satisfied with this provision as drafted. It did not ask for any of the additions proposed by their Lordships. When the liberty of the individual and the rights of the citizen are involved, I would back the Council on Tribunals against their Lordships any day.
      Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister is making the best of his case, or helping it at all—it is not a very good one—by using such phrases as "palace of privileges" in describing another place—
      Mr. Grocott: You have only just come in.
      Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member is intervening in a most impertinent manner. I have been here longer than he has. I wonder whether you would consider it right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to direct the Minister to withdraw so offensive and quite unnecessary a phrase which, as I understand it, is wholly beyond the rules of order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I shall certainly take action when I consider that unparliamentary language is being used. I do not think

      1277
      that so far the Minister has used such language.
      Mr. Peyton: I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you heard the phrase "palace of privileges". That is a tendentious, offensive and unnecessary way of supporting an admittedly barren argument. I suggest that that phrase is out of order and should be withdrawn.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Such phrases are used repeatedly by hon. Members in the House. We may not like those phrases but they are not offensive. Sometimes they probably hurt. However, I do not regard what the Minister said as being unparliamentary.
      Mr. Oakes: Whether there is an inquiry or a hearing or whether discretion is involved, the Secretary of State is responsible to the House. If he exercises his discretion badly, he must answer for it to the House.
      Mr. Stainton: Should not the Secretary of State be called to answer to the House?
      Mr. Oakes: But not on this Bill since it is not yet law.
      It may amaze the Opposition to know that even now there need not be an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order, although there may be an opportunity for a hearing. That is the present position. We say in the amendment that any Secretary of State, of any Government, will exercise his discretion wisely as he is responsible to the House for the exercise

      Division No. 396.]

      AYES

      [10.24 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Allaun, Frank

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Anderson, Donald

      Campbell, Ian

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Archer, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dairies, Ifor (Gower)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cant, R. B.

      Deakins, Eric

      Ashley, Jack

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Ashton, Joe

      Carter, Ray

      Delargy, Hugh

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cartwright, John

      Dempsey, James

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Doig, Peter

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Dormand, J. D.

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Bates, Alf

      Coleman, Donald

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bean, R. E.

      Concannon, J. D.

      Dunn, James A.

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Conlan, Bernard

      Dunnett, Jack

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Eadie, Alex

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Corbett, Robin

      Edelman, Maurice

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Edge, Geoff

      Boardman, H.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Booth, Albert

      Crawford, Douglas

      Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      English, Michael

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cronin, John

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Buchan, Norman

      Cryer, Bob

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      of that discretion. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Stainton: I seek clarification. I do not know what rights or powers the Under-Secretary has to reply to the debate. The anchor of the case he presented to the House was the responsibility of the Secretary of State, which we were assured would not be abused because ultimately he was answerable to the House. When I asked for examples of the responsibility of Secretaries of State in terms of public inquiries, I received the slick answer that this measure had not come into force. That was a deceptive and futile answer.
      I obviously raised the question of the Secretary of State's responsibility in the context of town and country planning inquiries. All Members of Parliament have considerable traffic with Secretaries of State, of both parties, when trying to bring about public inquiries. Sometimes we are successful; at other times we are not successful. Although I admit that the Under-Secretary has some grounds on which to defend the situation which he described, if he rests his case on the answerability of the Secretary of State he must be more explicit. He must not try to pawn me off by saying that the Bill is not yet law. I referred to the context of the whole procedure.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 253.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Selby, Harry

      Fitt, Gerard (Balfast W)

      Luard, Evan

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Flannery, Martin

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

      Forrester, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sillars, James

      Freeson, Reginald

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Silverman, Julius

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Small, William

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      George, Bruce

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ginsburg, David

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Stallard. A. W.

      Golding, John

      Madden, Max

      Stoddart, David

      Gould, Bryan

      Magee, Bryan

      Stott, Roger

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mahon, Simon

      Strang, Gavin

      Graham, Ted

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marquand, David

      Swain, Thomas

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Hardy, Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Meacher, Michael

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Hatton, Frank

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thompson, George

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Millan, Bruce

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Henderson, Douglas

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Tinn, James

      Hooley, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Tomlinson, John

      Horam, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Tomney, Frank

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Torney, Tom

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Moyle, Roland

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Walden, Brian (B'ham,L'dyw'd)

      Hunter, Adam

      Newens, Stanley

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Noble, Mike

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Ward, Michael

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Ogden, Eric

      Watkins, David

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Watklnson, John

      Janner, Greville

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Watt, Hamish

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Orbach, Maurice

      Weetch, Ken

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Weitzman, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ovenden, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Owen, Dr David

      Welsh, Andrew

      John, Brynmor

      Padley, Walter

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Palmer, Arthur

      White, James (Pollok)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Park, George

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Parker, John

      Whitlock, William

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Parry, Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Judd, Frank

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Kautman, Gerald

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Kelley, Richard

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Kerr, Russell

      Reid, George

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Lamond, James

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Woodall, Alec

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Woof, Robert

      Lee, John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Roper, John

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Rose, Paul B.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Lipton, Marcus

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Litterick, Tom

      Sandelson, Neville

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Benyon, W.

      Brittan, Leon

      Alison, Michael

      Biffen, John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Arnold, Tom

      Blaker, Peter

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Body, Richard

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Awdry, Daniel

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Baker, Kenneth

      Bottomley, Peter

      Buck, Antony

      Banks, Robert

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Budgen, Nick

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Burden, F. A.

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Carlisle, Mark

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Carson, John

      Hunt, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hurd, Douglas

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Channon, Paul

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Raison, Timothy

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      James, David

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clegg, Walter

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'dt'd)

      Rees, Peter (Dover &Deal)

      Cockcroft, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Cope, John

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jopling, Michael

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Costain, A. P.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kimball, Marcus

      Roberta, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Dunlop, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Durant, Tony

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lamont, Norman

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Emery, Peter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fairgrfeve, Russell

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fell, Anthony

      Lloyd, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Loveridge, John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Luce, Richard

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McCrindle, Robert

      Speed, Keith

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McCusker, H.

      Spence, John

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fox, Marcus

      MacGregor, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stainton, Keith

      Freud, Clement

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stanley, John

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Madel, David

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Marten, Neil

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Mates, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mather, Carol

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Maude, Angus

      Tapsell, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gorst, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Sower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mills, Peter

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Gray, Hamish

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Grieve, Percy

      Moate, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Molyneaux, James

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Monro, Hector

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Grylls, Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Viggers, Peter

      Hall, Sir John

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Wakeham, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wall, Patrick

      Hannam, John

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Walters, Dennis

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mudd, David

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Neave, Airey

      Wells, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Neubert, Michael

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nott, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Onslow, Cranley

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Younger, Hon George

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pardoe, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Holland, Philip

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Mr. Fred Silvester and

      Hordern, Peter

      Penhaligon, David

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

      Percival, Ian

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 49, in page 57, line 46, at end insert—
      "( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-house and the occupier of the dwelling-house
      1282
      duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph.
      ( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-house together with other land and the occupier

      1283
      of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory purchase order without excluding the dwelling-house from that order.
      ( ) Where the land comprises in a compulsory purchase order consist of, or comprises with other land, a dwelling-house, the Secretary of State may disregard for the purpose of Schedule 1 any objection made by the occupier of the dwelling-house which in the opinion of the Secretary of Stale amounts in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of the dwelling-house or any other land.
      ( ) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      It is a somewhat complicated amendment. I therefore hope that I shall be forgiven for going into some of the details of it. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 provides for two modifications in compulsory purchase procedure. The first is the ability for the Secretary of State to dispense with an inquiry where the status of the land as development land has already been settled at an earlier inquiry. The second is the ability for the Secretary of State to disregard an objection made on the ground that the acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient.
      The amendment would disapply these modifications in relation to an objection made by a resident occupier and would provide instead that the Secretary of State could disregard an objection by such an occupier where he was of opinion that the objection amounted in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of the dwelling-house or of any other land.
      This is an amendment the case for which was never fully explained by the Opposition in another place. Although it appears to disapply the modifications provided for in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 where an objection by a residential occupier is concerned, it goes on to provide for a different modification in procedure which is taken from Section 132 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
      1284
      It is not easy to see what the Opposition were trying to achieve by their amendment in another place. Briefly, the comparison would seem to be as follows. First, on the basis proposed by the Government, the Secretary of State would be able to disregard an objection which amounted to an objection against the principle of public ownership, and as he was disregarding the objection he would clearly not need to hold an inquiry. Even in relation to an objection which could not be disregarded, he would have discretion to dispense with an inquiry where the status of land as development land had already been settled at an inquiry.
      Secondly, under the Lords amendment the position would be as I have stated for all objectors other than residential occupiers, but the Secretary of State would be able to disregard such an occupier's objection—and thus not hold an inquiry—where he took the view that the objection was really an objection to the provisions of the development plan.
      These are different ways of approaching the same thing, and it is not clear that there would be a great deal of difference between them in practice. Certainly there is a marked similarity between the tests for deciding whether an inquiry may be dispensed with—in sub-paragraph (3)—and the reliance on the provisions of the development plan in the Opposition's formulation of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may disregard an objection and thus decide not to hold an inquiry.
      This is not an issue which the Government wish to elevate into an argument of principle, although, with the mood of the House as it is at the moment, I have no doubt that the Opposition will do so. As has been explained in earlier debates, our approach to the disregard of objections is founded squarely on a provision which has been in existence in the New Towns Acts ever since 1946, and we do not see any reason to prefer the formulation in the Lords amendment which derives from the 1947 Planning Act. So far as the link with planning issues is concerned, it appears that the Government's statement in sub-paragraph (3) is both more comprehensive and better adapted to the circumstances of the Bill than the formulation which the Opposition have taken from the Planning Act.

      1285
      No convincing argument has been put forward for holding that the provisions governing disregard of objections and dispensing with inquiries should be different for residential occupiers on the one hand and all other objectors on the other. If the argument had been that the modifications in sub-paragraph (3) should simply not apply to residential occupiers, that would be understandable, though not particularly logical. But it is difficult to see what is to be gained by having one basis for objectors generally and a somewhat different one for residential occupiers.
      In these circumstances, there seems to be no case for the Lords amendment. The modifications in sub-paragraph (3) have been the subject of intensive discussion during the Bill's progress through this House, and they have been accepted by the Council on Tribunals. There would certainly need to be strong justification for making a switch at this stage, and no such justification has been put forward. I am at a loss to understand precisely what the Lords were seeking to achieve in their amendment.
      Mr. Clegg: At least the hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a very complicated issue. When we try to explain the provisions of this measure to our constituents, we shall not find it easy.
      In connection with this amendment, for example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have in mind a constituent coming into your surgery and asking "Can you advise me as to my rights under Section 15 of the Community Land Act?" When you look at Section 15(4), you will find yourself able to read to your constituent these golden words:
      "The Acquisition of Land Acts shall apply in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land in pursuance of this section as if—

      (a) this section were contained in an Act in force immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1946, or as the case may be the Scottish Act of 1947,

      (b) the Land Authority for Wales, a new town authority and the Peak Park Joint and Lake District Special Planning Boards were local authorities."

      What is more, you can tell your constituent, who will be panting for a reply, that subsection (5) says:
      "Schedule 4 to this Act in which—

      (a) Part I modifies the said Acts of 1946 and 1947 as applied by subsection (4) above,

      1286

      (b) Part II deals with the acquisition of land by agreement…".

      Therefore, in search of the answer to your constituent's question, you will turn to the magic Schedule 4—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the possibility of one of my constituents asking me for advice and my reading the clause to him. Faced with that situation, I should adopt a much simpler course and say "I do not know".
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Clegg: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you would send him to a solicitor who would know and who would make money out of what he told him.
      Having declared that interest, I suggest that you would then say to your constituent that these modifications to the Acquisition of Land Act start off by saying.
      "Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Acquisition of Land Acts shall apply in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land under section 15 of this Act with the modifications made by the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule."
      We are all considering this legislation, but none of us understands it well. [Interruption.] Even the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) says that he does not understand the amendments very well. It is not always easy to understand the Bill.
      I am encouraged to think that we can have a good debate on this issue as a result of the speech made by Baroness Birk in the other place. As she is a Minister, I believe that I am allowed to quote what she had to say on this amendment, because it may lead us to have a more rational discussion. Her opening words were as follows:
      "This Amendment has now become the principal Amendment on which we are discussing the question of the owner-occupier. There are one or two brief points that I feel I should make which are absolutely essential, because this thread has run through the stages of the two Second Reading debates and also the Committee stage of the Bill up to now."
      Those words can probably be understood both inside and outside the House.
      The modifications in the amendments put forward by the other place are to clarify and strengthen the position of the owner-occupier.

      1287
      In closing her remarks on this amendment, Baroness Birk said:
      "One cannot defend the sort of system we have at the moment where we have so many people still not housed, and say that to continue a free market system would work. Nor can we accept the view that a development land tax alone will make this work. It is absolutely implicit to this whole scheme that the ownership and the planning should go together. I submit that the Government have done everything that is possible within the scheme to safeguard the position of the owner-occupier."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th October 1975; Vol. 364, c. 1819,1823.]
      That is perhaps the crunch of what the Bill is about.
      The implication and the consistent argument which has been put forward today, as on almost every other occasion when the Bill has been discussed, is that positive planning will be the absolute remedy to all the ills to which the present system of planning is subject. In my view this is an alarming proposition. If the negative planning which we now have has done so much harm to the country, I cannot imagine that positive planning can do anything but more harm. It has already been said that positive planning concerns the right of a local authority to take over land and develop it. That is what positive planning is about, and that view was put forward from the Government side of the House.
      Like the noble Lords, we believe that, if there is to be this system of positive planning, the individual who may suffer from that system should be protected. There is no other reason for the amendments which are now being put forward. It is easy to say that the market system has failed and that we can put everything right with positive planning. A lot of people will vote for someone if he says, "By positive planning we shall provide you with more houses. All the profits which are being made under the free enterprise system will be made in future by the State." The Minister may say that under the provisions of the Bill the way that positive planning will work and be paid for is that for every £1 million which is paid to citizens by the State for land, the State will expect to make £4 million and, therefore, a profit of £3 million. However, who will pay for that profit? It will be the other citizens who get the land from the State. That was the whole basis of the Bill. [Interruption.]
      1288
      If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston would like me to give way, I should be happy to do so.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: No. The hon. Gentleman is doing very well.
      Mr. Clegg: It is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman has great interest in this matter.
      I am sure that many votes were gained from people who believed that they would get land from the State cheaper than from private individuals. This is nonsense. The basis of the Bill is that the State will make the profits in future. There will be no cheap land for the individual and there will be less protection for the individual than there is now. I support their Lordships in the amendment because it seeks to protect the individual against the planning provisions in the Bill.
      Mr. Oakes: I confess that I could not understand what their Lordships were doing when they passed this amendment. Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), I understand the reasons even less. The hon. Gentleman comes from the same part of the country as myself. No matter how he entertains the House, in his capacity not as a Member of Parliament but as a good solicitor he would explain to his clients rather than to his constituents the exact provisions of the Bill more satisfactorily with the wording as it is than with the amendment which has been passed in the other place. In the circumstances, I must ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 50, in page 58, line 2, leave out
      "the development plan in sub-paragraph (3)(c)"
      and insert
      "a local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b)."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are taking at the same time as this amendment the Minister's amendments in lieu thereof.
      Mr. Oakes: The Lords amendment here is concerned with the reserve

      1289
      power for the Secretary of State to rely on a draft or non-statutory plan in deciding whether to dispense with an inquiry. Originally this power operated by substituting the references to such plans for the reference to "development plan" in paragraph 4(3)(c) as set out in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4. In the Lords, it was argued that logically the correct substitution should instead be for the reference to "local plan" in paragraph 4(3)(b).
      The Government accepted this point. However, further examination of the drafting of the Lords amendment has shown that the amendment is defective in drafting since it only achieves part of the necessary substitution. The reserve provisions must substitute a draft or non-statutory plan, not for the reference to "local plan" but for the reference to
      "adopted or approved local plan".
      Otherwise, a draft or non-statutory plan could not be relied upon unless it had been adopted or approved, which would negate the whole point of the provision. The Government amendment to the Lords amendment therefore remedies this defect. The principle of the Lords amendment, however, is accepted by the Government.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 58, line 2, leave out
      "to the development plan in sub-paragraph (3)(c)".
      and insert
      "in sub-paragraph (3)(b) to a local plan adopted or approved under Part II of the Act of 1971".
      In page 58, line 32, leave out "reference to" and insert
      "references to Part II and".
      In page 58, line 33, leave out "a reference to" and insert
      "references to Part II and".—[Mr. Oakes.]
      Lords Amendment: No. 51, in page 58, line 40, at end insert—
      ". Where an owner, lessee, or occupier of land comprised in an order made under this Act has made and not withdrawn an objection to such order, he shall be entitled to legal assistance and representation under the Legal Aid Act 1974 for the purpose of making representations at any public local inquiry held for the purpose of considering such objection."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that Privilege is involved in this amendment.
      Mr. Oakes: This is an amendment the subject of which is frequently discussed in this House not only in connection with the Bill but often by many of my hon. Friends on the vexed question of legal aid, entitlement to legal aid and where legal aid provisions shall apply.
      What their Lordships have done in the amendment is to give an objector to a compulsory purchase order the right to legal aid for the purpose of making representations at any inquiry into the order. Therefore, under the Bill any owner, lessee or occupier who objects to a compulsory purchase order would be entitled to legal assistance and representation for the purpose of making representations at the inquiry into the order.
      I am in some difficulties here because in principle I sympathise with the spirit of legal aid being given in cases—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] Perhaps hon. Members will wait to hear the full argument. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment.
      In considering the purpose of this amendment, it is important to remember that as the law stands at present, although legal aid for representation is not available, legal advice and assistance under what is known as the green form scheme are available in respect of inquiries under the Bill. This means that an objector to a compulsory purchase order who wishes to make representations at an inquiry and who is within the financial limits of eligibility for the scheme will be able to obtain advice and preliminary help with his case, including its preparation. This is an important facility which could be extremely valuable in the case of a CPO inquiry under the Bill, and it is there to be used.
      Full legal aid is not available, under the legal aid legislation, for representation before any statutory inquiry. Nor is it available for any tribunal, apart from the Lands Tribunal and the Commons Commissioners. My noble and learned Friend's Legal Aid Advisory Committee, in its 24th Report published in November of last year, having considered all the

      1291
      tribunals involved, recommended that legal aid should be extended to all statutory tribunals under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. Although it recommended that it should next study the need for legal advice, assistance and representation before statutory inquiries as defined by Section 19 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, which includes an inquiry under the Bill, it gave priority to legal aid for statutory tribunals.
      As the House will know, my noble and learned Friend, although he has considerable sympathy with his Advisory Committee's recommendation that legal aid be made available for tribunals, has had to say that in the present economic situation it would not be practicable to implement the recommendation. In view of this, he has decided not to ask the Committee to embark on its further study of legal aid for statutory inquiries for the moment—and I emphasise those last words.
      Nevertheless, in view of the intention to do so when possible, it would clearly be quite wrong for one particular statutory inquiry under one Act only to be singled out in this Bill anomalously for the benefits of legal aid. There are many other forms of public inquiry—for instance planning inquiries, an associated field—for which legal aid would be equally desirable, if not more so. It is important that the question of extending legal aid to tribunals or inquiries is considered as a whole and that this whole issue should be considered in the context of legal aid and legal services and should be balanced against competing and often more urgent priorities.
      There is another difficulty, apart from the financial constraints which the nation faces at present. That is the nature of a public local inquiry itself. It is not a court of law, nor is it indeed a tribunal. It is intended to be a relatively cheap and informal way of publicly discussing issues and assisting the Secretary of State to come to an administrative or policy decision. Most of what might be called, for want of a better term, "evidence" is assertion or subjective judgment, and decisions are based on policy and merits, which the courts are not entitled to question.
      Moreover, if we accept that legal representation is to be the norm, both
      1292
      for those who can afford it and for those who cannot, we shall be in great danger of destroying the public inquiry system as we now know it and as it has operated for nearly 30 years. In fact, in more recent times it has been criticised for becoming too formal, too lengthy and too expensive.
      11.0 p.m.
      There is also the question whether the present principle, that costs incurred at inquiries should be awarded only to successful objectors—on the ground that the acquiring authority should not have put them to the trouble and expense of having to defend their land against an enforced sale—is not a sound one. It might well be argued that anyone who knows that it will not cost him a penny for legal representation whether he is successful or not would not hesitate to employ the services of a lawyer even on the slimmest of grounds. Therefore, the possibility of an unnecessary proliferation and lengthening of inquiries is a further factor to be weighed in the balance of argument.
      It is, therefore, the question of principle just as much as the cost to the public purse which needs to be examined, and it would be quite wrong in this Bill to set a precedent which would have such far-reaching consequences without a thorough examination of all aspects of the matter—for how can one logically give rights to legal representation for one kind of CPO but not another, or for one kind of statutory inquiry and not another?
      I have read most of this speech because it is a complex and difficult subject. I have presented it fairly to the House. It is a question of the balance between proper and adequate legal representation for those without the ability or know-how to present their own case—a matter about which I, as a practising solicitor, feel very strongly—and the difficulty of turning what is essentially a public inquiry into a court of law which it was never intended to be.
      I ask the House to reject the amendment because it would be anomalous to provide legal aid for only one kind of inquiry. We need to look at the balance of arguments between the individual who needs representation by a qualified lawyer and turning public inquiries into an even more tortuous process than they are at present.
      Mr. Budgen: I declare an interest as a practising barrister though I think all hon. Members, whether legally qualified or not, must be gravely disturbed at the way the Minister has presented his argument.
      Many of the arguments in the Bill have been discussed before on the Floor of the House and in Committee, but this matter arose only as a result of their Lordships' consideration of the Bill and I hope that the House will give careful and sufficient consideration to their proposal.
      The Minister said he had considerable sympathy with the amendment, and he was plainly ill at ease with his brief when he read out that the green form scheme for legal aid was a satisfactory alternative. As a practising solicitor he should know that the green form £20 scheme is no alternative to being properly represented at a tribunal. Under the scheme, a solicitor may investigate a client's situation and give him the most cursory preliminary advice. It does not provide for the presentation of a case or for the expert cross-examination of town hall people with a great deal of expertise and a firm desire to kick somebody off his land.
      The Minister then gave us the usual administrative argument that there are similar situations, such as other tribunals, where people might want to be defended. He says that the situation we are discussing here could not be considered in isolation from all the others. That is rubbish.
      The Bill is a scheme for confiscation. By it people may be deprived of their land at considerably less than market value. Under the scheme their rights to objection and public inquiry are being eroded. If ever a person should be entitled to legal aid, it is in respect of this Bill. Labour Members, who must spend a great deal of their time dealing with complaints by individual citizens, should be disgusted that the Minister's protestations of sympathy were followed by a turgid reading of a brief with which he obviously disagreed.
      The Minister's third point was that the system of public inquiry would be changed if persons were regularly represented. So it would, because the system of public inquiry today is that on the whole the big battalions are represented.
      1294
      It is no secret that in this difficult and complex area of the law they are represented by the best-paid members of the Bar. On the whole, the people who are not represented are the little people. If the Minister says that he wants to continue a situation in which the little people are ground under by those who are representing either the big property companies or the local authorities, that is disgraceful. That is not a fit view for someone who seeks in some way to represent the whole of the national interest.
      The real argument, however, concerns Government expenditure. It is interesting that so many of our proposals amount to saying that we will not consider any increase in Government expenditure. This highlights the important philosophical difference between the two sides of the House. Of course, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are regularly blamed for proposing cuts in Government spending but of not being prepared to say where—
      Mr. Michael English: Does the hon. Member agree that most people do not necessarily think that, but blame the Conservatives for the increase in local government expenditure because of their extraordinary local government reorganisation?
      Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the earlier part of my speech. Perhaps I may therefore continue with the point I was about to develop. Surely all hon. Members can agree that in some areas there is a priority for an increase in public expenditure. I yield to no one in my desire for reduced public expenditure, but I, no doubt like many of my hon. Friends, attach a priority to the defence of the realm and to the maintenance of law and order.
      It is terrifying. The Government are proposing to spend about £400 million on the acquisition of land and £50 million on increased administration expenses and to employ 14,000 extra civil servants to run the horrible scheme. Yet at the same time they are watching a dreadful increase in crimes of violence and murder, while police forces are 13,000 men below strength. That is the lack of priority and understanding in Government expenditure to which we attach so much importance.

      1295
      On the other hand, I suppose that Labour Members would say that their first priority in expenditure is the extension of the power of the State and that the second, perhaps, is expenditure with a view towards social engineering.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: And cuts in defence.
      Mr. Budgen: That is one of the matters on which Labour Members disagree with us.
      But is not equality under the law something to which all hon. Members attach high priority, and is not an essential element in such equality something approaching equality of representation? Do we not believe that the bullying landlord or bullying trade union committee should not be able to take advantage of the little man, because the little man cannot afford to be adequately represented?
      Yet let us took at the situation of the little man who wishes to defend his property rights. Before hon. Members sneer at the proposition that I am supporting the rights of the little man, let them remember that we are talking about persons who, at best, have a middling income and a middling amount of capital, and about people with less than that, because the better-off person will not be eligible for legal aid. He will have too much income or capital. It follows that when the little man is defending his property rights he must be defending what is probably his only substantial capital asset.
      Let us consider the position when the little man is defending his property rights in a row with a neighbour, perhaps about a couple of feet of land. All of us who are in the legal profession have spent many days in the county court arguing about sometimes a foot, sometimes even an inch of land. We have seen the most bitter and protracted fights between neighbours. The State has rightly decided that, notwithstanding the expense—sometimes even the wasteful expense—the individual should be given legal aid to defend such property rights.
      Yet if the little man is hauled before some form of tribunal or inquiry and has to defend his only substantial capital asset against confiscation, after reduced powers of objection he is told that be
      1296
      cause it is not administratively convenient to give him legal aid he must stand alone against the might of the State—at a time when he has to fight the power of a swollen bureaucracy which has behind it wide-ranging discretionary powers, as set out in this abortion of a Bill.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: A Frankenstein's monster of a Bill.
      Mr. Budgen: The little man has to fight against such unequal odds that he has little chance of defending his most important capital asset. The whole House should be rallying to the cause of the little man, because in fighting against the measure he fights against confiscation at a time when he is certain to be blinded by the complexity and obscurity of this maze of legislation.
      If the Minister says that he has sympathy but is not prepared to do anything about it, all I can say is that that is what Socialism means. Socialism means kicking the little man into the floor. We are proud to be supporters of the individual. Most of all, we are proud to be supporters of the little man.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why his party did not introduce legal aid into planning inquiries and like matters when it was in Government?
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Budgen: I think it should have done so. Maybe the Conservative Government can be severely criticised for not having done so. However, the consequence of a decision in a planning inquiry in the past was not confiscation. Now that there is to be confiscation, there should be legal aid.
      If I have been rather vigorous in putting forward some of my arguments, perhaps I should finish on a quieter note. It is said by the Minister that great profits will be made from local authorities' dealings in land. If that is true, why cannot some of those profits go towards letting the little man defend himself against the great State machine? Why cannot some of those profits be used to provide private legal aid for people who wish to be represented before the tribunals?
      Let the Minister remember that the last attempt at land nationalisation was

      1297
      to a large extent discredited by the effect of the betterment levy on small land owners. The Minister has been clever in distorting the effects of this extremely complicated and detailed Bill so as to try to take account of many of the criticisms that were justly levelled against the betterment levy and the Land Commission. If he makes the mistake of giving no protection to the little man, this legislation will surely be discredited in exactly the same way as by the betterment levy's attack on the widow's orchard. He is unwise if he stands out against the demand from another place for legal aid in representation before the tribunals. He is playing into the hands of the Tories if he does, because nothing will do better in discrediting the Bill and nothing will give us more justification in our ultimate objective of repealing this legislation.
      Mr. Sedgemore: There is nothing more unctious and nauseating than special professional pleading masquerading as concern for the little man. None of my right hon. and hon. Friends needs a lecture on justice or equality before the law, but it would seem that there may well be Opposition Members who need lectures on lining their own pockets.
      Mr. Cormack: Listen to Big Brother Redshirt.
      Mr. Sedgemore: I speak partly as a barrister who has appeared before planning and housing tribunals and partly as a civil servant who has, without reference to the Minister, signed a number of compulsory purchase appeals. I shall tell Conservatives what happens in the real world, thereby exposing the cant and humbug of the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
      I have signed a number of compulsory purchase appeals relating to London's housing. On no occasion do I remember having looked at the legal arguments which took place at the inquiry. I can honestly say that I know of none of my superiors ever referring to them. I never passed a file to my superiors containing the so-called brilliant cross-examination of lawyers.
      In trying to decide issues on their merits the last thing one wants to do is to turn a case into a dazzling display between so-called brilliant lawyers. If
      1298
      ever there was an element of doubt in my mind as to what was the right decision to take, I discovered that the best course was to pay a visit to the site. I agree that there may be complicated housing or planning decisions that require to be set out by lawyers, but in 99 per cent. of the cases that come before Departments the argument by lawyers, in the interests of either party, is irrelevant.
      Conservative Members are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The effect of inviting lawyers to appear in every simple compulsory purchase will result in "jobs for the boys"—and certainly in no more justice for the people involved.
      Mr. Fairbairn Mr. Fairbairn rose—
      Hon. Members: Oh, no.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I have waited many times for idiots in court to be silent, and I am willing to wait in this House until those who are members of the English Bar are silent to allow a member of the Scottish Bar to speak.
      I wish to declare an interest in that I am a member of the Bar. I have attended planning inquiries and have spent most of my professional life in defending individuals against the power of the State—
      Mr. Sedgemore: God help them.
      Mr. Fairbairn: God helped them on many occasions and, luckily for them, I was on their side too. As somebody who believes in the principles of justice—which I always understood was one of the claims of Socialism—I am unimpressed by a member of the English Bar—somebody who took an oath to administer justice—who tries to mock anybody who speaks of its principles.
      The Minister said that we did not want to turn public inquiries into courts of law. What are the characteristics of public inquiries as opposed to what happens in courts of law? I can speak only from my experience in Scotland—because in England they manage to take 10 times as long as we do in Scotland and cases in England cost a hundred times more than they do in Scotland—but there are clear rules of evidence to be observed in both countries. The issues are focused and matters are argued according to strict rules of equity. That is the purpose of all inquiries. All inquiries are aimed at

      1299
      getting the matter right according to simple principles of equity.
      I have taken part in many public inquiries and I believe that the reason why they are so unsatisfactory arises from the fact that there is no criterion in justice by which they are conducted. When there is an inquiry into whether someone should be allowed to make lollipops in his shop, whether motor vehicles should wait outside the shop, whether an airport should be built here or a road there, there is no issue, no restriction and no criterion of justice. Anyone who cares to enter the inquiry can take the ball and kick it into deserts far beyond the inquiry's remit. That is done most often by those who are untrained in focusing the issues and arguing cases.
      Anyone who has been involved in the recent inquiries concerning oil development in Scotland, in Kinshorn or Drambuie, will know that local authorities can come along with proposals into which they have made no sensible investigation and without the proper information. Such proposals are often fatuous in the extreme. They waste the money of everyone, including the humble people whom Labour Members claim they are elected to represent. Their rights are involved more often than those of the "important" people. There is no discipine upon public inquiries as there is in a court of law.
      I am horrified that the Minister, admittedly a member of an alien profession—since it is not my half of the profession nor my half of the country—should say that the principles of justice which we have cherished in this country through the courts of law should not apply in investigating the simple rights of the citizen when authority is taking away his property. I am horrified by that proposition and I shall never forget to repeat it to my electorate and, if possible, to the Minister's.
      The Minister said that public inquiries were intended to be cheap. For whom? For the local authority? I have usually appeared for the defence at these inquiries. The State has all the money and the facilities to prepare its case. The accused has only his own money or legal aid. A local authority can state any proposition, and the citizen is guilty until he can prove his innocence at a public
      1300
      inquiry. The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) said that when he was a member of an inquiry he never bothered about the lawyers' arguments. Of course not, because he is typical of Left-wing Socialism. I am ashamed to think that the English Bar ever admitted anyone with so few principles.
      I would be the last person to wish to increase public spending in any way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) shakes his head. I have defended more of his constituents than he has ever done.
      Mr. Sedgemore: Where are they now?
      Mr. Fairbairn: We seem to have lost sight of the proposition that people serve others for the sake of doing so and not to make a profit out of it. The Minister spoke of philosophy. The Government's philosophy is not that the land should belong to the people but that it should be taken from them and put into the hands of the bureaucracy. It is an anonymous bureaucracy acting against defenceless people. It is scandalous that in this neuter form it should be allowed to ride over them and that they should not have the protection of representation and advice. That is the proposition put forward by the Government.
      Labour Members see no harm in adding 14,000 more drones to society, no harm in giving them inflation-proof salaries and pensions, no harm in giving them flash offices at our expense, but when it comes to the individual defending himself against the filthy machine which they are creating they do not mind if the individual suffers, because Socialism detests the individual and is determined to destroy him. The Government are resisting the amendment because they would hate the individual to be able to defend himself against the State machine.
      11.30 p.m.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: We are getting a little wide of the amendment, but I understood that it was the Conservative Government which introduced inflation-proof pensions for civil servants.
      I go along with the Minister and other hon. Members who would like to make legal aid available to the people who will be affected by this legislation, but many improvements are needed in the legal aid system and they cannot be made in this

      1301
      Bill. I am sure that many hon. Members are constantly seeing people concerned in litigation who need legal aid but cannot get it. I know of many people of small means who have been unable to get legal aid, and the appeals procedure is couched in mystery. The legal aid system should be burst wide open so that we can find out why legal aid is not available. A lady came to see me in my surgery on Saturday. She told me that she was entitled to legal aid but had not been repaid the £150 which she had spent on legal fees.
      Lawyers are not always the best people to represent parties at public inquiries. I have appeared as a so-called expert on many ocacsions and wished that I could take the case because the lawyers were making such a mess of it. When a Claude Dampier-type person comes up from the Bar and says in an affected voice "Hello, Mrs. Gibson, I am sorry that Mr. X cannot be here; he has been called to Scotland, and I am replacing him", one realises one is on a loser.
      There is the mysterious procedure at the Bar whereby one chooses the judge before whom one wishes to appear. One hears such remarks as "Do not go in front of Mr. Justice X. He is not the person to hear your case. You would do better to go before Mr. Justice Y". My firm lost £300 because of all the jiggling about that occurred in deciding which judge to go before. There was a long delay, the case never came on and a settlement much larger than that originally intended had to be made.
      The lawyers should not have it all their own way. It is often better for a layman to take his own case in front of an inquiry. Sometimes it is better for a chartered surveyor than for a lawyer to take a case.
      I am all for an improvement in the legal aid system across the board, but I shall support the Government on this occasion if it comes to a vote.
      Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) told us that when dealing with these matters in an administrative capacity he paid no attention to any legal argument that was advanced. That is rather surprising, because he objected to the amendment on the ground that inquiries should not be cluttered up with lawyers. If that were the ground
      1302
      for his thinking, surely he should argue that there should be no legal representation at all at the inquiries.
      That is not what the Bill proposes. The Bill does not propose that the wealthy man shall not be represented at these inquiries. All that the Bill secures in this regard is that the man who cannot afford to pay for legal representation shall not have it. That is what seems to my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and me to be so unfair.
      It was in repect of the person who can not afford to pay for legal representation that the amendment was made. I should have thought that anybody whose interests genuinely lay with the furtherance of justice would wish to support the amendment. The Government are saying "We are providing for you to be deprived of your property. It is true that we are setting up inquiries before which you may voice your objections, but, unfortunately, the machinery that we have to operate this complex arrangement is so complicated, the machinery that we need to deprive you of your property and to enable us to decide what to do with it once we have it is so complicated, that it is very expensive to operate, and therefore you must understand that there will be no money left to enable you to try to stop us from getting your land". That is not a fair way to go about the matter.
      If I may detain the House for a few moments I should like to examine what is at stake when a man is confronted by a compulsory purchase order. As has been said, he may lose his home and what is his primary economic asset and his major interest in life. Those are all substantial matters. There are not many instances when any issue arising before the Lands Tribunal gives rise to so much being at stake, and yet anyone coming before the Lands Tribunal is entitled to legal aid. There are not many matters that arise when one appears before the Commons Commissioners, important though they may be, that rank with those confronting a man upon whose land officialdom descends when a compulsory purchase order is made—although important issues come before the Commons Commissioners, right of piscary, turbary and estover among them—but one is entitled to legal aid when one comes before the Commons Commissioners.

      1303
      I hope that we shall hear where the principle lies that permits legal aid in cases coming before the Lands Tribunal and the Commons Commissioners but not in cases before the inquiries that are to be set up under the Bill. I know that those others are statutory tribunals whereas this is to be a statutory inquiry. I know that statutory tribunals are subject to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, but that is simply a matter of labelling, a matter of procedure. Where lies the distinction in principle that permits legal aid for those appearing before the Lands Tribunal and the Commons Commissioners but denies it to a man who may be deprived of his home, his livelihood and his major interest?
      Mr. Stephen Ross: It is possible for a lawyer to represent someone appearing before the Lands Tribunal without the specific consent of the chairman, but as a chartered surveyor I cannot appear for someone coming before the Lands Tribunal without the consent of the chairman.
      Mr. Mayhew: That is an interesting observation, but I do not see that it diminishes the force of my argument. As Lord Denning said recently, the legal aid scheme ranks with the National Health Service as a social service in this country.
      The way in which to judge is to see what the citizen stands to lose before the proposed inquiry. If a man can lose his home and his livelihood and his major interest, his major economic asset, he is entitled to rank with the wealthy man in having legal representation. That is all that we say.
      It is said that this would cost too much. How much would it cost? We have not been told, but I venture to suggest that it would cost substantially less than the £150,000 a year that the Lord Chancellor announced in the other place last month had already been authorised as expenditure on the law centres this year. I believe that the annual cost of meeting the amendment would be substantially less than £150,000 a year.
      Yet law centres, however excellent they and their work may be, in many instances are subject to political take
      1304
      over.In one case at least only last month, the founder of a well-known one in South London said that it had been taken over for the furtherance of extreme Left-wing politics. I have seen a banner of one in a demonstration in Fleet Street. Yet legal aid is to be denied to those appearing before these tribunals, although it would put those who cannot afford it on an equal footing with those who can.
      I have spoken vigorously, but if Labour Members sincerely feel that issues of justice and equality are at stake they will join us in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I declare an interest, although I do not practise in this section of the Bar—it would probably be too complicated for me and certainly too boring.
      I was much heartened when the Undersecretary of State said that he had the greatest sympathy with the amendment. He is surely just the person to have sympathy with it and support it—sympathy born of a solicitor who has had many years of practice in dealing with the sort of problems that the small individual will have to face before tribunals of this kind. He should also have sympathy as a Socialist because, although we do not yield quarter to the claims of Socialists that they have a monopoly of sympathy for human beings, we allow that a Socialist has as much sympathy for them, or ought to have if he is true to his creed, as we have.
      It was, therefore, with a great sense of disappointment that we heard the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He did not fully appreciate and was not in full accord with his brief. He simply read the Civil Service explanation. There is no blame to the civil servants, because the Government merely said to them "We have decided not to extend legal aid to these cases, so give us arguments as to why we should not do it." The civil servants, according to their lights, gave the Minister his answer.
      There is a great gulf between us about the Bill. As the Minister has said many times, we have here an issue as to whether the State should take greater power over the private individual. We think that the Bill is the beginning of the helter-skelter down the road to the fulfilment of the Communist manifesto. [Interruption.]

      1305
      Hon. Members may laugh, but the Communist manifesto requires State ownership of land, if necessary by means of confiscation.
      That aim is being pursued in the Bill. There is, therefore, the deep rift between the two sides. I understand it. I sympathise with the reasons for the rift. But where there should not be a an issue between us, where we should be united, is in the defence of the rights of the individual. Many times have I seen Labour Members rise at appropriate moments and speak in defence of the rights of the small man, the individual, and the oppressed in our society. There are many examples of double standards.
      11.45 p.m.
      If an issue between the establishment and the individual arises, which is the first organisation to contact us? It is the National Council for Civil Liberties. It is always to be seen or heard whenever an issue contrary to the establishment arises. But I have received not one letter from the National Council for Civil Liberties sticking up for the rights of the small man and the individual in the matter of the Community Land Bill.
      We have been witnessing—and it is high time—a Government campaign on behalf of 2 million people who can neither read nor write. I hazard the guess that a fair proportion of those persons own some sort of property and may be threatened by some facet of the Bill. If these people cannot read or write and if they feel strongly about these matters, why is it that they cannot have the right of representation in a tribunal which raises one complicated issue after another?
      It is not merely a question of going for preliminary advice. Anyone acquainted with the operation of a tribunal or a court will know that the issues are constantly changing, that new issues arise as the days or the hours go by and that it is for ever necessary for someone to rise and correct, to answer and to check. If the only advice that a person charged with a criminal offence had was advice before the trial started, the trial would be a farce. It is no answer, therefore, to say that a person has had preliminary advice before going to a tribunal or that people who can neither read nor write should not have the right of representa
      1306
      tion and explanation before a complicated tribunal.
      The Minister says that if we grant this right in these cases it will not be available elsewhere. On practically every amendment put forward in their Lordships' House the Advisory Committee's recommendation has been brought out and paraded before us. This has been looked into by the Advisory Committee in its 24th report. Having looked into it, it decided that there was no support for the amendment. I seem to remember hearing the words "I would rather accept the recommendation of the Advisory Committee than of their Lordships' House." But when it does not suit the Minister to quote the Advisory Committee or to rely upon it, he does not do so.
      Mr. Oakes: I was talking about the Council on Tribunals, not about the Advisory Committee on Legal Aid.
      Mr. Lawrence: If that is a misunderstanding on my part, I accept the correction. Nevertheless, the fact is that there is a Government Advisory Committee on Legal Aid, as the Minister has told us, which has recommended that there should be the right of legal representation in the tribunal set up under this legislation. There is a double standard about citing authorities and picking those which one will follow and those which one will not.
      Then it is said that this would not be practicable because of the cost. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) has said, what is the cost? Legal aid has been discussed since March, and it surely cannot be beyond the wit of the Government's advisers to give us some assessment of the likely legal aid cost for tribunals in these matters, but the Government have not bothered to do this.
      This is like so many of the subjects that we hear debated in this Parliament. When it does not suit the Government to bother, they do not bother. They have not bothered to give us the cost, so let us hear no more talk about cost. When we are spending £1,000 million on the Industry Act, when it is proposed to spend £1 million a day on the acquisition costs and £1 million a week on the administration of this legislation, let us have no

      1307
      more talk about the cost of legally representing an individual before the big battalions.
      It is said that the acceptance of this proposal would be anomalous. It is said that if it is granted in this case, why should it not be granted in other cases? My answer to that is that if we cannot immediately have the others, let us at least make a start. In any event, this whole Bill is anomalous. [Interruption.] It is no good the Government saying to my hon Friends that this proposal should not be accepted because it would be anomalous. The whole of this legislation is a grotesque anomaly, and one of the easiest ways in which we could mitigate the full effects of the Bill would be to introduce the so-called anomaly of legal aid representation before the tribunal in these cases. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you ask the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to listen to my hon. Friend's speech? The hon. Gentleman attacked the legal profession. My hon. Friend is making a case, and the hon. Gentleman should at least listen to it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should not like to assume that responsibility.
      Mr. Lawrence: I must confess that I have long since learned to ignore the interruptions of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore).
      The Minister said that if this amendment were approved by this House, there would be a danger of destroying the public inquiry system. My reply to that is that, if the public inquiry system allows an individual's rights to be taken away by confiscation without representation, it is high time that the public inquiry system was destroyed.
      Others of my hon. Friends have referred to the big battalions. It always astounds me how Government supporters can find excuses for why the wealthy, the big, the private enterprise that they pretend to dislike and even to hate should always have rights which are denied to the small man. Before a tribunal of inquiry, the big battalions may be represented. They will run rings round the small man.
      Is this not a double standard which the Government would do well to ponder?
      1308
      Why should the rich be represented and the poor not? Can any Government supporter stand on a platform in his constituency before a slogan saying "Let the rich be represented, but let the poor go without legal assistance"?
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my hon. Friend agree also that the local authority will be using ratepayers' money to defeat the individual ratepayer before such an inquiry?
      Mr. Lawrence: As usual, my hon. Friend has hit another nail on the head. I venture to think that it will be another of the nails in the coffin of a Government who have been responsible for the sort of double standards we are hearing about here.
      The gravamen of my speech is that where there is an issue between the two sides of the House because of the differences between Socialism and Conservatism, that we understand, but that on any issue affecting the private individual there should be only agreement between us. Every action to the contrary by this Government is nothing short of a double standard.
      I want to draw the attention of the Houseto Early-Day Motion No. 691. It reads:
      "That this House regrets the denial of legal aid to individuals appearing before tribunals, many of whom are under-privileged and unable to afford legal representation; believes that justice is jeopardised when only one side is legally represented; and calls upon the Government to extend legal aid to all tribunals."
      That Early-Day Motion was tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant). It was signed by 52 hon. Members, nearly all of whom were Labour Members.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: Did the hon. Gentleman sign it?
      Mr. Lawrence: I can express only the wish that when the question of double standards is considered—perhaps there will be time to discuss it before a vote is taken on this amendment—hon. Members who signed that Early-Day Motion will be true to their principles and will join my hon. Friends and defeat the Government's refusal to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: Name them!
      Mr. Michael Morris: As we listen to the debate, is it any wonder that Conservative Members who took part in the Committee proceedings have constantly questioned the right of the Secretary of State to issue orders and regulations? I am sure that the Minister was as horrified as my hon. Friends and I were to hear that the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), when he was an officer in a local authority somewhere, never bothered with the legal arguments concerning a public inquiry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will publicly admit to the House where he was an officer.
      Mr. Sedgemore: I was an administrative civil servant in the then Ministry of Housing.
      Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that those who had the misfortune to have their cases considered by him will bear in mind that the legal arguments were tossed out of the window and that he simply got into his car, turned round and decided there and then how the decision should be taken. Many hon. Members have taken the view for some time that in certain local authorities, decisions controlled by—
      Mr. Percy Grieve: Is it not right that every case dealt with by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) should now be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner?
      Mr. Morris: I should have thought that any hon. Member in such a situation would have stated what were the years when these matters were under consideration. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Luton, West ever said "No" to any of the applications. Perhaps he exempted them all. I hope that the Minister, like my hon. Friends and I, views with horror a statement of that nature from below the Gangway. Public inquiries were simply tossed out of the window because of the arrogance of the hon. Members for Luton, West, who could not care less what anyone's argument or rights might have been. The hon. Gentleman may laugh about this matter, but there are many people in the land who do not think that it is funny. I am glad that the Under-Secretary does not think it is very funny.
      This debate is mainly about legal aid. The Under-Secretary was fair when he
      1310
      said that he had enormous sympathy for their Lordships and their desire to give legal aid. He gave three reasons why it was not possible to do so at this time. First, he gave the reason that it would destroy 30 years of planning or public inquiries. Public inquiries have changed a little over 30 years. Thirty years ago there was not the public participation that there is now, and I suspect that 30 years ago the inquiries were not as long as they are at present.
      We have had the Land Compensation Act and growing concern has been expressed about the rights of individuals as we have seen the encroachment by the State. The public inquiry system has changed over those 30 years. It has not been a static situation.
      12 midnight.
      Secondly, the Under-Secretary mentioned the danger of the lengthening of inquiries. Public inquiries already take up a lot of time. But if the rights of individual owners are to be protected, it is no bad thing if they take a few days longer and proper answers are obtained.
      Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman suggested that a precedent would be set. More precedents have been set with this Bill than this House has seen in many a long day. The Bill is full of precedents. The whole idea of confiscating somebody's land for the bogus reasons of State influence is a precedent. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely feels that there is a case for legal aid but that, for one reason or another, it is not administratively convenient or the Secretary of State has been so tied up in trying to straighten out the charity situation that he has not had time to deal with the legal aid question, we do not mind. However, he must tell us now that he has not had time to deal with it but will take it on board. We would then know where we stood. It seems that the Under-Secretary is in favour of legal aid for everybody who qualifies but that it is not convenient at the end of a parliamentary Session to take it on board.
      I come back to my proposition that in life it always seems that if a bus is going one's way and in the right direction one should get on it. This seems an apt moment to show a degree of initiative by accepting the Lords amendment on legal aid.
      Mr. Durant: I should like to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said about the Bill being a precedent in itself and therefore dealing with the whole question of precedent. The Undersecretary talked about helping the public purse. The simple answer to that problem is to drop the Bill. That is the best way to help the public purse from the word "go".
      We are not talking about large sums of money. For example, in the 10 months up to the end of October the Lands Tribunal has given legal aid to the tune of only £1,788. We must bear in mind that if a person has more than a certain amount of money, he will not get legal aid. Therefore, we are not talking about big money.
      It is important to remember that, particularly with development land, the property concerned is very small indeed—two up, two down. Such property is often owned by widows and may represent their only capital asset. Widows are quite poorly placed financially. It is important, therefore, for them to be represented.
      With such a complicated Bill, we shall have to breed a new brand of lawyer and solicitor to advise people at tribunals, because they will not understand the implications. Indeed, it has taken us long enough to understand the Bill. Goodness knows how any ordinary citizen will be able to argue his case before a tribunal. Therefore, I am in favour of the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Oakes: When I opened this debate on the serious issue of legal aid and the nature of a planning inquiry, I hoped that we would have a serious debate. The nearest approach to that was the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), with whom I entirely agreed and who has temporarily left the Chamber. He tackled the subject sensibly and properly.
      I said that there might be a case for legal representation at local inquiries. The first two speakers from the Opposition side, one from the English Bar and one from the Scottish Bar, disabused me of that idea. Like them I am a lawyer, although in a different branch of the profession. The difference between us is that I am not so arrogant as to
      1312
      believe that justice can be arrived at only when lawyers are present. In the majority of cases, justice is arrived at without lawyers being on the scene.
      Mr. Budgen Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mr. Oakes: No, hon. Members have spoken for a long time and I shall not give way.
      Some of the arguments of those two Opposition spokesmen showed that justice can be denied by the presence of lawyers rather than achieved.
      Mr. Budgen Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mr. Oakes: No, I shall not give way. This has been a long debate, and it has been largely irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.
      In my previous speech I read from what was in front of me, which I thought would be more convenient, rather than addressing the House as I am doing now. But I repeat the view which I then expressed—that the principle of legal aid before tribunals is good and right. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight has now returned. I repeat his argument: that there are many spheres where legal aid could and should be granted which take precedence over this one. Therefore, instead of dealing with this matter piecemeal, we should consider the whole matter with a view to its implementation when the country can better afford it.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: In 10 years' time?
      Mr. Oakes: I am hoping for a much smaller time scale than that.
      My point remains. I do not want planning inquiries turned into long legal wrangles at which justice would be denied, not given. That could happen if we accepted the arrogant arguments of some hon. and learned Members on the Conservative side that justice does not exist without lawyers being present.
      Mr. Rossi: The Minister has chided my hon. Friends for the frivolous note of this debate. I detected that the atmosphere changed after the contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore). Contributions like that cannot but be expected—
      Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend agree that the view that I was putting

      1313
      forward and that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was putting forward was simply that some people who objected to a compulsory purchase order might take the Minister's view and not wish to be represented, which is a perfectly tenable view? Others might wish to be represented. If so, it is only right that they should have legal aid.
      Mr. Rossi: If I may turn to the two points that the Minister was making, he objected to the Lords amendment for two reasons. First, he said that to have legal aid, enabling private citizens who otherwise could not afford to do so to be properly represented, would alter the whole character of compulsory purchase inquiries. The hon. Gentleman is a solicitor and he knows that, at public inquiries into any sizeable acquisition under a CPO, a local authority is always represented by leading counsel and junior counsel, in addition to all the expert witnesses from the council's planning, legal and housing departments. The citizen is seriously disadvantaged unless his pocket is deep enough to enable him to employ counsel and expert witnesses to counter the evidence given by the local authority.

      Division No. 397.]

      AYES

      [12.13 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Allaun, Frank

      Coleman, Donald

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Anderson, Donald

      Concannon, J. D.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Archer, Peter

      Conlan, Bernard

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Flannery, Martin

      Ashley, Jack

      Corbett, Robin

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Forrester, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cronin, John

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Freeson, Reginald

      Bates, Alf

      Cryer, Bob

      Freud, Clement

      Bean, R. E.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      George, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ginsburg, David

      Boardman, H.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Golding, John

      Booth, Albert

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Gould, Bryan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Deakins, Eric

      Gourlay, Harry

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Graham, Ted

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Buchan, Norman

      Dempsey, James

      Grocott, Bruce

      Buchanan, Richard

      Doig, Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Harper, Joseph

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Campbell, Ian

      Dunn, James A.

      Hatton, Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Cant, R. B.

      Eadie, Alex

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Carmichael, Neil

      Edelman, Maurice

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carter, Ray

      Edge, Geoff

      Hooley, Frank

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Cartwright, John

      English, Michael

      Horam, John

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      The character of public inquiries into CPOs is determined by the approach of local authorities to them. Constituents often complain that they feel frustrated because they cannot fight the power and expertise ranged against them.
      We are talking of a limited market. Legal aid is available to only a very few people with small disposable incomes or capital. We are not talking of substantial sums of money. If the Minister is concerned about the impact of this proposal on public expenditure and the fact that he might have difficulty in persuading the Treasury to do what he has conceded is desirable, might I suggest that, within the millions of pounds which the Treasury will determine is to be made available for the operation of the land scheme, provision should be made for a scheme that would enable citizens to feel that justice was being done to them? We are asking not for additional public expenditure but for a provision in that global sum to be determined by the Treasury so that the private citizen can defend himself.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 253.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sillars, James

      Huckfield, Les

      Meacher, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Small, William

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Millan, Bruce

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hunter, Adam

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Molloy, William

      Stallard, A. W.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Moonman, Eric

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Janner, Greville

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Stoddart, David

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stott, Roger

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Strang, Gavin

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Moyle, Roland

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      John, Brynmor

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Swain, Thomas

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Newens, Stanley

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Noble, Mike

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Ogden, Eric

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Judd, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tinn, James

      Kelley, Richard

      Ovenden, John

      Tomlinson, John

      Kerr, Russell

      Owen, Dr David

      Tomney, Frank

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Padley, Walter

      Torney, Tom

      Kinnock, Neil

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tuck, Raphael

      Lambie, David

      Pardoe, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Park, George

      Varley. Rt Hon Eric G.

      Lamond, James

      Parker, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Parry, Robert

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lee, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Ward, Michael

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Watkins, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Radice, Giles

      Watkinson, John

      Litterick, Tom

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Weetch, Ken

      Loyden, Eddie

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Luard, Evan

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      White, James (pollok)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Whitlock, William

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      McElhone, Frank

      Rooker, J. W.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Roper, John

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Madden, Max

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woodall, Alec

      Magee, Bryan

      Selby, Harry

      Woof, Robert

      Mahon, Simon

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Marquand, David

      Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Mr. John Ellis and

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brotherton, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Alison, Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Tom

      Buck, Antony

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Budgen, Nick

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Dunlop, John

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Burden, F. A.

      Durant, Tony

      Baker, Kenneth

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Banks, Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Carson, John

      Emery, Peter

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Eyre, Reginald

      Benyon, W.

      Channon, Paul

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Biffen, John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fell, Anthony

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Blaker, Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Body, Richard

      Clegg, Walter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cockcroft, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Cope, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Costain, A. P.

      Fry, Peter

      Brittan, Leon

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Crawford, Douglas

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Luce, Richard

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Gilmour, Rt Ron Ian (Chesham)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

      Glyn. Dr Alan

      MacCormick, Iain

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      McCrindle, Robert

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Goodhart, Philip

      McCusker, H.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      MacGregor, John

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Gorst, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Madel, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Gray, Hamish

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Grieve, Percy

      Marten, Neil

      Silvester, Fred

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mates, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Grist, Ian

      Mather, Carol

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Angus

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hall, Sir John

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Speed, Keith

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mawby, Ray

      Spence, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      Hannam, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stainton, Keith

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mills, Peter

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stanley, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Molyneaux, James

      Stokes, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Monro, Hector

      Tapsell, Peter

      Henderson, Douglas

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Hicks, Robert

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Holland, Philip

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hordern, Peter

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Thompson, George

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Mudd, David

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hunt, John

      Neave, Airey

      Trotter, Neville

      Hurd, Douglas

      Neubert, Michael

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Newton, Tony

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Nott, John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Viggers, Peter

      James, David

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Wakeham, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Percival, Ian

      Wall, Patrick

      Jopling, Michael

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Walters, Dennis

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Watt, Hamish

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Weatherill, Bernaro

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wells, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Welsh, Andrew

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Raison, Timothy

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Knox, David

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lamont, Norman

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Reid, George

      Younger, Hon George

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Lloyd, Ian

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

      Loveridge, John

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 52, in page 59, line 32, at end, insert—
      "Special Parliamentary Procedure
      6A.—(1) For paragraph 12 of Schedule I there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
      "12.A compulsory purchase order, in so far as it authorises the purchase of land being, or being the site of, an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State certifies that the acquiring authority has entered into an undertaking with the Secretary of State to observe such conditions as to the
      1318
      use of the land as in his opinion are requisite having regard to the nature thereof."
      (2)The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an order specifying the and to which paragraph 12 of Schedule I shall apply.
      (3)An order made under the last sub-paragraph shall not be effective until a draft has been approved by a resolution of each Houses of Parliament.
      (4)Before making the above draft order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Statutory advisory bodies concerned, and such other bodies as may seem to him expedient."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

      1319
      The terms of the amendment seem to be irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill. The argument put forward in another place in support of the amendment was that since the passing of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 and the corresponding Scottish Act—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members conduct their conversations outside the Chamber.
      Mr. Oakes: Since the passing of that legislation there has been a considerable number of designations of land of important environmental significance—for example national parks, areas of outstanding beauty, heritage coastal areas and conservation areas—yet inalienable land of the National Trust, commons, open spaces, fuel and field garden allotments, ancient monuments and other subjects of archaeological interest are still the only categories of land of this kind protected by special parliamentary procedure.
      In the Government's view there is nothing about the community land scheme which suggests that any land in these special areas, which are already well protected under the planning machinery, is more likely to be at risk of compulsory purchase because of the scheme. The Bill does not introduce any new policy in relation to land in national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Bill is concerned with development land. Land which has been formally recognised in one way or another as worthy of conservation will be most unlikely to be the kind of land with which the land scheme is concerned. Moreover, it has been emphasised repeatedly that the Bill is planning-based, so that planning permission for development which would conflict with the objectives of the designation would not lightly be granted and compulsory purchase for the purpose of such development would not readily be authorised.
      The Government do not accept that there is any justification for using the Bill as a vehicle for imposing on the Secretary of State a duty to bring before Parliament proposals for adding new categories of land to special parliamentary procedures which would apply whether the compulsory purchase order was made under the Bill or under any other compulsory purchase power.
      1320
      The objects of the amendment seem to the Government to be entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill. I ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
      12.30 a.m.
      Mr. Cormack: I do not see why the Minister takes such a view, because in a Bill of such wide-ranging character there is surely no harm in adding extra protection in respect of land which has always been regarded as being worthy of special consideration.
      I wish to refer to the arguments advanced in the other place by Lord Sandford. I shall not refer directly to what Lord Sandford said, but he pointed out with considerable force and clarity that a special category of special land was overdue for consideration. Lord Sandford said that although the Bill did a great deal to promote the compulsory acquisition of land, it did not at the same time take the opportunity to stimulate measures to protect designated land or seek to provide for changes to meet the situation. He regarded that as a remarkable omission by the Government.
      I see no reason for rejecting this extremely sensible amendment and I hope that the Minister will think again. All we are asking is that land which is the site of an ancient monument or the object of archaeological interest specified by an order of the Secretary of State should be subject to special parliamentary procedure. It is surely a curious anomaly in European Architectural Heritage Year for the Government to discard this amendment. I do not think there is any need to go into detail at this hour, but I urge the Minister to think again about this matter.
      The fact that subsection (4) of the amendment asks that the Secretary of State should consult with the statutory advisory bodies, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Civic Trust and others, will give little comfort to the many people who have worked hard to protect what is best in our heritage and whose regard for amenity land cannot be open to dispute. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think again about this provision and to allow us to proceed to the next amendment by agreeing to this one.
      Mr. Michael Morris: I wish to support what has been said by my hon.

      1321
      Friend the Member for Staffordshire South-West (Mr. Cormack). I appreciate that the occasions on which a compulsory purchase order will operate on the type of land with which we are now dealing will be reasonably rare. Having said that, I can think of a case in my constituency where the local authorities have mixed views about a listed building, and indeed there is a difference of opinion on the matter between borough and county. It is conceivable that under the new legislation a public inquiry might have been held.
      It is true to say that their Lordships were able to stand back a little further than did hon Members in Committee and were able to examine safety aspects which might otherwise have been overlooked. I believe that the present provision falls into that category.
      This does not involve any great issue of principle. It involves our having to face the fact that times have changed since 1946 when the original legislation was introduced. That legislation contained certain safeguards in respect of ancient monuments, National Trust and common land. Many developments have taken place since that time, and I acknowledge that Labour Members have played as large a part in those changes as we have. There are now areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks and many other areas. Therefore, I see no great disadvantage in our adding this dimension of safety.
      We all know that there are nevertheless circumstances in the private and public sectors in which significant buildings have been demolished before an order could be put on them. There are buildings which have orders governing them and which unfortunately fall down. This is an additional safeguard. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot agree to this suggestion, will at least give an undertaking that this type of extension will form part of the Government's programme early in the new Session.
      Mr. Oakes: This has been a much more rational debate than the previous one. I was not quite sure what the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) meant when he spoke about Government action in the next Session. If he is asking me to give an undertaking that
      1322
      when any listed building, archeological site, national park or anything like that comes before us for consideration we will give special attention to it, I can obviously give such an undertaking.
      The Lords amendment seeks to graft on to the Bill a special parliamentary procedure which we say is unnecessary. It is unnecessary for any responsible Secretary of State of any party to be subjected to that special procedure. The hon. Member mentioned archaeological sites and ancient monuments. It is extremely unlikely that there would ever be representations to the effect that such land should be development land. If there were, any Secretary of State—since he has responsibility for ancient monuments—would clearly treat the matter with the greatest caution. An overwhelming case would need to be put forward before a Secretary of State went against such a designation. He would be answerable not only to Parliament but to outraged public opinion. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that any Secretary of State would rack his brains before making any decision adverse to such a special interest.
      Mr. Cormack: Little safeguards and little assurances—if I may speak by leave of the House—are not much comfort. The Government's obduracy is illustrated by the Minister's reply. I do not doubt his integrity or his desire to safeguard what we hold dear. Any Bill of this sort—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken. When I took over the Chair he was on his feet. He cannot speak twice.
      Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you were a little hasty with my hon. Friend, who distinctly said that he sought the leave of the House. Perhaps you did not hear him because you were consulting the Clerk. He omitted it at first but then asked for the leave of the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that my hearing was pretty good. The right hon. Member seems to cast some doubts on it. Perhaps I should see someone about earphones.
      Mr. Peyton: I think you were at that moment consulting the Clerk. My hon. Friend, realising his omission, distinctly said "by leave of the House."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member was on his feet for quite a few seconds. A Member does not ask for the leave of the House after he has spoken for half an hour. He asks for it before he begins. That is the vital difference.
      Mr. Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I uttered about six words and then said "by leave of the House." Surely it is perfectly permissible to make a short, polite preamble and then to say "by leave of the House."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear it. I shall clear up the matter. The Question is—
      Mr. Graham Page: I am not rising on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to call attention—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is in order. I wish hon. Members would rise promptly, so that we may proceed more rapidly.
      Mr. Page: I rise because my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) was ruled out of order, and I hope I shall be able to say what he intended to say.
      The value of the amendment in introducing the special parliamentary procedure is that that procedure includes a local inquiry. There is advertisement of the intention to acquire the property, and

      Division No. 398.]

      AYES

      [12.43 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Allaun, Frank

      Cant, R. B.

      Delargy, Hugh

      Anderson, Donald

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Archer, Peter

      Carter, Ray

      Dempsey, James

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Doig, Peter

      Ashley, Jack

      Cartwright, John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Ashton, Joe

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Dunn, James A.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Coleman, Donald

      Dunnett, Jack

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Eadie, Alex

      Bates, Alf

      Conlan, Bernard

      Edelman, Maurice

      Bean, R. E.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Edge, Geoff

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Corbett, Robin

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      English, Michael

      Boardman, H.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Booth, Albert

      Cronin, John

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cryer, Bob

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Buchan, Norman

      Davidson, Arthur

      Flannery, Martin

      Buchanan, Richard

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Forrester, John

      Callaghan. Jim (Middleton & P)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Campbell, Ian

      Dakins, Eric

      Fraser, John (Lambeth. N'w'd)

      if there are objections a local inquiry is held. Before the matter comes before the House we know that there has been a local inquiry. The Order is laid before the House and there is opportunity for hon. Members to consider the matter, knowing what has happened at the inquiry.
      Unless the amendment is accepted there will be no public inquiry, which the special parliamentary procedure provides. It is right that their Lordships should call our attention by the amendment to the need for a public inquiry and the special parliamentary procedure where there is a take-over by the local authority of
      "an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State".
      The Under-Secretary of State said that the amendment did not seem to be relevant to the purposes of the Bill. It is relevant. We have been arguing about whether there should be public inquiries. Here is a special case where the compulsory purchase should be drawn to the attention of the public in the area, and to right hon. and hon. Members so that the House may have the opportunity of debating it.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 256.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Selby, Harry

      George, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Gilbert, Or John

      McElhone, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Ginsburg David

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Golding, John

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

      Gould, Bryan

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Graham, Ted

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sillars, James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Silverman, Julius

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Madden, Max

      Small, William

      Grocott, Bruce

      Magee, Bryan

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mahon, Simon

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hardy, Peter

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Harper, Joseph

      Marks, Kenneth

      Stallard, A. W.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marquand, David

      Stott, Roger

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hatton, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Hayman, Mrs Helena

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Meacher, Michael

      Swain, Thomas

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Hooley, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Horam, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Huckfield, Les

      Molloy, William

      Tierney, Sydney

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Moonman, Eric

      Tinn, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Tomlinson, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tomney, Frank

      Hunter, Adam

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Torney, Tom

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Moyle, Roland

      Tuck, Raphael

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Urwin, T. W.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Janner, Greville

      Newens, Stanley

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Noble, Mike

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Oakes, Gordon

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ogden, Eric

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Ward, Michael

      John, Brynmor

      O'Malley. Rt Hon Brian

      Watkins, David

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Watkinson, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Weetch, Ken

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Ovenden, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Owen, Dr David

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Palmer, Arthur

      White, James (Pollok)

      Judd, Frank

      Park, George

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Parker, John

      Whitlock, William

      Kelley, Richard

      Parry, Robert

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Kerr, Russell

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Lambie, David

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Lamond, James

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Woodall, Alec

      Lee, John

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Woof, Robert

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Rooker, J. W.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roper, John

      Litterick, Tom

      Rose, Paul B.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt and

      Luard, Evan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brains, Sir Bernard

      Cockcroft, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brittan, Leon

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Alison, Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Cope, John

      Arnold, Tom

      Brotherton, Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Costain, A. P.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Crouch, David

      Baker, Kenneth

      Buck, Antony

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Banks, Robert

      Budgen, Nick

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Burden, F. A.

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Benyon, W.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Biffen, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Dunlop, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Carson, John

      Durant, Tony

      Blaker, Peter

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Body, Richard

      Channon, Paul

      Elliott, Sir William

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Emery, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Clegg, Walter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Fell, Anthony

      Knox, David

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

      Fox, Marcus

      Loveridge, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Luce, Richard

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Freud, Clement

      McAdden. Sir Stephen

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fry, Peter

      MacCormick, Iain

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McCusker, H.

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      MacGregor, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Glyn. Dr Alan

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Goodhew, Victor

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Madel, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sims, Roger

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Marten, Neil

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mates, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Gray, Hamish

      Maude, Angus

      Speed, Keith

      Grieve, Percy

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Spence, John

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mawby, Ray

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Grist, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Sproat, Iain

      Grylls, Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stainton, Keith

      Hall, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mills, Peter

      Stanley, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hannam, John

      Moate, Roger

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Molyneaux, James

      Stokes, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Monro, Hector

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Hawkins Paul

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morgan, Geraint

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Henderson, Douglas

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Hicks, Robert

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Thompson, George

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Mudd, David

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Holland, Philip

      Neave, Airey

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Neubert, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Hordern, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nott, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Viggers, Peter

      Hunt, John

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Wakeham, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Pardoe, John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wall, Patrick

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Penhaligon, David

      Walters, Dennis

      James, David

      Percival, Ian

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Peylon, Rt Hon John

      Wells, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Welsh, Andrew

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Jopling, Michael

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Raison, Timothy

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rathbone, Tim

      Younger, Hon George

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Raid, George

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 16

      LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
      Lords Amendment: No. 61, in page 15, line 18, leave out
      "the area of each county authority"
      and insert "each county area".
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 69 to 77, 79, 81, 95, 97 and 99.
      Mr. Silkin: I should tell the House that if it were to agree to disagree with these amendments I should wish to move a manuscript amendment to Lords Amendment No. 82, to leave out "county area" in the last line of sub-paragraph (2) and insert
      "area of the county authority".
      This has nothing to do with the Peak Park but is consequential on disagreeing with the Peak Park amendments which introduce the term "county area".
      I find these amendments especially difficult, because it seems to me that the whole question that one is deciding—that is, whether there should be provided in the Bill a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the Peak District National Park—is very difficult and very finely balanced. I am apparently not the only person to find some difficulty in considering this. Some of my hon. Friends take one view, others take another.
      As for Conservative Members, I think it was Lord Sandford who moved these amendments in another place, and when we first considered the question in Standing Committee G the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) entered a caveat in favour of the Peak District National Park arrangement. But, after considering it and considering the very finely balanced basis of the two possibilities, I have come to the conclusion that the advice I ought to give to the House is to disagree with the Lords in these amendments.
      The Peak Park covers parts of six counties. If, as the Bill provided, the board were simply to participate in the land acquisition and management schemes of each of those six counties, this could be administratively difficult and there would be no guarantee of consistency of treatment across the park as a whole. That is the first factor that one has to consider.
      1.0 a.m.
      The Government have recognised these as genuine problems. We therefore encouraged discussions between the Peak Park Planning Board and the constituent authorities in the hope that these would lead to an agreed solution. During the
      1330
      discussions the constituent authorities proposed a compromise solution. Each county LAMS—that is, land acquisition and management scheme—was to be divided into two parts, one for the Peak Park area and one for the rest of the country. All of the six LAMS relating to the Peak Park were to be identical, and arrangements were proposed for the setting up of a joint committee and other joint arrangements for operating the land scheme within the national park. However, the Peak Park Planning Board did not feel that this went far enough to meet its point of view.
      Accordingly, amendments were brought forward by Lord Sandford in another place to provide for a separate LAMS for the Peak Park, and the Government had to consider their attitude towards these in the light of the proposed compromise solution. At this stage it is important to consider the remaining factors, and, as I have said, I find that these factors constitute an almost insoluble balance.
      First, the arrangements for the making of the LAMS do not in any way prejudge the way in which the scheme is naturally implemented in the Peak Park area. Who actually buys land for development will need to be settled on the basis of the factors—for example, the availability of staff—set out in Schedule 5 to the Bill.
      Second, whichever solution is adopted, the LAMS will still have to be agreed between all the parties in the area acting jointly. The county authority has no bigger voice than any other authority. It has only certain administrative duties. Therefore, the amendments would in no way alter the balance of power between the authorities involved.
      Third, from the point of view of the operation of the land scheme there is no strong reason for preferring one solution to the other. Either would seem to be satisfactory and to enable the scheme to be implemented effectively.
      Having established the balance, a conclusion must be reached. The conclusion which the Government have reached is that, looking dispassionately at the problem, there is no real need for any amendment, given the compromise solution offered by the constituent authorities. I cannot claim to be strongly in favour of this solution. I can say only that it seems

      1331
      to be the commonsense one. It leads inevitably to the Government changing their mind, as the Opposition have and as I have no doubt individual people will.
      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. As is well known, and as was said in another place, my hon. Friend and Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and I have throughout supported the six county and the nine local councils in this matter. It is a truly non-party issue, and I feel a little humble to be discussing it with the son of a distinguished gentleman who introduced the Peak Park Planning Bill. What is more, Lord Sandford has done a great deal for our national parks and it was he who suggested these amendments.
      When the Under-Secretary appeared in Derbyshire this summer, he impressed everyone greatly. One Member of the other place said to me that here was a politician who came, said that he wanted to listen and actually did.
      Our case is that by giving separate LAMS to the Peak Park Planning Board we should be creating a great deal of fear among the local authorities. The six counties and nine local authorities disagreed with the amendments because they were frightened that to give a separate LAMS to the park would be like having a Big Brother watching over them. They were frightened about what would happen. As elected representatives in their areas they wish to take an active part in the running of those areas. The amendments which were moved by Lord Sandford and carried in the other place would have had the opposite effect. The members of those authorities would fear for their future. In his winding-up speech in the other place Lord Sandford said that the only reason why he was moving these amendments was that he believed that no agreement could be reached between the local authorities and the parks planning board. I suggest that that is no reason for tabling amendments.
      We must reach agreement between the local authorities and the park planning board. I have heard from the Derbyshire County Council that all the constituent authorities have reached general agreement, and on 24th November they are to meet the park planning board to discuss these proposals. They will discuss sug
      1332
      gestions concerning land acquired by agreement, the powers of the park planning board where there is a refusal or a delay by the local authority and on mineral rights and where the bulk of capital is produced by the park planning board. Indeed, it is proposed that there will be a joint committee working under the LAMS for co-ordinating and monitoring. Is that not the thinking of people who want to co-ordinate together?
      Sadly one must admit that in the past the high motives which started with these national park boards has not been sustained as much as one would wish. There have been disagreements to which I have already referred. There is the fear that the appointed park boards are sometimes not fully in touch with the wishes and feelings of those who live and work in these parks.
      I should like to refer to what the then Mr. Lewis Silkin said on Second Reading of the National Parks Bill. He said:
      "I am a believer in local authorities. I believe that the local planning authorities will welcome the administration of national parks as a challenge and as a great opportunity, which they will discharge in a public-spirited manner."—[Official Report, 31st March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1482.]
      I suggest that that view is taken today. If the House rejects, as I hope it will, their Lordships amendments, there will be an opportunity for everyone to get together and work for the public good.
      Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It is bizarre to find at this late hour the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) heaping praise upon this part at least of the Community Land Bill and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench when I, who have been a fervent supporter of this measure, must oppose what my right hon. Friend has said in his belated and, in my view, inexplicable conversion to the view that these amendments should be removed.
      I wish to examine why my right hon. Friend has taken that view. I shall try to disentangle some of the tactical miscalculations which may be behind that point of view.
      I wish to say something about the residents of the national parks. I was born, and have always lived, in the area of Derbyshire national park. I feel strongly

      1333
      that the Peak District National Park is unique in more than one way. It is already unique as a planning authority. It covers six county councils and nine district councils. It is unique in the type of planning powers which it has compared with the other national parks. It was the first to be designated. It is the winner of more awards, especially in the area of conservation, than all the other parks.
      I point out to all hon. Members who are interested in conservation issues that this national park is threatened more than any other. First, it is threatened because it is one of the smallest and is surrounded by large conurbations. People who enjoy the countryside and rambling and wish to enjoy the amenities of the park know that the weight of their enthusiasm may threaten it unless its powers are strictly laid down and observed.
      Secondly, it is the victim of greedy interests which are prepared to take out of the national park the mineral resources in which it is so rich and which may, in so doing, fundamentally alter its character.
      That is why many people on the Peak District National Park Board hold the unanimous view that positive planning, of which this Bill is the forerunner, should be used by the authority set up by a previous Labour Government—set up largely as a result of the inspiration of my right hon. Friend's father. However, my right hon. Friend has now come forward with what seems a lacklustre argument and suggested that we should throw out the amendments.
      Earlier tonight I was told that the amendments would go through unopposed. In the consideration of Lords amendments document which was circulated to hon. Members there is no mention that we should disagree with the Lords in this amendment. That was not proposed. Something has obviously changed my right hon. Friend's mind. However, my mind has not been changed.
      Many of my hon. Friends will not support the Government on this issue tonight. We will vote on the other side. No doubt the hon. Member for High Peak and those whom he can whip in behind him will enthusiastically support my right hon. Friend. I cannot and do not propose to do so.
      1334
      There was all-party support in another place, where there was a free vote, and Lord Sandford's amendments were carried. I understand that at that stage the Government were prepared to give the amendments a fair wind.
      I have copies of letters from my right hon. Friend to Alderman Norman Gratton, the Chairman of the Peak District National Park Board, and to the Derbyshire County Council in which he looks sympathetically on what he calls
      "the force of the arguments for having a separate LAMS for the national park area."
      In another letter to Alderman Gratton, my right hon. Friend said:
      "I stand by the assurances that were given in Standing Committee when this matter was debated. My officials have written to the constituent counties informing them that I am still prepared to bring forward amendments, if necessary, though I would not wish at this stage to do anything to prejudice the negotiations."
      The negotiations are still going on. The Clerk to the Derbyshire County Council and others have written to those of us who have the honour to represent constituencies in that area to say that there is to be a meeting on 24th November and that it is possible that agreement will be reached. I do not believe that agreement will be reached. I believe that my right hon. Friend will have to take on the arduous duty of mediating in the matter and of coming down on one side or the other. Perhaps in reply to the debate he will indicate what he would say if that unhappy conclusion were reached.
      We already have amendments which are sufficient and adequate for the purpose that we want—the setting up of a separate LAMS for the Peak District National Park. I hope that that will be done.
      Whatever my right hon. Friend and others have heard in their sounding of opinion, the elected members who serve on the Peak District National Park Council are unanimous right across the board, from the leader of the Conservative Opposition on the Derbyshire County Council, Councillor Wilson, to the more Left-wing figure of my friend and former Member of this House Councillor Peter Jackson, that we should have these powers. I believe that we should have them. The amendments put in in another place, which until a few hours ago the

      1335
      Government appeared to have accepted, would have given those powers to the Peak District National Park.
      I invite my hon. Friends to follow me into the other Lobby tonight, however many Conservative Members support the Government, because we should protect a precious amenity—an achievement of a former Labour Government—which will for ever be associated with the name of my right hon Friend's father.
      It is inexplicable that my right hon. Friend should come forward and suggest that we disagreed with the Lords amendment because, perhaps on technical grounds, it may be easier to carry the vote that way. The principle is clear. We should vote in the other Lobby, and that is what I urge my hon. Friends to do.
      1.15 a.m.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head). This is another indication of the Government's attitude to the national parks. This issue was first raised in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blen-kinsop), who has a record second to none in this respect. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that the Government were sympathetic. These amendments were put forward in another place by someone who also has shown considerable sympathy to the whole idea of the national parks, Lord Sandford, and they were agreed on a free vote. It was apparently intended that we should not divide on party lines tonight, but late in the day it was decided that the Government should again give the national parks the thumbs down.
      Sadly, the present Government have shown very little concern for the national parks. We have waited months for the announcement of their policy on the Sandford Report. They appear not even to have had time to publish their views.
      The key issue is that the national park was to be given the planning responsibility. The whole idea behind the Bill is positive planning, making the purchase of land go hand in hand with the planning authority. If we throw out the amendment, we shall separate the two functions—planning remaining with the national
      1336
      park, and land to be a function of a consortium of local authorities. This will bring confusion to many people in the area. Have we thought how to reconcile the resulting conflict of interest?
      It would have been far better to recognise that in the Peak District National Park we have a national asset, not just for those in the area but for people who live round about. The whole concept of the national park body was that there should be representation not just of those who live in it but if those who live around it and enjoy it. That was the reason for including representatives from Greater Manchester and so on. But the voices of these people are not to be heard when it comes to the use of the land in the park.
      Surely we should try to set up one body concerned with planning and land purchase. We have such an authority: the Peak Park Planning Board. We shall now confuse the issue by having conflicting bodies competing in planning decisions. I ask the Minister to reconsider.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not often that I have anything in common with the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). The Peak Park covers some of the most attractive areas of my constituency, so I have a genuine interest in these amendments. The hon. Member for Stockport, North and the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) have done the House a service by disagreeing with the Minister.
      It is extraordinary that the Minister should have changed his mind. I am undecided how to vote, but I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, North that the Peak Park Planning Board does a wonderful job. Its task will be made that much more difficult by the Minister's decision. I hope that whoever replies will present a case which we can all understand as to why the Government have taken this decision, apparently at the last moment.
      The area is under great pressure from the large and powerful conurbations that surround it. The Peak Park is a unique feature of the North Midlands and Northwest and it is vitally important to the people living in urban areas that it should remain as undamaged as possible. Its recreation provision for the people of the

      1337
      area is second to none and it is a wonderful part of the country which must be protected.
      The Minister must present a much better case in his reply. My constituents in the hill villages and elsewhere are interested in this debate and the decision we shall take. The Minister should clarify his position. He has failed to make his case so far.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am in the same difficulty as the Minister in trying to decide between two evenly balanced arguments. We start in the Bill by making the Peak Park Planning Board a local authority. From its name one would expect it to deal with the planning under this Bill, and in Committee we pleaded that the action of local authorities under the Bill should be within the framework of planning. The Government accepted our arguments and made amendments recognising that the acquisition powers given to local authorities should be exercised within the framework of planning. My inclination is to say that we should leave the land acquisition management schemes in the hands of the planning board.
      There was great difficulty when the board was set up in getting agreement on the proportion of district council representatives who should be appointed to it, and they do not have a very big representation. Districts might not have as much say in the preparation of LAMS as they would if the schemes were prepared by county authorities. I favour drawing districts into the preparation of LAMS as much as possible. The spirit of the amendment in calling for coordinated planning in the Peak Park area is right. If we can achieve that, together with a greater representation on the board, the Minister is probably right in saying that we should not accept the amendment but should go for another arrangement.
      Mr. Frank Hooley: I share the anxieties of my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about the Government's attitude to these amendments. The special and unique character of the Peak National Park have been referred to. My constituency is adjacent to the park and I have spent many happy times in recrea
      1338
      tion in it. I travel through it about twice a week on normal parliamentary business. I am therefore acquainted with it, and I know of its immense value not only to my area but to the whole country.
      I understand the basic principle of the Bill to be that the planning power and the management and acquisition of land should go hand in hand. That is what the amendments seek to achieve in the Peak National Park, even though the Peak National Park Board is not a local authority within the normal definition.
      I am therefore puzzled by the Government's attitude to the amendments. I share the anxieties which my hon. Friends have expressed and I should like a fuller explanation of the Government's approach to the amendments.
      Mr. John Silkin: The interesting contributions to the debate underline the dilemma rather than solve it. It is an interesting and curious situation when a Labour Minister, with the help of the Conservative Whip, is suggesting that the House should reject amendments moved by a Conservative peer in the other place, and when he is supported by some Conservatives and some of his hon. Friends but is opposed by other of his right hon. Friends who in turn are supported by Conservatives. That is an indication of the situation we face.
      When I said that I thought there was a balance, I was obviously underestimating, not overestimating, the situation. I fully understand every point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I sympathise very much with them. But I must ask them to see it my way. It is a balance, and I needed to come down on one side or the other. The obvious solution was to leave the Bill as it was and to agree with the Lords amendments. I do not think, however, that that would have given the necessary weight to the compromise solution.
      What the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said is right. When the right hon. Gentleman and I agree it is because both of us have a very deep love of local authorities. Most of the time we are fighting one and other on our interpretation of that love. On this occasion we agree. We are trying

      1339
      to see to what extent the elected representatives, particularly in the districts, can play their part in a matter which is vital both to them and to the country. The factor which tips the balance for me is the compromise solution that has been suggested. I do not know whether it will work, and perhaps it will not, but let us give it a chance. If it does not work, we must think again.
      It might help if I remind the House what is involved. The compromise solution was that each county LAMS should be divided into two parts. One was to be for the Peak National Park area and one for the rest of the country. All the six LAMS relating to the Peak Park were to be identical, and arrangements were proposed for the setting up of a joint committee and other joint arrangements for operating the LAMS within the national park.
      1.30 a.m.
      Mr. John Roper: Is it not true that the part of the national park falling within three of the counties is infinitesimal and that, therefore, this procedure seems most odd, to say the least?
      Mr. Silkin: I should not have described it as infinitesimal. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who disagreed with me earlier would have regarded it as infinitesimal. They all have an interest in it, as has always been recognised. I am merely pointing out that that interest must be recognised. This is an appalling

      Division No. 399.]

      AYES

      [1.33 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Buchanan, Richard

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Buck, Antony

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Alison, Michael

      Burden, F. A.

      Deakins, Eric

      Anderson, Donald

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Archer, Peter

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Callaghan. Jim (Middleton & P)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Arnold, Tom

      Campbell, Ian

      Dempsey, James

      Ashley, Jack

      Cant, R. B.

      Doig, Peter

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dormand, J. D.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Carter, Ray

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Banks, Robert

      Cartwright, John

      Dunlop, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Dunn, James A.

      Bates, Alf

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Bean, R. E.

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Durant, Tony

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Eadie, Alex

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Coleman, Donald

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Biffen, John

      Concannon, J. D.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Emery, Peter

      Boardman, H.

      Corbett, Robin

      English, Michael

      Booth, Albert

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Cronin, John

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      choice, but someone must make it and advise the House what to do. I am advising the House to try it. If it does not work, we can look at it again. There is time. But as the counties themselves have come up with this compromise solution, let us give it a chance and see that it works.
      Mr. Whitehead: My right hon. Friend is advising the House very carefully. What will happen if the compromise agreement does not work? Will he then stick to his undertaking in the letter to Alderman Gratton which I quoted?
      Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend has only to look at the Bill to see what might be the results if there were no agreement. That is all very easy.
      Mr. Raison: A minute or two ago the Minister was boasting of his love of local authorities. He now seems to be threatening them.
      Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman should wake up. I was not threatening. The point was made that the agreement might fail. I know that it might. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked what would happen then. I am saying that we should have to have another shot. Let the hon. Gentleman look at the Bill. I think that he is getting tired.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 80.

      Forrester, John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Litterick, Tom

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Luard, Evan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Freeson, Reginald

      Luce, Richard

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Scott, Nicholas

      George, Bruce

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Selby, Harry

      Gilbert, Dr John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Ginsburg David

      McElhone, Frank

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Golding, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Goodhart, Philip

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Gould, Bryan

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Sillars, James

      Gourlay, Harry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Small, William

      Graham, Ted

      Magee, Bryan

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mahon, Simon

      Speed, Keith

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Grieve, Percy

      Marks, Kenneth

      Stallard, A. W.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Stoddart, David

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stott, Roger

      Hardy, Peter

      Marten, Neil

      Strang, Gavin

      Harper, Joseph

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Meacher, Michael

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Swain, Thomas

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Millan, Bruce

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hawkins. Paul

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Molloy, William

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Tierney, Sydney

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Tinn, James

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Tomlinson, John

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tomney, Frank

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Torney, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hunter, Adam

      Moyle, Roland

      Tuck, Raphael

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Urwin, T. W.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Noble, Mike

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Ogden Eric

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Janner, Greville

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Onslow, Cranley

      Watkins, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Watkinson, John

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Weatherill, Bernard

      John, Brynmor

      Ovenden, John

      Weetch, Ken

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Owen, Dr David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Palmer, Arthur

      White, James (Pollok)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Park, George

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Parker, John

      Whitlock, William

      Jopling, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Judd, Frank

      Parry, Robert

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Raison, Timothy

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Woodall, Alec

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

      Woof, Robert

      Lamond, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Mr. John Ellis and

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Edge, Geoff

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Kelley, Richard

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Flannery, Martin

      Kerr, Russell

      Body, Richard

      Freud, Clement

      Kinnock, Neil

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Lambie, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Brittan, Leon

      Grylls, Michael

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hatton, Frank

      Lee, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hooley, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Marquand, David

      Crouch, David

      Horam, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cryer, Bob

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Moonman, Eric

      Rose, Paul B.

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Mudd, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Newens, Stanley

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Pardoe, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Penhaligon, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Ward, Michael

      Radice, Glies

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wells, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Silverman, Julius

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stainton, Keith

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rooker, J. W.

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Mr. Phillip Whitehead and

      Roper, John

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 66, in page 15, line 32, leave out "31st December 1975" and insert "29th February 1976".
      1.45 a.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The point of this amendment is to postpone the date for the making of the land acquisition and management schemes from 31st December 1975 to 29th February 1976. This is an issue we have debated several times in Committee and on Report. We have been over the ground so often on this point that I do not want to weary the House with it for too long tonight.
      In the view of the Government the local authorities, most of which are getting on very well with the job, have had ample notice of this. They have contributed to the discussions on it for over a year. In the light of this I do not believe that it would be of advantage—indeed, it would be a positive disadvantage—if the date were postponed from that which the local authorities have always known, namely 31st December 1975.
      Mr. Raison: In the view of the Opposition, this is an important amendment. I am glad to see the Secretary of State present. It seems probable that he has set some sort of parliamentary record in that throughout the proceedings on this important Bill he has not managed to utter one word. He did not speak on Second Reading. He did not speak—perhaps understandably—in Committee and he did not speak on Report or Third
      1344
      Reading. So far this evening he has not spoken.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation to join these debates. It is true that I have missed a number of speeches from the Opposition Benches, and evidently the more interesting ones. I am in the uniquely happy position of having a fellow Minister in the Department who is also a Cabinet Minister. I cannot think that the House wants two Cabinet Ministers joining in on the same Bill. That would be at least one too many. As far as I can understand it—it is hard for us to know who is in the Shadow Cabinet—there is only one member of the Shadow Cabinet who has taken part in these debates and even he left the whole of the Committee stage to someone who is not a member of the Shadow Cabinet.
      Mr. Raison: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has broken his "duck". I cannot say that his contribution was particularly helpful. People were beginning to wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman's heart was in the Bill.
      This is an important amendment. The House will recall that when we discussed this point on Report the Minister behaved in a most extraordinary way. The bullying tone he adopted was disgraceful. He has boasted of his love for local government tonight. Anyone who wants to know what his attitude to local government is capable of being should look at the proceedings on Report, when, talking about the implementation of the schemes by the unfair date of 31st December, he said:
      "I believe that the overwhelming majority of local authorities are prepared to do this. If they are not prepared to do this by 31st December my right hon. Friend is prepared to do it for them. My right hon. Friend has quite a lot of power in this matter. Not only can he step in; he can create organisations that can step in and he can even find

      1345
      other local authorities—there are plenty of good local authorities all over the country—who would be prepared to step in on this basis.
      I am sorry that it is clearly in the morning because I should like every local authority that is deliberately dragging its heels to listen to what I have to say. They know perfectly well, and have known for the past eight months or so, that this is exactly what the situation would be."—[Official Report, 13th October 1975; Vol. 897, c. 1092–3.]
      Although they were made at an obscure hour of the morning, his remarks have been very much resented. They were disgraceful remarks to make in the House.
      When the Bill came before the other place, Baroness Birk, who spoke on behalf of the Government, was rather more emollient. Apologising on behalf of the Minister for Planning and Local Government, she said:
      "there is an important time and space difference between talking at 2 o'clock in the morning and talking at about 8.20 in the evening."
      That is a novel constitutional doctrine. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept it, and will he withdraw the odious threats he made on Report?
      In referring to comments made by hon. Members, Baroness Birk was wholly unsupported by the facts. She is recorded as saying:
      "the comments made on that occasion clearly indicated that a number of Members of another place were getting rather exercised and were feeling weary and emotional."
      That is nonsense, as is borne out by the record of our debate. Just as the noble Baroness apologised for the right hon. Gentleman, so I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness.
      I should like some substantiation from the right hon. Gentleman on the intriguing pronouncement by the noble Baroness that
      "It is general practice that once a Bill has had its Second Reading in another place, anybody can go ahead, particularly if it is a Government measure, on the assumption that the Bill will be passed and be on the Statute Book. As a Bill goes further along and gets through its Committee and Report stages in another place, and it even gets accepted by noble Lords opposite that the Bill will get on the Statute Book, as they have this Bill, then one can say that it has become constitutionally acceptable. If anything happens in between, then there is a change."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th October 1975; Vol. 365, cc. 105–107.]
      I find it hard to know what the noble Baroness was talking about. It is an
      1346
      odd remark for a Minister of the Crown to make.
      The amendment is extremely moderate. It was spoken to in the other place by Lord Ridley, who is a prominent figure in local government. The Minister will recognise that Lord Ridley is a responsible, moderate, sensible and highly experienced person. I should be surprised if the Minister were not prepared to take seriously his views.
      Lord Ridley pointed out that Northumberland—his county—could not be ready with these schemes by 31st December. He said that the amendment, which sought to delay, until the end of February, the date by which the schemes must be presented, was supported by the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. A substantial part of the local authority world has therefore joined in the pleas to the Minister to be allowed this extension of time.
      The date of 31st December, on which the Government are apparently insisting, was set many months ago when it could not have been known that the Bill would not reach the statute book until mid-November—if it does. In putting in that date the Government may have expected to get the legislation through some months earlier. In those circumstances the date of 31st December would have provided at least an arguably reasonable time for local authorities to prepare their schemes. The Bill will not reach the statute book until the middle of November. This means that local authorities will have only the period between mid-November and 31st December in which to prepare these extremely complicated schemes. That is a wholly unreasonable proposition, and the Lords amendment is meaningful and sensible. The only objection to it that I can see is that it would improve an ineradicably awful Bill.
      Has the Minister any grounds for asserting, as he has asserted, that local authorities are dragging their heels? Does he expect them to be on time? What about Northumberland, which I have quoted already? Has the Minister any reason to believe that Lord Ridley was wrong? What about the Peak authority, which we have just been discussing? After all, the question of who is to be the Peak authority has been settled only this evening. Is

      1347
      that authority to have its schemes prepared by 31st December?
      Why is not the Minister sensible about this? Why does he go on being so obstinate about it when all the logic is against him? It is absolute nonsense that these schemes have to go ahead before the structure and local plans are ready. But, even accepting that they may go ahead, it is absolutely clear that the whole balance of argument is in favour of the Lords amendment and against the Minister.
      Mr. Sainsbury: In opening the debate somewhat briefly, the right hon. Gentleman said that we had often been over this ground. Perhaps it is unfortunate that we seem always to go over it at a rather eccentric hour. This time we are a little later than when we discussed the matter in Standing Committee. I do not know whether that makes us wiser or more emotional. Even their Lordships discussed it at what was for them the extremely late hour of half-past eight.
      There is another feature of the late hour at which we discuss this subject. Each time we discuss it at a later date, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has just observed, that means at a later date than was anticipated when the date of 31st December was first included in the draft Bill. That is not without significance. If that date were right originally, it is scarcely logical—certainly it has not been explained or excused here, in Standing Committee or in another place—for the Government to insist on including that date even as the date of the possible enactment of the Bill gets later and later.
      That is not the only factor affecting the relevance and rightness of the date. We must note what has been said about the structure of local government. At this moment I hesitate, apart from the risk of being ruled out of order, to enter into discussing the merits and demerits of a two-tier structure of planning. If I did so, we might be here even longer. However, undoubtedly the two-tier structure is the background for land acquisition and management schemes, and it is also why the Royal Town Planning Institute, which I hope will command at least the Minister's ear and attention on this issue, is so concerned about the date of this proposal.
      1348
      It refers to the potential source of controversy between the two levels of local government. We are all aware of the possibilities and actualities of occasional disagreements between the two levels, but we cannot fail to be aware that when that disagreement occurs it is a source of confusion, delay, additional cost and annoyance to the public.
      In that connection we have to note the concern of both the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. It is interesting that when, on a previous occasion, we were going over this ground, the right hon. Gentleman's excuse for not wishing to change his mind was that he had had no representations from local authorities. If that was an adequate reason then, I hope he will be able to explain why, now that he has had representations from the local authority associations, he is not paying attention to them.
      2.0 a.m.
      We are assured also that adequate progress is being made. I find it hard to accept that excuse for not changing the date. Baroness Birk said in another place that the Government did not have detailed information about progress in each county area. If the right hon. Gentleman does not have detailed information, how can he be so confident that progress is being made?
      Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Gentleman should use his own arguments.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Lady Birk was speaking for the Government. I hope that those hon. Members sitting below the Gangway opposite who are so used to opposing the Government will nevertheless find it possible to agree occasionally with their spokesman in another place.
      The local authorities are busy at this period of the year with their budgets, which are commanding a not inconsidable proportion of the time of senior officers and chief executives. The Bill will place an extra burden on them, although their task could scarcely be made more difficult than it is this year.
      There are economic difficulties. The Government require that there should be no additional recruitment to local authority staffs, and most hon. Members

      1349
      welcome that. But then the Government place an additional responsibility on the staffs of local authorities. Therefore, the additional burden can be fulfilled only by the existing staff, which means their neglecting for a period the work they would otherwise have been doing.
      Thus we thave the peculiar situation that, at a time of unparalleled pressure on local authorities, particularly on the senior officers and chief executives, the Government are placing an additional burden on them while asking them to ensure the greatest possible restraint in their budgets and to recruit no more staff.
      There will be a unique burden on local authority officers, but the right hon. Gentleman decides that the original date must stay. He offers no real reason or excuse. Those officers are being forced into this extra work against a ridiculous pressure of time, and I cannot believe that their approach to the work has been helped by the Minister's bullying attitude. It is not a very satisfactory approach and I do not think that he would regard it as a very apt way of showing his much-boasted love of local authorities. It is more like a love-hate relationship if in the early hours of the morning such threatening words have to be uttered.
      At this time the local authorities are looking at their budgets. I hope they have noticed that they can reclaim the cost of these schemes in due course, but it was not until 5th November that, in reply to a Question from me, the right hon. Gentleman made this absolutely clear in respect of land acquisition and management schemes, when he said that local authorities had been advised that as soon as the Bill received Royal Assent they would be directed to open land accounts. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform us that the local authorities had long been made aware of this. If they are being threatened, encouraged, incited or whatever it is to prepare these schemes, they might have been encouraged a little more had they been made aware of it much earlier.
      I do not think we should underestimate the task. Schedule 5 to the Bill explains what is required. It is immediately clear that there is a good deal of work involved in preparing a land acquisition and management scheme. One would hope that
      1350
      the first part, the co-ordination of action, would not require too much work by the local authorities, at least if they are capable of working happily together. The second part is the requirement that the scheme should include action under the Act. One is immediately led to wonder how local authorities are meant to deal with this aspect if they cannot know until tomorrow, perhaps, what land they will have to acquire, what will be exempt or excepted or whether there will be some new category introduced to confuse us still more.
      Mr. Michael Latham: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 5, which states
      "such other matters as the Secretary of State may direct"?
      These are also to be considered by the local authority in drawing up a land acquisition and management scheme. How are we to know between now and 31st December what those other matters are to be?
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is a most interesting sidelight on the preparation of schemes. It is rather like the South Sea Bubble to have words like "such other matters as I shall in due course direct". In other words, if one is lucky one's functions are not taken over by another authority, and if one is unlucky it will be Bootle to take over Brighton, or something like that. That is just another aspect of the scope of work that could be involved. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to expect this to be carried out by the State, to refuse to change his mind and then come to the House and change the burden of work which the local authorities will be expected to carry out and the various categories of development.
      I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should expect these LAMS, which we are led to believe are vital to the satisfactory operation of this legislation, to be prepared effectively against so much uncertainty about the type of land and development they are to cover, what special arrangements the Secretary of State will direct and a large number of other relevant matters which are subject to change as the Bill winds its comparatively weary way—
      Mr. Fairbairn Mr. Fairbairn rose—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. It would help if the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was allowed to make his speech and was not applauded before he makes it.
      Mr. Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend is not about to make a speech. I have given way to him.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that event, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will make his intervention.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend becomes too worried by the irritation among Government supporters about the Bill wending its weary way, he may care to recall the Russian proverb—which should suit Government supporters sitting below the Gangway—that every river eventually finds its way to the sea. When this Bill finds its way to the sea, every one will be at sea.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am always grateful to be reminded of Russian proverbs, because I do not regard myself as an authority on them, either in translation or in the original.
      I return to my point, and, although the Minister may profess surprise and even hilarity, it is a serious one. If we are to have this legislation, presumably we should all be interested in having it work as smoothly as such an appalling piece of legislation can be expected to work, with the local authorities given the best chance to bring it into operation smoothly and with the minimum of friction between the various levels of local government.
      Why, then, do we have to rush these important land acquisition and management schemes? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept that we are likely to get better schemes better prepared if more time is available? I ask him to recognise that it is unrealistic at this stage to expect local authorities to rush through these schemes by the date in the Bill. Most of us recognise that the date of 29th February suggested in the Lords amendment is a very modest amendment.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I remind my hon. Friend that Clause 16(4) says:
      "or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case."
      1352
      It may be that the Secretary of State intends later in this debate to indicate that he will consider rather a lot of special cases and that if the local authorities cannot meet the deadline he may give a general directive that the date be extended.
      2.15 a.m.
      Mr. Sainsbury: The Minister will give his right hon. Friend an additional burden unless he accepts this modest extension. It is a realistic change.
      The Lords amendment suggests that the scheme should be prepared by 29th February next year instead of by the end of this year. If we did not want next February, the February after that would probably be appreciated. However, if we have to keep to this date a large number of local authorities will have to rush because they will not know whether the Secretary of State will see fit to consider granting an extension in any particular case. Indeed, the Secretary of State has left himself little time to determine which, if any, special cases should be allowed. Moreover, he does not have the people to assess the situation. Therefore we shall rush schemes, and some of them will be bad schemes, because of this extraordinary reluctance to accept even the most modest amendment.
      I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter. We do not ask him to give way on an enormous matter of principle, but we ask him to recognise good sense.
      Mr. Peter Rees: I was not privileged to travel with the Minister over this ground before and therefore I did not originally intend to intervene. However, I have been so disturbed by the interventions from the Government Front Bench, which have been commendable only for their brevity, that perhaps a contribution might not be amiss.
      Even my untutored eyes, looking at the schedule to see what exactly is expected of a local authority, recognise that there is something wrong with the Bill.
      For those hon. Members who have not applied themselves as closely to Schedule 5 as my right hon. and hon. Friends, let me point out to them some of the things which are expected of local authorities

      1353
      over the next six weeks. For instance, they must review
      "the services of persons qualified and experienced in the acquisition, management, planning, development and disposal of land which are so available".
      After the development gains tax, the development land tax which is in prospect, and the whole reform of local government, where will these people with these considerable qualifications be found? Will they be found within the ranks of local government? Will they be poached from other authorities, or will they have to be drawn from private practice? What salaries will have to be offered to secure their services when they realise that this Bill can have only an ephemeral life? That is the first problem. The Minister has certainly not given me any reassurance on those matters. It may be that when he winds up this debate he will have something to say, but for the moment he has treated the House with less than courtesy. I am bound to give voice to my concern about this aspect of the matter.
      Schedule 5 paragraph 3 provides that
      "(1) Each scheme shall contain—

      (a) arrangements for the co-ordination of action by the authorities, including action under this Act".

      If we take as an example the Kent County Council, does that provision mean that it must consult every district council in Kent, of which there are many? How will it find time to do that? According to the Minister it only has six weeks. We also understand that each scheme shall contain,
      (b) arrangements, where appropriate, for the use by one authority of officers or servants employed by another authority".
      Does that mean that the chief executive of the Dover District Council may be loaned to Shepway to determine what land should be acquired and developed in that particular authority? That would cause considerable consternation in my constituency.
      Paragraph 3(c) provides that each scheme shall contain
      "where appropriate, provisions for the transfer of sums between authorities".
      This is most disturbing, because it will have a considerable effect on the rates charged in various areas. What kind of sums will be transferred, for instance, from Dover to Thanet? Those are the
      1354
      type of matters which my constituents will want to know about. So far I have heard nothing from the Minister concerning these matters. It may be that those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were privileged to serve on the Committee had the benefit of the Minister's views. I suggest that he should make more free of them to the whole House, because some of us have not had the benefit of his experience and advice upstairs.
      We then have,
      "arrangements for determining matters of dispute between the authorities".
      That opens up an important matter. The Minister envisages considerable friction as a result of the introduction of the Bill between the various district authorities in Kent, for instance, which have so far lived harmoniously. Before setting the district authorities by the ears and introducing disharmony, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give the county council a chance to work out the scheme with care and in detail. That cannot be done in six weeks.
      One can take a charitable view and say that the Minister is ignorant of what he is attempting to impose on county councils. But, more likely, he is arrogantly indifferent to what he is attempting to do.
      Mr. John Silkin Mr. John Silkin indicated assent.
      Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman nods assent. The House and, indeed, the country should take full account of that. After months of debate, when he had the benefit of the experience and carefully thought out views of my hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman blandly admits that he is arrogantly indifferent to what he is about to impose on an already overburdened local government structure.
      In fact, the matter is more sinister than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has already made the point that the Minister is seeking to take over the concoction of these plans. In other words, he is not proposing to leave any vestige of independence in this crucial area to the county councils. The right hon. Gentleman may take his own bland jocular view. We and the country must form our view. We have become accustomed to the notion that the Bill will be a constitutional outrage. Unless this modest amendment is accepted, I believe

      1355
      that it will be an administrative outrage as well.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I moved an amendment of this kind, though not with this date, when the Bill was before this House on the last occasion. Therefore, I support the Lords amendment.
      It seems common sense that the date 31st December, whether the Minister will extend it or not, should not appear in the Bill. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take the date which is to be applied to Scotland—1st April. Some people might think that a suitable date for the Bill. If 1st April is to apply to Scotland, why not to England?
      Local authorities do not have sufficient planning or estate management staff. For example, my county council has one estate manager and a couple of assistant clerks. For it to get a land acquisition and management scheme set up by anything like 31st December is not conceivable. The Bill is supposed to be flexible. Let us have some flexibility in this respect. It does not make sense as it is.
      If these things are to be done, we shall have to pay through the nose to get the necessary staff. I was recently approached by a district council to see whether I could get a visa for a Pakistani gentleman to join its planning staff. I do not suggest that the man had not the ability to do the job, but that shows the difficulty being experienced in getting staff.
      I vividly remember over a year ago advertisements for staff at a salary of £4,750. We got no replies to those advertisements. Indeed, we got no replies until the salary offered was near £6,000.
      The Minister must know as well as the rest of us that there is a great shortage of qualified planning staff. Perhaps the best thing we could do would be to go out and join planning teams. We could make fortunes if we did, but that would not do the country much good.
      It is nonsense to insist on 31st December. I believe that date will have to be extended, and the time to admit that is now.
      Mr. Lawrence: Surely the important part of this subsection is that which says:
      "…or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case."
      If the right hon. Gentleman is going to exercise his discretion responsibly and
      1356
      fairly, it follows that the date "not later than 31st December" may be no less unreasonable than any other, but if it is not, it is important to seek to get him to change it. I do not know in what circumstances the Secretary of State is likely to agree a later date in any particular case. I am not aware that he has yet stated the circumstances in which he would use his discretion.
      What troubles me is that, when given the opportunity to explain himself more fully, he made it absolutely clear that he would not exercise his discretion to extend a local authority's time: what he would do is move in some other organisation which would be prepared to ensure that these matters are concluded by 31st December. His hon. Friend said on 13th October that if it were not prepared to do this by 31st December, the Minister would do it: that he had a good deal of power in the matter—[Interruption.] I am dealing with the Minister's intention. If he intends to be fair-minded and to use his discretion judicially, the question is different, but if he is manifesting a positive desire to be unjudicial, we must think again.
      Mr. Sainsbury: In six weeks the Minister or the Secretary of State has to decide whether it is right to act in this manner by granting an extension. I fail to see how this discretion can be exercised fairly and judicially when there is so little time to determine whether an extension should be granted in any particular case. That is surely one of the best reasons for arguing that there should be at least a modest general extension if for no other reason than to allow him to determine how he can best find the cases in which a longer extension can then be granted.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful. Of course it is not just a matter of six weeks. There will be five days for Christmas and five weekends, so that is at least 15 days off the 42 days which may be left. We are talking about 25 or 27 days in which the local authorities must come to these arrangements.
      I can see a difficulty which might emerge in some areas. Some Labour-controlled county councils may not see eye to eye immediately over these schemes with some Conservative or Conservative and independent controlled district councils and vice versa.
      Mr. Budgen: Is not my hon. Friend being rather mealy-mouthed about this? There must be people in the Civil Service with the same attitude as the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore). It will be easy: all objections will be disregarded, anyone who gets in the way will be walked over, a decision will be taken as quickly as possible and everyone will be told he must cither like it or lump it.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that I am being mealy-mouthed. That is not an accusation that is usually levelled at me. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can in the face of implacable opposition from the Labour Party. If the conclusion to which we come is that it is the height of ridiculous absurdity to suppose that these matters can be settled with agreement and reasonable comprehensiveness and comprehension within the space of 27 days, and if the Minister is going to send in his other authorities, if he can find them and the wherewithal to do it, the position is quite clear: the words to which I have referred—
      "…or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case"—
      are just verbiage. They are the velvet glove behind which the mailed fist of Socialism is wearing holes.
      We have heard and read the contention of Ministers that this Government have great concern for local authorities. If the Government are not prepared to allow local authorities ample time to make arrangements, they are showing their contempt for these authorities and this should be made clear to the public.
      If it is being suggested that local authorities should be puppets on the string of a Socialist State, we all know where we are and we shall be able, with greater agreement, to support the Lords amendment and show that we, at least, want to see some sense put into this senseless, doctrinaire and tyrannical piece of legislation.
      Mr Daniel Awdry: I have been listening to this debate for five hours and I have not always agreed with the line taken by my hon. Friends on some amendments, particularly the proposal relating to legal aid. However, this amendment is an important test case.
      1358
      The Minister has a great reputation in local government. I have spent many years in local government and I know of the immense problems it is facing, especially with the reorganisation and the current economic situation.
      We are talking about just two months in the history of our country. We want the date put back because the Bill has moved a little more slowly than expected and therefore local authorities will need a little more time to prepare their plans. What could be more reasonable?
      If the Minister does not move on this amendment, I have serious doubts about us making progress tonight.
      2.30 a.m.
      Mr. Graham Page: The Minister will earn the good will of the House if he chooses this as the amendment on which to give way.
      It is a very practicable amendment. The Bill says that LAMSs shall be prepared, but this is a bit of a farce. The Minister tells us that, as far as he is concerned, they have been prepared while his noble Friend in another place said there was no information on how many of these LAMSs had been prepared for the slaughter of the property owner. The LAM-ing season seems a little short this year. Local authorities are supposed to have the schemes ready within the next 30 working days. This is a complete farce.
      We suspect that considerable time and money has already been spent in drawing up schemes in anticipation of what might be in the Bill. Neither we nor local authorities even know what directions the Secretary of State will give under Schedule 5.
      On the last occasion this subject was debated, we were told that if local authorities had not prepared schemes by 31st December, the Secretary of State would do the work. But what staff has the Secretary of State to do this work? Has he already engaged staff? If so, where are they? Are they tucked away in Marsham Street? Or will he take busy civil servants off other work to do the job that local authorities cannot do because he has not given them enough time?
      The amendment is practical and this cannot be a party matter. Local authorities are obliged to prepare these

      1359
      schemes and it is a matter of pure practical sense to give them more time to do so.
      Mr. Budgen: I wish to make only a brief intervention. The Minister seems to be facing a difficult time. He has to organise this scheme within six weeks. He will have to recruit staff to go through the long process of consultation and preparation. He will have to do that through the Civil Service. Sometimes my hon. Friends are critical of the Civil Service, but it has acquired a great reputation for steady conscientious work in which there has seldom been any suspicion of carelessness or dictatorial behaviour, far less of corruption.
      But the Civil Service is totally unsuited to getting all this work done in six weeks. It will take a vigorous dictator to kick people very hard, to knock them about and tell them what is to be done. Perhaps the Department could pay one of the Minister's Friends from the Tribune Group to act as a civil servant to get this done. He is the sort of chap who will kick everybody in the teeth and tell anyone who objects to belt up or he will kick them into the ground. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could get the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to bash the proposal through in six weeks.
      We therefore want to know whether the Minister can obtain any of these useful and charming persons to help him in the judicial and civilised mode of government that he advocates.
      Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I wish to reinforce the views expressed by my hon. Friend. I must comment on the excellence of the drafting of the amendment in another place. It was certainly most expertly done and I am sure the whole House would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord who moved it.
      I rise, however, to ask the Government why they are in such a hurry. What would be the disadvantage of delaying for a few weeks the completion of the schemes? The Prime Minister has told us that it will now for ever be the natural order of things for there to be a Labour Government. If that is so, why the hurry? Could we not wait until 1984? Why not wait until the schemes are prepared? We should still by then have the same
      1360
      Prime Minister and the same obdurate Minister for Planning and Local Government sitting on the Front Bench smirking and refusing to budge an inch.
      Are the Government worried that things are not going very well? Do they fear that perhaps the popular support of 29 per cent. of the electorate who put them into power is slipping away from them? Are the sands of time running out? Do the Government feel that they must hurry and grab people's property before they are prevented from doing so? Is that why these six weeks are so important? There are only 25 shopping days left to Christmas and it is not possible for the local authorities to complete their plans in time. My own local authority has made this point to me. What is to be lost by another few weeks? Why cannot the Minister for once say "I agree with what the Opposition have said. We shall make this small concession"?
      I do not know how the plans will be implemented. Who will implement them. Which people at present doing nothing are available to put the plans through if local authorities drag their feet?
      The reputation of the House is diminishing as Governments put through absurd Bills at such hours as 2.40 a.m. and refuse to listen to reasonable, sensible suggestions which would ameliorate the effect of the Bill. If the Government want this legislation to stick on the statute book, they should do everything they can to make this side of the House accept it. Admittedly, there is a long way to go, but this would be a little start along the road, late in the day. Such a conversion would at least show willing and a co-operative attitude.
      The Bill will be repealed. The crash is not very far away. A borrowing of £975 million was announced a few days ago, and probably the Government will have no majority in the coming Session. The sands of time are running out. That is why the Government want to get the scheme by 31st December
      Would it not have been better for the Government to be a little more conciliatory, and to show a little less of the attitude that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best? The Government would have done better to be a little less dictatorial and accept some of the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

      1361
      Why do not the Government wish their legislation to stick, and seek co-operation? A little of the spirit they advocate for industry might very well have been imported into the Bill.
      Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend's speech is so fascinating that I should like to hear him dilate at greater length. Would he care to consider that the answer to one of his questions is that the Government have given a pledge to some union that this legislation will be in by 1st January 1976?
      Mr. Ridley: It is not for me to speculate, or to dilate, which is something I would never seek to do. The question should be put not to me but to the Minister. Was the date of New Year's Eve part of the social contract? Does the small print that has not been shown to us contain that date as the date by which the plans must be completed? If so, we can happily accept the amendment, because the social contract is a busted flush. It has been torn up by one party to it, so we, too, can tear it up. All the sacrifices made by everyone who is not a member of a trade union have stuck, whereas the sacrifices the trade unions were supposed to make have been welshed upon.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend has a great deal of knowledge of the way in which the Civil Service works. Will he comment on whether it is possible for the Civil Service to push through the work that is involved in six weeks, or whether it will have to hire some of the gauleiters of the Tribune Group to do its dirty work?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is going a little wide in his interventions. The Chair fails to see how the hon. Member's last intervention fits into the argument.
      2.45 a.m.
      Mr. Ridley: Nothing would worry me more than to see the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), whose usual diligency has deserted him, removed from his profit under the Crown. We would no longer be able to see the living example of Socialism and to heat his pearls of wisdom and good sense day after day. We would be deprived
      1362
      not only of the pleasure of seeing and hearing him, but of hearing the true nature of the threat which he poses to our society. I very much hope that it will not be the hon. Gentleman who will implement this plan.
      I hope that the Minister will see sense at this late hour. I know that he has ready his bucket and spade to go off tomorrow to some sunny shore to relax after the strenuous time that he has had with the Bill. My hon. Friends are prepared to give up their hare coursing to stay here through tomorrow. It is no disadvantage to us if he has to delay his holiday. On the other hand, he might get away very much more easily if he were to make one small concession.
      If we were to seek to make major pieces of legislation such as this more or less acceptable to both sides we would not have the in-and-out on-and-off processes that we have seen with the betterment levy, the Land Commission and now this silly Bill, one after another. If only the Government could understand that it is necessary even for Socialist Governments to legislate by consent. They could start at this late hour by accepting the excellent amendment in the name of Lord Ridley.
      Mr. Keith Speed: During this debate many questions have been put to the Minister. I hope that he will answer them. So far not one voice has been raised in support of the Minister, unless we count all the antediluvian grunts from below the Government Front Bench, which I do not. In any event, the source of those grunts has now disappeared.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has said—I accept his mathematics—that we have very few days, assuming the Bill is enacted, before 31st December. In that short time the local authorities have to do a great deal of work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has said, why is there this great hurry? What is so magical about 31st December except that the following day is a Bank Holiday? I would not have thought that that in itself was particularly magical. I could have understood it if we had been arguing, as was being argued earlier, that we should have a six month delay.

      1363
      It will not have escaped notice that in May of next year there are to be many district elections throughout the country. In those elections the Labour Party will be annihilated. We shall gain control of Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham, to name but three cities. We can easily understand why the Minister wants things to happen before those happy events come to pass.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us the meaning of the phrase in subsection (4):
      "or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case".
      Does he envisage anything contained within that phrase being activated by him or by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? Secondly, is it correct that the first appointed day will be 5th April? Statements have been made on this matter in the other place, but we should like the date to be confirmed in this House.
      The subject of staff has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members—including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) in a succinct speech in which he stressed the importance of manpower and staffing considerations. Local authority staff are engaged in preparing structure plans and local plans. They are also trying to cope with nearly 500 circulars sent out in the first nine months of this year by four major Departments of State. Additionally, they have to cope with the counterinflation and consumer protection proposals, and also with the circulars relating to the cuts in expenditure. This work will place a heavy strain on chief officers in local authorities and also on committee chairmen and councillors. Furthermore, in a little over a week or so the Secretary of State will be announcing his conclusions on the rate support grant, which also will impose a tremendous amount of work on senior staff and councillors. All this is happening at a time when local authorities have only a month or so left before they reach the end of the year.
      The Minister has often spoken about the good will of local government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham
      1364
      (Mr. Awdry) dealt with this aspect. As a Government Whip at the time I well remember how both sides, in a genuine love of local government, worked together on the Local Government Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was also heavily involved in that work. I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will show good will and flexibility to the local authorities.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that by 31st December this year it will be physically impossible for district, borough and county councils to consider reports submitted to them by their officers, to carry out consultations, and to submit plans or schemes for each area?
      Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend makes a practical point. He was at one time my county councillor, and he knows that county authorities are now undertaking a cycle of meetings at a time when an abnormally heavy work-load is falling upon their shoulders. The Government will lose nothing by showing flexibility in this matter and I hope that, even in a Bill as bad as the present one, they will display some vestige of good will.
      Having heard the powerful arguments advanced from various sides of the House—[Interruption.] We are dealing with dedicated, professional people and elected representatives trying to cope with a great deal of legislation. They have many problems, not of their own making. It does no one any good to giggle at such things. Will the Minister look at this again? I am sure that he is not trying to dictate to local authorities. What he said a month ago was unfortunate but let us put that behind us. Let him listen to the views of the House and accept this amendment. Let him show us that the good will he has spoken about is real.
      Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) always speaks with moderation, understanding and intelligence. It is necessary to treat the points he puts forward with considerable gravity. They are important and they will be dealt with. Perhaps I can deal first with one or two points that were not of such a high level. First, there was the curious attack made on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It was a silly attack because I have to accept the fact, reluctantly, that my right hon. Friend was on

      1365
      record long before me as being in favour of the public ownership of development land. It was rather childish to say that he was half-hearted about this. It is almost beyond comprehension.
      The other childish argument was that because this Bill has come late in the Session it must mean that the date of the LAMS must be pushed forward. It it childish, because anyone who went through those long days and nights in Committee knows perfectly well that at the beginning the Opposition were moving amendments to alter the date of the LAMS. At that time they might have thought that the Bill would be delayed. As far as the Government were concerned everything was on course.
      Mr. Sainsbury Mr. Sainsbury rose—
      Mr. Silkin: No, I will not give way. I am dealing with the trivialities. I want to get to the important point. Let me get the trivialities out of the way, the stupid points, so that I may deal with the serious points made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Ashford. I have to answer their points because they concern the important case. That case is that between today and the 31st December there is insufficient time for authorities to get together for the making of the schemes embodied in the land acquisition management schemes. If that is so, how is it that local authorities managed to get together some time ago? [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] I cannot give that information to the House. At the moment the schemes are unofficial. The hon. Gentleman should know after all these months that the LAMS have to be made by 31st December. They will not officially be given to the Secretary of State until after that date.
      3.0 a.m.
      Mr. Michael Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that he knows that many local authorities have produced LAMS. Yet he does not know how many have put forward schemes and how many have not.
      Mr. Silkin: I am saying that a large number of local authorities have told me—
      Mr. Michael Latham: How many?
      Mr. Silkin: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman giving the information. I do not have it off the cuff.
      Mr. Latham: In an interview with the Estates Times on 7th November the right hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying:
      "I have evidence even from some of the most reactionary Conservative authorities that they are ready at this very moment to start implementing this legislation."
      The House wants to know what is that evidence.
      Mr. Silkin: The evidence is that the local authorities have told me so.
      Mr. Latham: How many?
      Mr. Silkin: I have promised to write to the hon. Gentleman. A very large number of authorities have agreed their LAMS. They do not have to make them until 31st December, and they do not have to submit them until after that date. That is the position under the Bill.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Silkin: No, he will not:
      "never shake thy gory locks at me."
      That is not bad for this hour in the morning.
      Mr. Ridley: I did not notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you had shaken your gory locks at the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Silkin: No one could possibly accuse you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of having gory locks.
      As so many local authorities have been able to agree their LAMS, why should there be this difficulty? The local authority associations knew as long ago as last November that they would have to make their LAMS and they got on with it. Some fell behind because they came across genuine difficulties which could not be avoided. That occurred in surprisingly few cases. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and Chippenham can be reassured that in those cases of course my right hon. Friend is prepared, and understandably so, to give what latitude he possibly can give. There has never been any secret about this. Of course he has the power, and he will willingly use it.

      1367
      The question was what would happen if there were authorities which, for one reason or another, perhaps encouraged, perhaps off their own bats, deliberately, when they could have got on with their schemes, avoided doing so. What would any sensible Secretary of State do? He would use his powers.
      That is what I was saying, not in anger or, I hope, bullyingly or hectoringly in the early hours of the morning. If hon. Members care to check, they will find that I used the word "deliberately", because I was talking about authorities that deliberately behaved in this manner.
      Mr. Peter Rees: Why constitutionally should any county authority take any action of any kind to set up LAMS before the Bill is passed?
      Mr. Fairbairn: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain two things? First, if he wants to introduce a piece of tyrannical bureaucracy called land acquisition and management schemes, why does he not use the filthy words and stop corrupting the language by saying LAMS? Secondly, before the Bill—which, God help us, I pray will never be passed—by what right has he been encouraging local authorities to indulge in schemes that may never come into being? It is quite wrong that he should suggest that they should have been doing so at this time.
      Mr. Silkin: I just have to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is it not a bit of a mouthful to keep saying land acquisition and management schemes? We live in an age of abbreviations and initials and I feel as innocent as a new-born lamb in defending that one.
      I regret to say that I do not see what on earth the hon. and learned Gentleman is driving at in his second criticism. If one has any consultation with local authorities—and I have told the House that there have been more consultations with local authorities about this than about any other Bill ever produced—it follows that the whole position must be put to them and that they must be made aware of it and that they should make such plans and preparations as are neces
      1368
      sary. The right hon. Member for Crosby knows perfectly well that, when he was introducing his Local Government Bill, he was having consultations with local authorities. I do not think that he had as many as I have had, but he had consultations.
      Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about consultations with local authority associations. It is clear that two of them, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils, asked for extensions. Has the right hon. Gentleman any comments to make about that?
      Mr. Silkin: I hate to reveal matters that may or may not be confidential, but perhaps I shall in this case. There was one member of one association—if I do not identify it, that may help—who at the last meeting about a month ago was asked whether he was in favour of an extension of time. I wanted to find out what the feeling was, not among those deliberately thwarting the scheme, but among those who might get into some difficulty, and there are some who might. He wanted an extension, from 31st December to 31st January. Some thought that we should keep to 31st December, but nobody thought that we should go further than he asked. I find that an interesting situation. I do not know whether I have broken a confidence, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have.
      But the hour is getting late and I feel that we should come to a decision on this matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
      Mr. Silkin: No. I have given way eight times. It is enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] Of course it is enough. I cannot imagine any Tory Minister who would have given way so often. Let us make a decision now. Let us make it once and for all. If we stick to the date of 31st December, those who are gone ahead and made their LAMS and those who have been awaiting our decision will be able to get on with the job. For those who are unable to get ahead, there is still the discretion of the Secretary of State. Let us get a move on and get going.
      Mr. Awdry: The right hon. Gentleman, probably inadvertently, has failed to reply on the question of the first appointed day. Will he confirm what was said in another place?
      Mr. Silkin: I can confirm what Lady Birk said. It will not be before 1st April.
      Mr. Budgen: By leave of the House, I want to raise one point that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman spoken on this amendment?
      Mr. Budgen: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once is enough.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I regret that the Minister was not prepared to give way to me, because there is one point on which I should like clarification. He clearly said that a number of local authorities were in a position to present their schemes to the Department. Is he implying that certain officers of local authorities have indicated to him that they have given some thought to schemes, or that those schemes have passed through committees and are therefore council policy?
      If the right hon. Gentleman is saying the latter, I do not believe there is very much behind what he says because, if one has followed the Press and local authority meetings, one finds that there has been little or no mention of these LAMS. If that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman is sadly misleading the House, because I do not believe that many elected members of local authorities have considered these LAMS, which are so important and must be submitted to the Department by the end of the year.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comment on this aspect. Having been in local government for a number of years, I am aware of the procedures of local authorities. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether the schemes he has mentioned with some local authorities say they are in a position to send have been considered by the elected members? Does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to answer me?
      Hon. Members: Answer.
      3.15 a.m.
      Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little tetchy. I do not blame him. He has been out of bed for three hours or so. I was proposing to get up, but it so happens that I have a bad leg and it takes me a little longer to get up than it takes him to do so. Hon. Members opposite know that to be so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Very well, in that case I do not answer.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order.
      Mr. Durant: There is an important point, I feel, that perhaps has not been covered. We have heard from the Minister that a number of local authorities have prepared land acquisition and management schemes. If this Bill does not become an Act, who will have to make good the money that may have been spent in making the preparations for these schemes?
      Mr. Ridley: Would my hon. Friend not agree that if money has been spent in bringing forward these schemes and the Bill does not become an Act—it is very likely that it will not—somebody will be surcharged if the district auditor gets on to it? This is a very good reason for a council never spending money on the preparation of a scheme until a Bill has become an Act of Parliament. It would seem to me that only the very improvident councils will have done anything at all.
      Mr. Durant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. What also slightly worries me on this same aspect is that it is a very serious matter in local government when the district auditor comes in. We have had instances of this type of action and it is something that this House should deprecate.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Whether or not the Bill becomes law, the expenditure of funds on the preparation of such a scheme by any local authority would be without authority. The district auditor should surcharge any such authority regardless of whether the Bill becomes law, because money would have been spent without legislative authority.
      Mr. Durant: That may be so. A local authority will have stopped doing other

      1371
      things in order to be busy preparing a land acquisition and management scheme. With all the officers busy doing this work, the normal planning applications would have to be put on one side.
      Mr. Budgen: It may be that the Government now believe that retrospective legislation should be the norm rather than the exception.
      Mr. Durant: I do not wish to enter into that controversy. This is a serious matter. There has been an inference by the Minister that many local authorities—even right-wing Conservative local authorities—have been preparing land acquisition and management schemes at public expense. This concerns me, because I do not believe that it should be happening.
      Mr. Stephen Hastings: We are getting into something of a muddle. We are now faced with a position in which numbers of local authorities have been acting illegally. Are we now to be faced with a Bill to indemnify the local authorities which have been making illegal preparations for a Bill which is not enacted? Presumably it is to be done retrospectively. Otherwise the muddle will be compounded yet again. That is the first thing that strikes me as being unclear. We should have an explanation before we allow our deliberations to go any further.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a perfectly reasonable point. He asked the Minister a specific question, and the Minister rose and said that he thought that my hon. Friend was being tetchy.
      Mr. Winterton: Not me. The Minister was being tetchy.
      Mr. Hastings: The Minister then complained that it takes him some time to get up to speak because of his bad leg. We entirely sympathise with that. But he was just about to answer this clear and specific question, or so I understood, when suddenly he sat down and said that he would not say any more. Who is being tetchy?
      Here we are, trying to get to the bottom of this ludicrous situation, doing our best patiently to understand what is at stake, and we have a Minister who said earlier that he had given way eight times and that was enough. It is not for him or for
      1372
      any other Minister to ration the number of times that he gives way on this or any other serious question. We are here to examine this legislation.
      I see that the Minister looks rather less tetchy now. Perhaps we shall have his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, less tetchiness, and a little more patience. We need time to examine this legislation. I hope that we can expect to have our questions answered fully.
      Mr. David Crouch: I did not intend to intervene, but I have been listening for the past hour to pleas being made to the Minister to listen to arguments which have been put to him, as he admitted, in a reasonable and responsible way.
      The right hon. Gentleman began to answer in a reasonable and responsible way. Then he came to the point where he said that he had had consultations with the local authorities, as was his custom and as he felt was the custom of his predecessors in the Conservative Government. He said that he felt that it was a proper responsibility on his part to have extensive consultations and he told us about his consultations with the County Councils Association and the Association of District Councils.
      Tonight, we have asked the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the responsible advice resulting from consultations which Opposition Members have had, and it all seems to be asking him whether he will not give two months more. The right hon. Gentleman said that such a representation had been made to him, and he added that in confidence one of the associations had asked not for two months but for a one-month extension. It so happens that I am a vice-president of the district councils association, so I am concerned to know which of them made that request. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had dismissed this representation, just as he has dismissed the representation which was made to him by Opposition Members.
      The Minister has been tetchy and less than courteous to the House. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) was always responsible and reasonable. Unfortunately, we have had no such responsive reasonableness from the right hon. Gentleman. I

      1373
      thought that he was such a person. I have seen him in his office, and I have always felt that he was such a person. But tonight he is letting down himself and his whole Government in the utterly intractable position that he is adopting.
      I have not heard a single loose speech in this debate. It has all been constructive argument. We have not asked him for another year. He said that in Committee he had been asked for another year. Tonight, he has been asked for two months. He has turned down our request. He has not even bothered to answer the request for one month.
      Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps I can suggest why the Minister has not answered. It has been said that local government has been spending this money wrongly, but it will get complete compensation from the Exchequer. We have been constantly assured that local authorities will not expend a penny—they will get all the money back. Will this be paid out from the Exchequer in compensation for something which has been paid out illegally under the Bill?
      Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I shall finish my speech so that the Minister can answer the question.
      Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) pointed out that when he went to see the Minister in his office he found him more patient and reasonable.
      Mr. Ridley: That is the best place for him.
      Mr. Hastings: As my hon. Friend says, that is the best place for him. However, if that is so, would it not be in our general interest to adjoin now and all go to see the Minister in his office?
      Mr. Crouch: I am being awakened by the remarks of my hon. Friend, but I do not want to see the Minister in his office. I want the Minister to give us an answer now. He has dismissed all the pleas from the back benches. He has completely ignored the arguments put to him from the Front Benches and he has let us down at the middle stage of our debate. I am very disappointed in his performance tonight. I hope that he will now seek an opportunity, by leave of the House,
      1374
      to answer the questions which have been put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
      Mr. Peyton: I certainly had no intention of addressing the House tonight. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government Front Bench may laugh their heads off. We have time and they look good and sound better that way.
      I do not want to make a long speech, but I invite the Minister to rise to his feet. I know that we all can get rather irritated at this late hour, and he must be very tired having borne the burden of this horrid Bill for so long. He must long to shed the weight of it from his shoulders. However, I hope that he now feels that the time has come when he would be well advised to get to his feet and answer the points put to him by my hon. Friends, and especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who put his question very quietly and temperately.
      I hope that I can tempt the Minister, who is now revealing more of his normal characteristic good nature, mirth and cordiality, to rise to his feet and deal with these points. If he does not do so the time may come when I shall ask your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to move a dilatory motion in order that my hon. and right hon. Friends may have an opportunity to discuss whether we should continue to debate this subject at this hour, in view of the Minister's unwillingness to answer a question which has been put to him with such brevity and reasonableness.
      I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude and now rise to his feet. Failing that, I should like to give notice that it will be my intention to seek your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to move a motion to adjourn the House.
      Hon. Members: Answer.
      3.30 a.m.
      Mr. Cormack: If the Minister is suffering from some infirmity of the legs perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would allow him to address us sitting down? All we want is an answer. The Minister is well known for his geniality. It is lovely to see him beaming again and recovered from that fit of tetchiness which alarmed us all. He quoted Macbeth. We should

      1375
      like to say, "Out, damned Bill! out, I say!"
      Mr. Hastings: And
      "Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
      Mr. Cormack: Yes, that too. We should like the Minister to address us from a "recumbent posture", like Albert and the Lion, if he cannot stand at the Dispatch Box. One is tempted to think that he is so bemused by the LAMS that he remembers the biblical quotation,
      "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth".
      It is about time the Minister opened his mouth because many points have been put to him forcefully, yet moderately. People are concerned for the good name of the Government of this country. One might say, "Would that we had a Governor-General."
      I hope that the Minister will heed what has been said. People who are earnestly concerned, deeply troubled and have the good name of local government at heart, are looking to the Minister, as the custodian of the rights of local government, to give reasonable answers to reasonable questions. If he will not give those answers, I think that the House should adjourn until he feels able to do so.
      Mr. John Silkin: It is quite a new sensation for me to receive cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, I take them as a small tribute for my introduction of the Bill and for the fact that it is moving towards Royal Assent. I am glad that they have also become converted to it.
      I gather that the one point to which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) wished me to reply was that made by the right hon. Member of Crosby (Mr. Page). Am I right?
      Mr. Peyton Mr. Peyton indicated assent.
      Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Member for Crosby, if I understood him correctly, asked how, if local authorities were making LAMS before the appointed day—he felt that would be illegal, though on what basis he did not say—the payments could be justified.
      The right hon. Gentleman, who knows his own Local Government Act 1972—
      1376
      at least I hope he does—knows that anything which, in the opinion of the authority, is of advantage to the area is a justifiable expense.
      I thought I had made that clear to the right hon. Gentleman—I was really talking to him at that moment—when I said that the LAMS were not due to be made until 31st December and not due to be submitted until after that date. That is why the LAMS as such have not been made now. They cannot be made until 31st December.
      Mr. Graham Page: I obviously did not put my question clearly. Throughout the debates on the Bill we understood that the local authorities would be able to reclaim from the Exchequer their administrative expenses of implementing the Bill.
      Mr. Silkin: Yes.
      Mr. Graham Page: I presumed that would cover the administrative expenses of preparing the LAMS before the Bill received Royal Assent, thereby compensating local authorities for what my hon. Friends have suggested was an illegal expenditure by them.
      Mr. Silkin: It is not an illegal expenditure, as we have just established. From Royal Assent until 31st December onwards, yes. The right hon. Gentleman will probably know that Sections 161 and 267—there are probably others—of the 1972 Act would justify the expenditure. It is not illegal.
      Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make one point clear? I understood him to say that the LAMS are not due to be made until 31st December. I cannot see the basis for that in the Bill, because it provides:
      "The scheme shall be prepared not later than 31st December."
      That is a quite different matter.
      Mr. Silkin: I do not think it is a different matter. Furthermore, if the hon. Gentleman looks ahead, he will see that, though they may have to be made, they do not have to be submitted to the Secretary of State at that time.
      Mr. Speed: In a Written Answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for

      1377
      Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "Local authorities have been advised that as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent they will be directed to open land accounts. Costs incurred in the preparation of LAMS both before and after enactment can then be charged to these accounts."—[Official Report, 5th November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 198.]
      I take the point about the Local Government Act. But surely this is a different point. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that they can be reimbursed centrally before and after enactment? This seems an important point.
      Mr. Silkin: I made that clear. There is every reason and authority for them to do so.

      Division No. 400.]

      AYES

      [3.35 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Doig, Peter

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Allaun, Frank

      Dormand, J. D.

      John, Brynmor

      Anderson, Donald

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Archer, Peter

      Dunn, James A.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Armstrong. Ernest

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Ashley, Jack

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ashton, Joe

      Edge, Geoff

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Judd, Frank

      Atkinson, Norman

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      English, Michael

      Kelley, Richard

      Bates, Alf

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Kerr, Russell

      Bean, R. E.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lambie, David

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Boardman, H.

      Flannery, Martin

      Lamond, James

      Booth, Albert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Forrester, John

      Lee, John

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Buchan, Norman

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Litterick, Tom

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      George, Bruce

      Luard, Evan

      Campbell, Ian

      Ginsburg, David

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Golding, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Cant, R. B.

      Gould, Bryan

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Carmichael, Neil

      Gourlay, Harry

      McCartney, Hugh

      Carter, Ray

      Graham, Ted

      McElhone, Frank

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Cartwright, John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Coleman, Donald

      Hardy, Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Concannon, J. D.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Madden, Max

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hatton, Frank

      Magee, Bryan

      Corbett, Robin

      Hayman, Mrs Helens

      Mahon, Simon

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cronin, John

      Hooley, Frank

      Marquand, David

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Horam, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Cryer, Bob

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whitech)

      Huckfield, Les

      Meacher, Michael

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Millan, Bruce

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hunter, Adam

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Deakins, Eric

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Molloy, William

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Moonman, Eric

      Delargy, Hugh

      Janner, Greville

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Dempsey, James

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would the Minister answer my point about whether the schemes which he has suggested are available for submission to his Department have been considered by the elected members of the councils concerned?
      Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman will have to learn a little patience. As we come to 31st December, he will find that I was right and he was wrong.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 248.

      Moyle, Roland

      Sandelson, Neville

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Urwin, T. W.

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Selby, Harry

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Newens, Stanley

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Noble, Mike

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Ogden, Eric

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Ward, Michael

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Watkins, David

      Orbach, Maurice

      Sillars, James

      Watkinson, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Silverman, Julius

      Weetch, Ken

      Ovenden, John

      Small, William

      Wellbeloved, James

      Owen, Dr David

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Spearing, Nigel

      White, James (Pollok)

      Park, George

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Parker, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Whitlock, William

      Parry, Robert

      Stoddart David

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Stott, Roger

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Radice, Giles

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Swain, Thomas

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Woodall, Alec

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Woof, Robert

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tinn, James

      Roper, John

      Tomlinson, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Rose, Paul B.

      Tomney, Frank

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. Thomas Cox.

      Rowlands, Ted

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Holland, Philip

      Alison, Michael

      Dunlop, John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Arnold, Tom

      Durant, Tony

      Hordern, Peter

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Awdry, Daniel

      Elliott, Sir William

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Emery, Peter

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Banks, Robert

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hunt, John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hurd, Douglas

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Benyon, W.

      Fell, Anthony

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Biffen, John

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Body, Richard

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fox, Marcus

      Jopling, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Freud, Clement

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fry. Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Brittan, Leon

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Goodhart, Philip

      Knox, David

      Buck, Antony

      Goodhew, Victor

      Lamont, Norman

      Budgen, Nick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gorst, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Burden, F. A.

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Carlisle, Mark

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Carson, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Loveridge, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Grieve, Percy

      Luce, Richard

      Channon, Paul

      Griffiths, Eldon

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Churchill, W. S.

      Grist, Ian

      McCrindle, Robert

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Grylls, Michael

      McCusker, H.

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hall, Sir John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      MacGregor, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Cockcroft, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hannam, John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Cope, John

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Madel, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon. Miss

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Costain, A. P.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Marten, Neil

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mather, Carol

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Maude, Angus

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Heseltine, Michael

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hicks, Robert

      Mawby, Ray

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Raison, Timothy

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rathbone, Tim

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mills, Peter

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Stokes, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Moate, Roger

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Molyneaux, James

      Ridsdale. Julian

      Tebbit, Norman

      Monro, Hector

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Trotter, Neville

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Mudd, David

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Neave, Airey

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Wakeham, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Scott, Nicholas

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Newton, Tony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Nott, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wall, Patrick

      Onslow, Cranley

      Shepherd, Colin

      Walters, Dennis

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Sims, Roger

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wells, John

      Pardoe, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Penhaligon, David

      Speed, Keith

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Percival, Ian

      Spence, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Younger, Hon George

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Sproat, Iain

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Stainton, Keith

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson and

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Stanley, John

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

    Schedule 5

      LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
      Lords Amendment: No. 80, in page 72, line 37, leave out "direct all the" and insert:
      "after consulting all the authorities direct those".
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may consider Lords Amendment No. 96.
      Mr. Oakes: The amendments require the Secretary of State, before directing authorities to devise a land acquisition and management scheme, to consult those authorities. It was always envisaged—indeed, it is essential—that that would
      1382
      be done. But the Opposition in another place suggested that it would be helpful to write the provision into the Bill. It is only writing into the Bill that which would naturally happen, and therefore we see no reason not to concur with the Lords.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 82, in page 73, line 9, at end insert—
      "(2) As soon as practicable after a scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every parish council whose area comprises any part of the county area.
      (3) As respects Scotland sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply but, in the case of a scheme made or revised for the area of a general planning authority, that authority shall send as soon as practicable a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every district council whose district comprises any part of that area."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in subsection (2), leave out "county area" and insert
      "area of the county authority".
      I shall be asking the House to agree with the Lords amendment, but that amendment was slightly defective.

      1383
      The Lords amendment requires that when a land acquisition and management scheme has been made or revised the county authority shall send copies of the scheme to parish councils in the area, or that in Scotland where a scheme is made or revised by a general planning authority that authority shall send copies of the scheme to district councils in the area.
      The amendment follows a point raised by the Opposition in the other place and simply repeats for land acquisition and management schemes something that is already provided for in Schedule 8, where there is provision for a declaration of a disposal notification area. It will thus help to keep local authorities which are not authorities for the purposes of the land scheme informed of the arrangements for implementing the scheme in their areas, which is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to see. This gives effect to the Lords amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 17

      GENERAL DUTIES
      Lords Amendment: No. 83, in page 16, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert
      "the desirability—

      (a) of securing the proper planning of their area and

      (b) of bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land themselves or of making it available for development by others in accordance with such planning."

      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Raison: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the Lords amendment, leave out from 'area' to end.
      It is our intention to leave out the whole of paragraph (b)—namely, to delete:
      "the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership"
      as one of the criteria for local authorities in the exercise of their functions. This would leave only
      "the desirability of securing the proper planning of their area"
      in the exercise of their functions.
      1384
      In another place their Lordships originally carried an amendment which reversed the order of the two requirements in the Bill and included the word "then" at the end of the planning consideration. In other words, the amendment from another place provided that every authority
      "shall have regard to (a) the desirability of securing the proper planning of their area and then (b) the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership."
      Their Lordships later agreed to the dropping of the word "then". I have asked myself why they agreed to that, but it has become apparent that they took the view that it was not for them to try to undermine one of the principles of the Bill. I have no such inhibition. We are concerned with a thoroughly odious principle. The manuscript amendment seeks to establish clearly and unequivocally the overwhelming priority of planning and to do away with the ownership consideration.
      Of course, we are also discussing Lords Amendment No. 83. I support their Lordships in saying that if we are to have the ownership criterion it should follow rather than precede the planning criterion. I should point out that Baroness Birk said:
      "we are prepared to accept the Amendment as we feel it is some improvement on the one moved before."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5th November 1975; Vol, 365, c. 1236.]
      Baroness Birk was talking about the dropping of the word "then". She referred to the Government's position on this issue. I hope that the Minister will tell us why the Government are trying to reverse Amendment No. 83. I can see no reason for doing so. I understand that it can be argued with a good deal of logic that Clause 17(1) does not have much significance in any event. I am sure that some of my learned colleagues will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that the phrase
      "shall have regard to the desirability"
      would cut very little ice in any court of law. I cannot believe that that phrase imposes a strong onus on anyone to do anything when it comes to a legal test.
      4.0 a.m.
      The real punch behind the Bill lies in the reserve powers that the Secretary of State proposes to give himself in Clause 47. In that case the decision lies not

      1385
      with the courts, but with the Secretary of State. That is clearly in keeping with the ultimate dictatorial tone of the entire Bill.
      However, let us assume that the provision has some kind of symbolic significance. It is an invitation to local authorities to use their powers to acquire for acquisition's sake rather than for planning purposes. But this purely ideological consideration should not be allowed to prevail. Surely it should be made clear that planning considerations are paramount.
      The Government in their White Paper—a document that was introduced in the hectic run-up to the October election—laid emphasis on two matters—first planning and, secondly recoupment of development gain. At that time they were not laying emphasis on ownership for ownership's sake. The truth is that the Government's Bill is concerned primarily with ownership for ownership's sake. The cat was let out of the bag in the Lords debate on 28th October when Lord Melchett, replying for the Government, said that the Bill dealt with community land ownership and not with planning in itself. In other words, what the Government are interested in is community ownership rather than in good planning. That is the truth and the public should realise it.
      Let us be charitable and assume that planning plays some part in the exercise. Despite that assumption, the Bill is wholly unnecessary to achieve good, positive planning. The power needed to achieve this so-called positive planning already exists. I quote from Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I am sure that this quotation will meet the approval of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who was the architect of that legislation. Indeed, I believe that it was a consolidation measure and, therefore, some Labour Members no doubt had a hand in it too.
      Section 112 of the 1971 Act is headed "Acquisition and appropriation of land" and reads:
      "The Secretary of State may authorise a local authority to whom this section applies to acquire compulsorily any land within their area if he is satisfied—(a) that the land is required in order to secure the treatment as a
      1386
      whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement, or partly by one and partly by another method, of the land or of any area in which the land is situated; or (b) that it is expedient in the public interest that the land should be held together with land so required; or (c) that the land is required for development or redevelopment, or both, as a whole for the purpose of providing for the relocation of population or industry or the replacement of open space in the course of the redevelopment or improvement, or both, of another area as a whole; or (d) that it is expedient to acquire the land immediately for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated."
      To quote extracts from that Act is not perhaps the most agreeable way in which to entertain the House, but I am making an important point. For the benefit of those Labour Members who, understandably, find a certain drowsiness coming over them, I wish to illustrate the point by quoting a line or two of a document issued by the Central Office of Information entitled "Town and Country Planning in Britain". It was published this year and sums up what I have just quoted from the 1971 Act. It states:
      "Since the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1947, local planning authorities have had general planning powers (subject to ministerial approval) to buy land compulsorily in order to secure the comprehensive development or redevelopment of land in their areas (other powers are used to provide specific public services such as housing, roads and public open spaces). The Town and Country Planning Act 1968 (now consolidated in the 1971 Act) extended the planning purposes for which land in England and Wales can be compulsorily purchased…Compulsory purchase powers have been used extensively to promote the comprehensive reconstruction of commercial and civic centres in urban areas (in many cases those damaged during the second world war) and to re-plan other areas of large cities and towns to support a growing population, to provide better living conditions, and to cope with the increasing volume of motor traffic."
      It is quite evident that this Bill is wholly unnecessary for good planning. All the powers for such planning already exist. Not only that, but they have been exercised time and again by local authorities. The planning aspects of the Bill are entirely fraudulent because they are unnecessary. Why do we need the Bill? We have never been told, except perhaps by Lord Melchett.
      In legislative terms this is a measure which could be very easily repealed. One of the characteristics of it is that there are only two relatively minor appeals

      1387
      to do with blight in the repeals provisions. The business of repeal is something which we take seriously. We would be open to discussion about what, if anything, is needed in planning terms. We have the Bill and must try to let it do as little damage as possible if it reaches the statute book. One way to do this is to do what we are proposing in the manuscript amendment and what the Lords propose in their Amendment No. 83—namely, to assert quite clearly the supremacy of planning considerations over "land grab" considerations. It is important that we have an effective planning system and that that system should not be vitiated by the philosophy behind the Bill.
      The Bill will do a great deal of damage to confidence. To a large extent planning depends on mutual confidence between local authorities and the public. The local authorities are deeply worried, if they have any sensitivity, about the damage to this relationship which the Bill is liable to cause. Both the manuscript amendment and Lords Amendment No. 83 are of great importance. They give us a chance to prevent the Bill wrecking the relationship which has existed for a long time and which is so important to the well-being of the country. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support me in the Lobby on this issue.
      Mr. Oakes: It will come as no surprise to Opposition Members to be told that I am asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject both the manuscript amendment and the Lords amendment. I do not want to reply at any length to the fifth Second Reading speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) because I replied to the fourth one 12 hours ago. This is basically—
      Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, if my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) had made a Second Reading speech this time, the last time or the time before—I think that the Minister accused him of making four Second Reading speeches—
      Mr. Sedgemore: Five.
      Mr. Hastings: That would make it even worse. Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have called him to order. If
      1388
      he is not out of order, what does the Minister mean?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was just about to say that every time the word occurred I translated "Bill" into "amendment". That put the speech made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in order.
      Mr. Oakes: You have a charming and convenient way of dealing with the procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I shall deal first with the manuscript amendment. The Government have never concealed the fact that the Bill is about the public acquisition of land, based on a planning framework. The object behind the Bill which left this House for the other place was the public acquisition of land. That object applies to both the short-term and the long-term provisions.
      The philosophy of Labour Members is that it is in the best interests of the community as a whole that land should be developed by the community as a whole rather than by the individual, except in special cases, and that development should take place within a planning framework, not in grabs. We are talking not about confiscation, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), but about acquisition by the local authority with a proper price for the land being paid to the person who sells it. In that way the local authority and the community are able to benefit from the development.
      The amendment to the Lords amendment is a wrecking amendment in that it makes changes in the Bill which left this House for the other place. The Bill is about public ownership, and it is right that it should impose the duty which it contained when it left this House.
      I come to the curious Lords amendment, which may at first sight seem to be semantic, which changes the order of precedence between planning and public acquisition. The Bill is primarily concerned with public acquisition, and it is right that acquisition should come first in the order of precedence. We have made clear in Committee, on Report, in another place and again in this House that the basis of the acquisition is the planning of the area. Planning considerations must be taken into account before there can be public acquisition.

      1389
      This seemingly semantic Lords amendment turns the formulation of the duty completely on its head. We have emphasised that public acquisition is the handmaiden of planning, but that does not mean that the Bill is wholly a planning Bill. It is specifically a Bill about public acquisition and it is, therefore, right that the public ownership of development land should be mentioned first in the statement of the general duty in subsection (1).
      The hon. Member for Aylesbury implied that Conservative Members were concerned that planning considerations should be placed second, but those fears were not shared by the main organisations concerned with planning when the original amendments to the general duty were under discussion. The Royal Town Planning Institute was content with the form of the subsection as it left this House. The Town and Country Planning Association also said that the amendments made to Clause 17 met the concern it had earlier expressed about the link between the Bill and planning.
      4.15 a.m.
      There is a subtler objection to the amendment, and it might find more favour with the Opposition than the objection I have just posed. If the general duty is
      "to secure proper planning and to bring development land into public ownership in accordance with such planning",
      the duty of securing proper planning seems to be related essentially to the acquisition of development land. But this is not right, because authorities have other functions under the Bill in addition to the acquisition of development land—and, indeed, in relation to development land there are already valuable planning safeguards written into the Bill in subsection (2) of the clause.
      One example of a function that might be left unqualified by planning considerations if the amendment were adopted is the acquisition of land that is not development land as it is now defined in the Bill. The House will recall that development land is now defined as land needed for relevant development within 10 years. But the acquisition power goes wider than this and may cover, for example, land needed for excepted development in certain circum
      1390
      stances.It is clearly important that authorities' purchases of such land should also take place within the framework of established planning policies, and this could be lost in the reordering of the duty proposed by the Lords.
      Another example is the management and disposal of land. Clearly it is important that here, too, authorities should have regard to planning considerations in exercising functions that do not consist of the acquisition of development land. The clause deals with disposal, but only in a broad sense—that is that authorities should acquire development land with a view to disposing of it for development by others or developing it themselves. The words would not cover the method of disposal, which might specifically be designed to help towards the achievement of planning objectives.
      The Lords amendment is therefore objectionable both on the general grounds that it makes nonsense of a duty which is to be included in a Bill dealing with public ownership and because, like some of the other Lords amendments to be discussed on Schedule 6 and on Clause 23, it would be likely in practice to be actively harmful from the point of view of achieving a proper relationship between the operation of the scheme and the planning system.
      I therefore ask the House to reject the amendments proposed in the other place and doubly to reject—if that is possible—the manuscript amendment proposed at this late stage by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
      Mr. Michael Latham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for moving the manuscript amendment to which, for all I know, my name ought to be added—we can discuss that later. It was a matter of total indifference to me whether we accepted the Lords amendment to put (a) before (b), or left the Bill as it was and put (b) before (a).
      We are now discussing the most ideological part of this horrible Bill. We are discussing the proposition that every local authority should have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership and develop the land itself, or should make it available for development by others. I do not regard it as desirable that local authorities should

      1391
      bring development land into public ownership. Least of all do I regard it as desirable to bring development land into public ownership if the objective is to bring about the proper planning of the area. I have heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman or from the right hon. Gentleman earlier, to imbue me with any confidence that local authorities will bring about the proper planning of their areas by taking development land into public ownership.
      The existing planning system does not seem to work very well. Is it cheap? Does it save staff? Does it work fast? Is the planning system responsive to public opinion? Is the system of planning appeals in the Minister's own Department satisfactory? There are many parts of the planning system that are so manifestly unsuitable that there is absolutely no reason to believe that local authorities are likely to improve discharging their duties under the Act by bringing development land into public ownership. All we have seen from the use of the existing powers of local authorities in many ways has been muddle, delay, cost and waste.
      If hon. Members support the manuscript amendment, they will be saying very firmly that they disagree with the central principle of the Bill. We do not believe that it is desirable to bring development land into public ownership. In the present situation we consider that the local authority planning system is already breaking down and will be made even more chaotic by the Bill. The sufferers will be those who need houses. Their situation will be worsened by Clause 17 if it remains in anything like its present form.
      Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) argued strongly in favour of the amendment, but the Under-Secretary argued even more strongly for it. He said that the whole purpose was to take development land into public ownership. Why mention that at this point in the Bill? Clause 17 says that the acquiring authority must consider the desirability of the whole purpose of the Bill in taking development land into public ownership. But if it has already been decided by the Government that local authorities must take the land into public ownership, what is the point of repeating that injunction in this clause? We are really concerned at this point
      1392
      that when local authorities are carrying out the order of the Government that they shall take land, they should do so in a way which fits in with proper planning.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) attributed to me the appropriate section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, but it was the Town and Country Planning Act 1968—passed under the last Labour Government—which gave local authorities power to acquire land when
      "it is expedient to acquire the land immediately for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated."
      Surely all that was necessary in this clause was to repeat that provision, if it was thought necessary, although I think it unnecessary. Surely the local authorities are still bound to look at their acquisition of development land from the planning point of view.
      In Committee we were assured that the Government appreciated that acquisition should be for the proper planning of the area. The Minister said that it would all be done within the planning framework. That is what the manuscript amendment is intended to stress—that is to say, that a local auhority must have proper regard to the proper planning of its area. The clause does not need to be messed up with what the hon. Gentleman says is the whole purpose of the Bill. It is clearly desirable that, if a local authority is to take development land into public ownership, it must have regard to the proper planning of its area in doing so.
      Mr. Mayhew: There are two ways of considering the drafting of the clause. The first is that there is a fundamental flaw in it which will prevent the Government from achieving their object. If one legislates that a council shall have regard to the availability of something, it is open to the council to conclude that whatever one has in mind is not available and to act accordingly.
      The clause as drafted requires councils to have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership. On that view of the matter, since 95 per cent. of the councils would consider it undesirable that such land should be brought into public ownership, they may proceed accordingly. Are the Government satisfied that this drafting will achieve their purpose?

      1393
      The other view is that it is a statement in an operative clause of the Bill—a statement of purpose which, for the reasons just given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), is wholly unnecessary. The powers are provided. The purpose of the Bill is set forth in the preamble. This is a wholly otiose statement of a principle which will be obnoxious to 95 per cent. of councils and it ought to be deleted.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am puzzled why the Minister finds this amendment, either in its original form or in its improved manuscript version, difficult to accept.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has quite rightly pointed out that when we look at these amendments, in both original and manuscript form, we ought to look first at the sentence that comes before the position in the clause where the amendment would be made. The heading is "Duties of authorities" and the clause reads:
      "In exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day every authority shall have regard to….".
      As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) pointed out, we may or may not approve of the functions that the local authorities have been given under the Bill. They are set out very clearly. We do not have to repeat them at this point. Surely the Minister, with his acknowledged affection for town planning—I do not know whether it extends to local authorities, but perhaps they are included—could find our proposal acceptable.
      Having put in the preamble something about the exercise of functions, we should ensure that regard is paid to "proper planning". I admit that that phrase is perhaps not very well defined, but it has respectable parenthood in Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Subsection (1)(d) states:
      "that it is expedient to acquire the land immediately for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area".
      It is rather more fully described in that section. I suspect that this phraseology may go right back to the 1947 Act, where similar powers were first to be found. The Minister would normally wish to acknowledge with pride anything that was in that Act. Therefore the words "proper
      1394
      planning", although perhaps not particularly well defined, can be found in the legislation dating back quite a long time. The definition seems to be recognised, perhaps, by the reaction of the professional bodies to which the Minister has referred as being one which they find acceptable and reassuring.
      The history of this part of the Bill is strange to say the least, because although we are now quite rightly and property talking about how we ensure that planning is given its right place in the scheme of things, or a slightly better place, when we first gazed with astonishment at what was presented to us in the Bill we found that reference to planning was almost entirely absent.
      Mr. Graham Page: May I remind my hon. Friend that it was not absent from this clause? It was said deliberately in the original clause that the local authorities should disregard planning.
      4.30 a.m.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That came a little later in the clause. But it has been added here to meet the numerous objections that were raised. As my right hon. Friend said, local authorities were invited specifically to disregard proper planning.
      The modestly favourable reactions from the professional bodies to the amendments now made are perhaps attributable to their sense of relief that the Bill is not quite as horrid as before and is now merely nasty. In my view, we should not attach too much importance to this apparent approval. It may also be accompanied by the feeling of some professional associations that no Ministry will try to implement all the parts of the Act. There is a widely held professional belief that it is unworkable and, therefore, that no one will try to carry out the full panoply of it.
      We cannot take that attitude. If we are asked to enact a measure, we must have regard to what may eventually result from it. The power may become the duty, with the local authorities having to acquire all land on which virtually any development is to be carried out.
      The Minister said that the Bill was about public ownership. We ask, public ownership of what? If, after the second appointed day, the duty is to be laid

      1395
      on local authorities to acquire all development land, they will have to decide what is to be development land. Therefore, they are brought up against the dual responsibility which remains one of the fundamental criticisms of the Bill and which, I suppose, we can remedy only if we accept the manuscript amendment. It is the dual responsibility of being both the developer and the planning authority.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) referred to the damage to confidence. My hon. Friend for Melton (Mr. Latham) spoke in very uncomplimentary terms of the public view of the town planning mechanism and said that it was not regarded with universal approval as being a cheap and efficient system or one which produced the right result. I hope that we shall find ways of improving it.
      The damage to confidence which would result from the dual responsibilities of local authorities as both developers and the bodies controlling development could be very great unless we make it clear that, in carrying out the functions which unfortunately they will be saddled with under the Bill, the local authorities must first have regard to proper planning. For that reason I welcome the manuscript amendment, which is a further improvement to the Lords amendment, in that it makes proper planning the first and most important consideration.
      If we accept the amendment, we shall go some way to reassuring those who are seriously concerned about the ability of an authority to carry out this dual responsibility of development control and development without damaging the planning mechanism of which we are justifiably proud, even though it needs improvements, and which has worked better than anything in most of the developed countries since 1947. I do not believe that we should do such damage lightly. We must carefully consider an amendment of this type which is likely to help to mitigate that damage. Therefore, in my view we should welcome the amendment.
      Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) made a powerful speech in support of the amendment. Of course it is undesirable that land should be taken into public ownership, and that is the first principle behind the amendment. To do such a
      1396
      thing would be a monstrous mistake. Indeed, the statistics support the argument that the reason why we have a housing shortage is precisely the extent to which we have always involved local authorities in development. The Bill will make the situation 65 times worse. That is undesirable and the Minister cannot be surprised to learn that we object to it.
      Moreover, there is a question of priority. That theme runs through all the speeches that I have heard. The amendment seeks to lay the emphasis on planning. The Minister said "There is no need for this. The Bill is about the acquisition of land. Planning will take care of itself. There will be planning in any event." That is exactly what we doubt.
      I should like to quote an example. In my constituency there is a village with a population of just over 2,000. In that village an enormous development on about 50 acres is to take place because of some calculations made by the Land Commission years ago. The Land Commission was the last fatuity introduced by the Socialist Government which is comparable with the present business. The calculations were made so long ago that the authorities do not even remember why they thought they wanted the land. However, since then several developments have gone broke, partially due to the machinations of the Government. The plans were changed, and instead of the density being so many houses to the acre, the figure has now practically doubled to save the situation for those who have invested. In effect there was no plan; acquisition came first.
      The unfortunate people who live in this small place now see the prospect of their village being more than doubled in size for reasons which no one can explain. They come to me and say "Please, can we have a town plan or something similar?" This is not really the fault of the county authority or of any other authority. The proposals were put forward by a Government who thought that it would be a good idea at some stage in the game, because of some macro-plan concerning the South-East. That is precisely the type of situation which my hon. Friends envisage if the Bill is passed without this amendment. I do not believe that that is an exaggerated fear. I hope that when

      1397
      the Minister replies to this debate, which concerns a matter of principle, he will not try to sweep that fear away by accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) of making Second Reading speeches.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made a good speech and pointed out that the heart of our objection to this miserable measure is contained in and could be put right by the amendment. The arguments are in no way complex. It is a matter of basic principle. We say that the plan must come first and that if there is to be acquisition it should be in terms of the plan. To amend the Bill in the way suggested in another place would achieve that situation. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to this matter and give us a more adequate answer than the one he put forward in his original rejection of the amendment.
      Mr. Crouch: I cannot understand the Minister's rejection of the amendment from the other place. I felt that he was saying that the Government accepted that proper planning was a premise which came first and that the subsequent desirability of bringing land into public ownership was the meaning of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman spoke of proper planning first and then said that the objective of the Bill was to bring land into public ownership—in other words, that the Bill was to work under the umbrella of the overall premise of proper planning.
      That is what has emerged from the other place. I did not take part in the Committee stage, but I have read the debates and heard this short discussion on the amendment. In effect, the other place has said that there is a better way of doing what is proposed in the Bill. We have argued strongly why proper planning should come first and the bringing of land into public ownership should come second. We are saying not that one is more or less important than the other but that one should come first. That is precisely what has been suggested in the other place. We have another place for mature consideration of some of these factors. I suggest that this amendment provides a better piece of drafting than is in the Bill.
      1398
      I thought that the Minister in his opening speech—I listened carefully; I hope that I am not sleepy—said that the Government regarded proper planning as a first requirement and that the Bill was designed to bring about the development and public ownership of land. That is the purpose of the amendment. We expect the Government to accept wisdom from the other place—sometimes we get wisdom from there—and not to reject it out of hand.
      Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that sometimes we get wisdom from the other place. Indeed, we have already accepted some Lords amendments.
      I turn now to the manuscript amendment and the amendment from the other place. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if there was any implication in what I said that you were in any way remiss when I referred to a Second Reading speech. I think you have known me long enough to know that I would not make that kind of accusation. However, it is implicit in a manuscript amendment when it goes to the root of the Bill. Therefore, any hon. Member who moves a manuscript amendment will find himself in Second Reading territory almost immediately. I suggest that we passed that stage long ago and are now dealing with amendments from the other place.
      The effect of the manuscript amendment would be to cut out everything except planning responsibility in Clause 17.
      I repeat that the Bill is concerned with the public ownership of relevant land and that that public ownership shall take place within a planning framework. We have tried to make that clear throughout all stages of the Bill.
      Mr. Fairbairn Mr. Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Oakes: I do not propose to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has just walked into the Chamber. This has been a long debate.
      It is a matter for the House how long we go on with this debate. Opposition Members know that they will not convince the Government about this matter, because it affects the principle of the Bill. Equally, I know that we shall not convince them.

      1399
      There are a number of important amendments from the other place which merit considerable discussion. We can discuss them when we are even more tired this afternoon or we can do it before we reach that state. I suggest that it is better to concentrate on arguments which might produce some benefit than to have a futile, continuous discussion of principles in which neither side will convince the other.
      4.45 a.m.
      I would be the first to admit that out planning system has faults. However, for the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)—whose knowledge of planning matters, as I have said before, is probably second only to that of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—to criticise the system really surprised me. Although our system has its imperfections,

      Division No. 401.]

      AYES

      [4.40 a.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Alison, Michael

      Emery, Peter

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Arnold, Tom

      Eyre, Reginald

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      James, David

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Fell, Anthony

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Banks, Robert

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Jopling, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Biffen, John

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Freud, Clement

      Kimball, Marcus

      Body, Richard

      Fry, Peter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Knox, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Lamont, Norman

      Brittan, Leon

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Goodhew, Victor

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Loveridge, John

      Buck, Antony

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Lure, Richard

      Budgen, Nick

      Gray, Hamish

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Grieve, Percy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Burden, F. A.

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Grist, Ian

      MacGregor, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Grylls, Michael

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hall, Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Channon, Paul

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Madel, David

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hannam, John

      Marten, Nell

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mates, Michael

      Clegg, Walter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Mather, Carol

      Cockcroft, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Maude, Angus

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Cope, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mawby, Ray

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Costain, A. P.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mayhew. Patrick

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Hicks, Robert

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Crouch, David

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Mills, Peter

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Holland, Phillip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hordern, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Molyneaux, James

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Monro, Hector

      Dunlop, John

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Durant, Tony

      Hunt, John

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      it is one of the finest town and country planning systems in the world and it has been improved by Governments of both parties—including the right hon. Member for Crosby when he was a Minister. I do not like the general condemnation of the system that we have heard tonight. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Melton or the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) meant that, but others did.
      I could argue longer about the amendments, and hon. Members opposite may want to renew the case. But if they mean business, let us have the vote now and get on to amendments on which we might even convince one another.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 260.

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Tapsell, Peter

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mudd, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Neave, Airey

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Neubert, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Thomas, Rt Hon p. (Hendon S)

      Newton, Tony

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Nott, John

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Onslow, Cranley

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Pardoe, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wakeham, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Colin

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Penhaligon, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Percival, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Wall, Patrick

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Walters, Dennis

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wells, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Speed, Keith

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Spence, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Raison, Timothy

      Sproat, Iain

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing. Acton)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stainton, Keith

      Younger, Hon George

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Stanley, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Mr Spencer Le Marchant and

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mr Anthony Berry

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Stokes, John

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Huckfield, Les

      Allaun, Frank

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Anderson, Donald

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Archer, Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hunter, Adam

      Ashley, Jack

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dempsey, James

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Doig, Peter

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Janner, Greville

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dunn, James A.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Bates, Alf

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Bean, R. E.

      Eadie, Alex

      John, Brynmor

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Edge, Geoff

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby s)

      Bishop, E. S.

      English, Michael

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Boardman, H.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Booth, Albert

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Judd, Frank

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Kelley, Richard

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Flannery, Martin

      Kerr, Russell

      Buchan, Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Buchanan, Richard

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Kinnock, Neil

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Forrester, John

      Lambie, David

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Campbell, Ian

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lamond, James

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Cant, R. B.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Carmichael, Neil

      George, Bruce

      Lee, John

      Carter, Ray

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ginsburg, David

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Cartwright, John

      Golding, John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Gould, Bryan

      Litterick, Tom

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Gourlay, Harry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Graham, Ted

      Luard, Evan

      Coleman, Donald

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Corbett, Robin

      Hardy, Peter

      McElhone, Frank

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Harper, Joseph

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cronin, John

      Hatton, Frank

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Hayman, Mrs. Helena

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Heifer, Eric S.

      Madden, Max

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hooley, Frank

      Magee, Bryan

      Davidson, Arthur

      Horam, John

      Mahon, Simon

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Marquand, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Tinn, James

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tomlinson, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Tomney, Frank

      Meacher, Michael

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Torney, Tom

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Rooker, J. W.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Millan, Bruce

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Molloy. William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Moonman, Eric

      Selby, Harry

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Ward, Michael

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Watkins, David

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Watkinson, John

      Moyle, Roland

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Weetch, Ken

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Newens, Stanley

      Sillars, James

      White, James (Pollok)

      Noble, Mike

      Silverman, Julius

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Oakes, Gordon

      Small, William

      Whitlock, William

      Ogden, Eric

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Willey. Rt Hon Frederick

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Stallard, A. W.

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stoddart, David

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Ovenden, John

      Stott, Roger

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Owen, Dr David

      Strang, Gavin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Palmer, Arthur

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Woodall, Alec

      Park, George

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wool, Robert

      Parker, John

      Swain, Thomas

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Parry, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Radice, Giles

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Mr. J. D. Dormand and

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Mr. Laurie Pavitt

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 86, in page 17, line 23, at end insert
      "functions concerning the acquisition, management or disposal of land".
      5 a.m.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we may consider Lords Amendments Nos. 87 and 88.
      Mr. Oakes: The amendments limit the functions under other Acts to which the general duty would apply to functions concerning the acquisition, management and disposal of land. It was always the Government's intention that that should be so, but in another place it was specifically put in the Bill. The amendment makes absolutely clear what was in any event the Government's intention, and therefore I see no reason why we should not agree with the other place in these amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      GENERAL DUTIES OF AUTHORITIES
      Lords Amendment: No. 89, in page 73, line 17, after "deciding" insert "(a)".
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may consider Lords Amendment No. 90.
      Mr. Oakes: The amendments require authorities to have regard to the considerations listed in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6 not only in disposing of land, as at present, but also in considering what use should be made of land before disposal. They are to meet the point raised by the Opposition in the Lords that more should be said in the Bill about the management of land, and particularly agricultural land.
      The amendments work by amending paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6, so that authorities must have regard to the factors set out there not only in disposing of land, but also when managing land prior to disposing of land, and when managing land prior to disposal. The particularly important factor in this context is in

      1405
      sub-paragraph (c), which requires authorities to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. This, taken together with the new amendments, will mean that authorities, in exercising their functions under the land scheme, must have regard to the management of agricultural land in their ownership. It was always intended to achieve this result through issuing guidance to authorities, but the Government accept that it would be helpful to draw particular attention to this in the Bill itself.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 93, in page 73, line 29, at end insert:
      "and shall draw up and publish annually a five year programme of the development land that they propose to acquire in the course of the following 5 years. The authority shall indicate in the programme the relevant plans or planning factors that support such a programme of acquisition."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment deals with the preparation by authorities of five-year rolling programmes. It would put the matter on a statutory basis. There is no argument between us about whether there should or should not be rolling programmes or about what they should contain. The point at issue is somewhat narrow—namely, whether there should be a requirement laid down in the Bill.
      Rolling programmes are not a new invention contained in the Bill. Over the years they have been adopted as the best means of planning and controlling public expenditure in many sectors—for example, nationalised industry investment, road-building and school-building. They have been adopted by Governments both Labour and Conservative. The most recent example is local authority transport expenditure. However, there is never any reference to such a programme in legislation.
      Section 6 of the Local Government Act 1974, of which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will be aware, is solely concerned with transport supplementary grant. Rightly, there is no mention in that Act of transport policies and programmes. It is the rolling pro
      1406
      gramme which forms the basis of the grant payment. To write the rolling programme into the Bill is unnecessary. It could be potentially dangerous to institute the precedent of putting the provision in a statute. I ask the House, in accordance with the precedent set by both sides of the House in different forms of legislation, to state that we disagree with the Lords in this amendment.
      Mr. Rossi: I cannot possibly agree that this is a narrow point. This is a broad point of principle. It is not right for the Minister to look at other circumstances where there are five-year rolling programmes and to say that they are precedents that the Bill should follow. The programmes that he has instanced are mainly programmes for investment. Here we are dealing with something quite different—namely, the public acquisition of people's private property. We are dealing with the operation of a local authority in an activity that concerns the citizens and residents living within its area. They will be involved in the intentions of the authority regarding the development of their land.
      If it is intended to have five-year rolling programmes for local authorities—and we are told that they will be required by the Secretary of State to prepare such programmes—the programmes will have to be made. They will have to state the land that it is intended to acquire within five years so that the necessary borrowing requirement provisions may be made. If that is the case, we feel that as well as the Secretary of State, the people living in the locality of the local authority are entitled to know what land within the five years the local authority intends to acquire.
      Lip service is paid to the concept of public participation. We are being told the whole time that there must be public participation in planning. Here we are dealing with an extension of the planning and use of land, we are dealing with the development of the land itself. It is a matter of great importance to residents in any locality to know what land within a period of five years their elected councillors are proposing to acquire in their names.
      This matter is important not only to residents as a whole but also to those likely to be affected by acquisition proposals—in other words, those whose land

      1407
      is likely to be taken. If a person's land, his house, or his garden are within a programme in the short time scale of five years, he is entitled to know whether blight will affect his property in any way. This can best be revealed to him by the plan being published in the town hall where he can go to look at it. Therefore, because it is both necessary and desirable that these plans should be published, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Costain: The Minister by his remarks on this Bill has shown how determined he is to nationalise land while at the same time paying no regard whatever to development prospects.
      I have spent a great part of my life in work connected with the development of large areas, and I know that no sensible developer—or indeed anybody interested in providing accommodation—would wish to act in any way different from the course of action laid down in the provisions of this amendment. We must remember that an ordinary developer has limited finance at his disposal. He has a rolling programme of five years. Some local authorities believe that these programmes can be undertaken within a period of three years, but that is not the case.
      We believe that the amendment would lay down safeguards in ensuring that development was properly carried out. It will give the Secretary of State the opportunity to know what policies are being pursued by local authorities and at the same time it will give the public a chance to evaluate what is taking place. But the Minister does not care about these considerations. He just wants to nationalise the land and to take any profit he can from it. We are certainly not happy with the situation, and if we are to put up with this Bill the Minister will have to produce a better case than we have heard so far. Unless we produce a rolling programme on the lines laid down in the amendment, the process just will not work.
      Mr. Graham Page: It is preposterous that the Minister should seek to resist this amendment. All it does is to let the public know whose land is involved in a five-year rolling programme. It is surely only a matter of common decency that
      1408
      those affected should be aware of these matters.
      I cannot understand the Minister's reasons for rejecting this amendment. Is he trying to avoid any blight on property affected in a programme? If he is, he should not be taking that course. Provision should be made for blighted property to be acquired in such a programme, and those affected should be told right away.
      The Minister said that the amendment was unprecedented in a Bill. I would reply by saying that the whole Bill is unprecedented. We have to take this exceptional course in order to protect the public and the interests of individuals.
      I am not concerned with precedent in this Bill. Precedents apply to normal, ordinary legislation—but this Bill is not normal, ordinary legislation. It is extraordinary. It is a wholly new system for seizure of land. We want to protect the public by letting them know what the programmes are. It is good local government to prepare a programme of that sort and to publish it so that those concerned may know what progress is being made. I cannot see any reason why a reasonable provision of this sort should be resisted.
      Ministers have apparently come to the Box since four o'clock yesterday afternoon determined to resist every reasonable amendment inserted in another place. This debate is yet another example of this. It is a reasonable amendment which would improve the Bill. It would certainly improve the position of those who may be affected by it.
      5.15 a.m.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: I want to take up a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). No one could possibly argue that this was not a Bill designed to take away the rights of the individual citizen. [Interruption.] Of course it is. It is a confiscatory Bill. Let us get that clear.
      Many of us over the years have been concerned with the question of blight. If the amendment is accepted it may help individuals whose properties are affected, giving them an opportunity of knowing the future of their property. Is it unreasonable that those who won land and property should be given fair notice

      1409
      that their properties are affected? Should there not be some provision for blight? My right hon. Friend has rightly said that there is no provision for this. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about the individual who has property which is affected in a small but important way and where blight is the factor affecting them.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I find it extraordinary that the Government should be resisting this eminently suitable amendment. As a Government they believe in a planned society and a planned economy. This amendment is all about planning—five years ahead. Not only does it give the public an idea of what is to happen but it also gives those whose property or land is affected an idea of what is to happen. It is important that individuals owning property, large or small, should know where they stand.
      The Minister did not advance an argument that could be supported by hon. Members. I regret to say that I do not believe that any thinking Labour Member would resist this if they were not whipped. It is a pity that in such an important debate on a Bill of constitutional importance so many unthinking people will go through the Lobby voting down a well-thought-out amendment.
      Mr. Mayhew: In justifying the stand he is taking on this amendment the Minister said that it would not be necessary to incorporate it into the Bill. It is useful to compare his attitude on this amendment with the attitude of the Government on Lords Amendment No. 83, which dealt with whether there should be included in the Bill under Clause 17 (1) these words about the desirability of bringing development into public ownership. I would have thought that everyone accepted that for practical purposes it was totally unnecessary to incorporate those last words into the measure. But the Minister said that they should go in. Everyone agreed that every councillor concerned with putting the provisions of this measure into operation knew that the Government regarded it as desirable that they should use powers conferred on them.
      Here, when there is abundant practical reason for incorporating a reference into the Bill to the five-year-old rolling programme, so as to enable individuals to
      1410
      know in advance what a council has in store for them, the Minister says that we cannot have the amendment because it is unnecessary. It looks as though he should have included further words in Clause 17(1) to the effect that the authority shall have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership but keep quiet about it until the last possible moment so that it will not make itself liable to pay compensation for blight.
      Mr. Fairbairn: One characteristic of planning authorities is that they frequently get the plans wrong. They have an amazing capacity for making plans for five years ahead on assessments which prove to be substantially in error. The citizen has a right to see those plans and to challenge them. I have a profound scepticism of the wisdom of any authority which is essentially anonymous and answerable to nobody. If an authority has no duty to publish its ambitions, the individual cannot challenge the powers which the authority takes until itself. That is why its stupidity—or its wisdom—should be preceded by light. It is wrong that powers against the citizen should be taken without warning. I am sure that all hon. Ministers agree that they are made wiser by criticism of their ideas.
      The Bill is about what is stupidly called the public ownership of land, which means that land which belongs to members of the public shall cease to belong to them. All the land in this country belongs to the people.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: You people.
      Mr. Fairbairn: That is where you make your mistake. It belongs to millions of people. It belongs to anyone who owns a farm, a field or a garage. You want to take it away from each and every one of them and put it in the hands of bureaucracy. You hate the people, detest them—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair hates nobody.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members on the Labour benches—such as are appropriate—detest people, detest ownership and detest land. Land is anathema to them,

      1411
      and the public ownership of the land is about nothing else than that.
      Mr. Gwilym Roberts: What about the lads?
      Mr. Fairbairn: And the lads—you detest them all.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—
      Mr. Fairbairn: I know not—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member must resume his seat when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet. He must be careful whom he is addressing.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I know not whether you are a lad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you are, Labour Members resent you. Labour Members are determined to ensure that the citizens of Great Britain who form the electorate and who own the land shall be deprived of it. At least Labour Members have the decency to give those citizens notice of their execution.
      Mr. Oakes: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friends and I would not detest you even if you were a laird. By that speech the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has shown his detestation, distrust and contempt of local authorities in both Scotland and England. He implied that right from the start of his speech. I find it amazing that he should regard local authorities of all bodies as being responsible to nobody. They are responsible to their electorates. That is the purpose behind the Bill—that development land should be put into the hands of the responsible authority, the authority responsible to the people of the area.
      Some important observations were made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). They asked why the Bill did not specify individual sites over a five-year period, and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) seemed to pursue this line. There is nothing in this provision to hide. The first difficulty about a rolling programme that identified specific sites over a five-year period is that it could produce a kind of duplicated planning system that could easily come to supplant the
      1412
      existing development plan system but not be subject to any of the procedures for public participation and inquiry built into the system by successive Governments over the years.
      The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead accurately came on to the second point. If sites were to be specifically listed in that way, unnecessary blight could be created. The idea of a rolling programme is that land policy statements are issued by local authorities to give general guidance not least to builders—I tell that to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)—about the authority's general ideas on acquisition over the five-year period. It would be clearly wrong to lay down that sites and areas should be specified for the rolling programme for the five years. That could jeopardise the existing planning system without any possibility of public participation and, secondly, it could cause unnecessary blight.
      Mr. Rossi: I do not follow that reasoning. We are giving local authorities the duty to consider the desirability of acquiring land 10 years ahead. That specific obligation has been placed on local authorities. In discharge of that obligation they must consider individual sites, or otherwise the obligation is meaningless. We are saying that if within those 10 years the authorities are considering individual sites, they must declare them within the shorter period of five years. The authority must know precisely what is intended if it is to be able to calculate its borrowing requirement within a five-year rolling programme.
      The hon. Gentleman says that we may be supplanting the existing planning system. That is not so, because, as we have been told throughout, the consideration of acquisition must be against the planning background and in accordance with plans already agreed and laid down. Rather this could fill in the detail of plans already evolved under the planning system against which the classification system would operate. Certainly, on the question of blight, if there is to be this duty only within the local authority as to the sites it is going to acquire within the five-year period, the owners should be told at the earliest possible opportunity.
      5.30 a.m.
      Mr. Oakes: Again the hon. Gentleman is dealing with specific sites. The sort of thing we have in mind for a rolling programme is where it will be necessary, for example, for a local authority to know how much land it may require for industrial or commercial or housing development by private builders or for its own statutory housing requirements.
      We do not expect specific sites to be laid down. The acquisition programme must, under the terms of the Bill, follow the planning background. If there were a statute-based list of sites, there would be a danger of that list beginning to take precedence over the ordinary planning of the area. It is the very thing that the Opposition feared would happen, and it is the thing we are trying to prevent by avoiding a specific five-year programme of individual sites.
      Mr. Costain: The Government are turning the local authorities in this context into a situation parallel with that of new town corporations. Any sensibly run new town has a five-year programme. It could not sell anything without it. Surely these authorities should have the same procedure as the new towns in such circumstances.
      Mr. Oakes: I accept that there is a strong analogy between what will now

      Division No. 402.]

      AYES

      [5.35 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Allaun, Frank

      Coleman, Donald

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Anderson, Donald

      Concannon, J. D.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Archer, Peter

      Conlan, Bernard

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cook, Robin P. (Edin C)

      Flannery, Martin

      Ashley, Jack

      Corbett, Robin

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Forrester, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cronin, John

      Freeson, Reginald

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Bates, Alf

      Cryer, Bob

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Bean, R. E.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      George, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Golding, John

      Boardman, H.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Gould, Bryan

      Booth, Albert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Davis Clinton (Hackney C)

      Graham, Ted

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Deakins, Eric

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Grocott, Bruce

      Buchan, Norman

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hardy, Peter

      Buchanan, Richard

      Dempsey, James

      Harper, Joseph

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Doig, Peter

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Campbell, Ian

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hatton, Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Cant, R. B.

      Dunn, James A.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dunnett, Jack

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carter, Ray

      Eadie, Alex

      Hooley, Frank

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Horam, John

      Cartwright, John

      Edge, Geoff

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Huckfield, Les

      happen with a local authority and a new town. There is a strong parallel between the rolling programme in the Bill and the existing procedure of the new towns. Nevertheless, there are differences. A new town is a designated area for a specific purpose and very often, although not always, it is on virgin territory. The planning provisions within a new town are quite different from those in a local authority.
      The Lords amendment would create grave danger to planning because of the precedence the list might take. There is also the problem of blight. We shall remind local authorities that, whichever way they draw their plans, they must try to do so in such a way as to avoid blight in any particular area. It is implicit that they will do it in any event. They must look, too, at hardship caused by non-statutory blight which may be created. Both statutory and non-statutory blight would be enhanced by producing lists with a rolling programme of specific sites in the way the Opposition imagine it should be done.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 241.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sillars, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Meacher, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Small, William

      Hunter, Adam

      Mikardo, Ian

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Millan, Bruce

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Janner, Greville

      Molloy, William

      Stott, Roger

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Moonman, Eric

      Strang, Gavin

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      John, Brynmor

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Swain, Thomas

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Moyle, Roland

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Newens, Stanley

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Noble, Mike

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Judd, Frank

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ogden, Eric

      Tinn, James

      Kelley, Richard

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tomlinson, John

      Kerr, Russell

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Tomney, Frank

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Orbach, Maurice

      Torney, Tom

      Kinnock, Neil

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tuck, Raphael

      Lambie, David

      Ovenden, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Owen, Dr David

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Lamond, James

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Park, George

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Parker, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lee, John

      Parry, Robert

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Ward, Michael

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Watkins, David

      Litterick, Tom

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Watkinson, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Radice, Giles

      Weetch, Ken

      Luard, Evan

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Wellbeloved, James

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Whitlock, William

      McElhone, Frank

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Roper, John

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Madden, Max

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woodall, Alec

      Magee, Bryan

      Selby, Harry

      Woof, Robert

      Mahon, Simon

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Marquand, David

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Mr. David Stoddart

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Channon, Paul

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Alison, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Arnold, Tom

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fox, Marcus

      Awdry, Daniel

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fry, Peter

      Baker, Kenneth

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Banks, Robert

      Clegg, Walter

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Cockcroft, John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Benyon, W.

      Cope, John

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Cormack, Patrick

      Goodhart, Philip

      Biffen, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Blaker, Peter

      Crouch, David

      Gorst, John

      Body, Richard

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Gray, Hamish

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Grieve, Percy

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dunlop, John

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Brittan, Leon

      Durant, Tony

      Grist, Ian

      Brotherton, Michael

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grylls, Michael

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hall, Sir John

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Emery, Peter

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Buck, Antony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Budgen, Nick

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hannam, John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fell, Anthony

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Burden, F. A.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mawby, Ray

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Scott, Nicholas

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hicks, Robert

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Mills, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin

      Holland, Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Silvester, Fred

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Sims, Roger

      Hordern, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Molyneaux, James

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Monro, Hector

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Speed, Keith

      Hunt, John

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Spence, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morgan, Geraint

      Sproat, Iain

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Stainton, Keith

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      James, David

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Stanley, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Mudd, David

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Neave, Airey

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Neubert, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Newton, Tony

      Stradling Thomas J.

      Jopling, Michael

      Nott, John

      Tapsell, Peter

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Onslow, Cranley

      Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Kimball, Marcus

      Pardoe, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Percival, Ian

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Trotter, Neville

      Knox, David

      Pink. R, Bonner

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Lamont, Norman

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Viggers, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Wakeham, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Raison, Timothy

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Loveridge, John

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Wall, Patrick

      Luce, Richard

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Walters, Dennis

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Wells, John

      MacGregor, John

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wiggin, Jerry

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Winterton, Nicholas

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Madel, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Younger, Hon George

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Marten, Neil

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mates, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Mr. Adam Butler and

      Mather, Carol

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Mr. Michael Roberts

      Maude, Angus

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Clause 19

      PERMISSION BEFORE RELEVANT DATE: APPLICATIONS BEFORE FIRST APPOINTED DAY
      Lords Amendment: No. 100, in page 19, line 4, leave out from beginning to "is" in line 7 and insert—
      "(a) owns a material interest in the whole of the land covered by the planning permission, and
      (b) as against every other owner (if any) of such an interest."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 101 and 102.
      Mr. Oakes: These amendments relate to binding contracts which were discussed in Committee, on Report, and in another place.
      When the Bill was originally introduced in this House we had provided only for owners in possession, not for those with binding contracts. An amendment correcting this point was made in Committee. However, in so doing, we retained the qualification in both cases of
      "being entitled to possession of the land".
      The Opposition argued strongly that a person owning a material interest in the land should not also have to have possession before he could serve a notice of election. It was argued that a landlord whose tenant's lease had nearly expired and who had obtained planning permission with a view to carrying out development on expiry of the lease might well wish to take advantage of the clause to ascertain the intentions of the authorities concerned towards his land. As he may not be "entitled to possession" of the land, the clause as drafted might have precluded him from doing this.
      The Government accepted the force of the Opposition's argument and accordingly put forward a further amendment on Report removing the condition as to entitlement to possession in the case of a person with a material interest. That was accepted by the Opposition. The effect, however, was to leave it open to a freeholder whose tenant had a material interest—for example, a year lease—to seek to frustrate his tenant's development by serving a notice of election.
      This amendment would prevent that happening, whilst at the same time permitting a freeholder, whose tenant's lease has not long to run and who himself proposes to develop the land when that lease has expired, to serve a notice of election and ascertain the authorities' intentions as to the land. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".]
      I am delighted that this amendment has so much vocal support from my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that the Under-Secretary believed a word of what he said. Indeed, I did not understand what he said. The hon. Gentleman got it right on Report, but had it altered in the House of Lords. The result is that a person with a material interest,
      1420
      who has only a short time with someone else in possession, will be unable to exercise the election under the clause.
      We urged the right amendment in Committee. I should have thought that the right amendment was achieved on Report. These second thoughts put us back almost to square one.
      The hon. Gentleman has not satisfactorily explained the position to the House. I do not see why I should explain it for him. I object to the amendment.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is the first time that I have intervened in the debate, and I intend to be brief. I intervene almost automatically in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who, in a previous incarnation, I invariably followed on planning Bills.
      I think that the Under-Secretary, whose tribulations I understand, having at times lost my place when dealing with a lot of amendments from the Government Front Bench, would be wise to accept my right hon. Friend's implied offer to explain what the Minister has singularly failed to explain. Indeed, we are fortunate to have my right hon. Friend here, because he understands not only what the Government are trying to do but cannot explain but why it is thoroughly wrong that they should be trying to do it. I suggest to the Minister that he listens to my right hon. Friend explain what the Minister could not.
      In the interests of comity, the Minister might have moved a vote of thanks to the learned Clerk at the Table, who helped him through some rough water. He was glad to get out of it into the smooth reaches of his brief, which he read to the best of his ability. Like my right hon. Friend, the learned Clerk has materially assisted the House over the last 10 minutes.
      Mr. Oakes: Of course I welcome that intervention so late in the debate by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who was my predecessor at this Box. I only wish that his intervention had not been so silly.
      The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said earlier that we had rejected every amendment from another place. [Interruption.] That is what he said in a speech on the last amendment.

      1421
      He may be suffering from shock because we have accepted the amendment, but I would remind him that we accepted a series before that.
      For once—it is very rare—the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The amendment puts the matter right and does not revert to the position before Report. A person having a material interest can serve a notice of election if the person in actual possession does not have a material interest. Now, hopefully, after many attempts, I think that we have got it right with regard to genuine contracts.
      Mr. Peyton: The Minister deserves some congratulations on at last getting it right, but if he wants to make progress with his Bill, it was hardly sensible to say that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was silly. [Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway resort to that kind of tactic when they hear something they do not like. If they continue to conduct themselves in that way they will tempt us to tax our memories and recall their conduct in Opposition and do our best to emulate their example—although I do not doubt that we shall not be able to get so low.
      They must appreciate that we do not at all like this Bill. Considering the vehemence of our opposition, hon. Members would do well to refrain if they do not want to prolong proceedings indefinitely.
      Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friends and I are not prolonging the proceedings. Some hon. Members opposite are making good and intelligent contributions, for which we are grateful, but others clearly intend to prolong our proceedings. Those of us who served on the Committee, which sat from 10.30 in the morning to one o'clock the following afternoon, twice a week, have experience of this kind of procedure.
      I regret that I must say the same thing to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) as I said to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths): it is a matter of regret that he, too, was at my Department before he was on the Benches opposite.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 103, in page 19, line 23, after "land" insert "(a)".
      6.0 a.m.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this, we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 104 and 113.
      Mr. Oakes: The Opposition put down amendments in Committee which would have provided for the loss of compulsory purchase powers under all other legislation. These were unacceptable because there could be cases in which an unforeseen requirement for land, for example for a road, a school, or local authority housing, could arise within five years and where it would be reasonable for an authority to use compulsory powers for this purpose. It is, however, reasonable that under the Schedule 7 procedure an authority should effectively be required to make a clear decision on whether to buy the land for private development and it is therefore reasonable that they should lose their Planning Act powers as these are the other powers under which they might buy land for private development.
      Mr. Rossi: We thank the hon. Gentleman for going part of the way to meeting the case we put in Committee. We felt that where a local authority abandons its powers of compulsory purchase under this Bill because it fails to serve the appropriate notice at the right time in accordance with the procedure laid down, it should not then be allowed to acquire land through the back door of other legislation.
      The Government have gone part of the way towards meeting us, but we regret that there are still some small holes through which local authorities will be able to go.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 7

      PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 107, in page 78, line 27, leave out from "condition" to the end of line 28 and insert
      "specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State under this paragraph."
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 108.
      Mr. Silkin: For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) it looks as if we are keeping up the pace.
      Paragraph 7(1) provides that a notice that an authority does not intend to acquire land may be expressed subject to a condition. The kinds of conditions that may be imposed are set out in paragraph 8(1), the last condition (6) being
      "any other condition to which the Secretary of State has given his consent."
      This has caused the difficulty. I agree it may have been drawn too widely. We have solved the problem by providing that the only other conditions allowable will be those specified by the Secretary of State in Regulations would be subject to the negative resolution procedure and any new conditions needed would therefore be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
      Mr. Rossi: I am not clear how this meets the points we raised in Committee on this matter, when we understood that the Secretary of State would have power to give consent to particular conditions relating to particular matters affecting a particular property. Our objection in Committee was that anyone dealing with the land would not know whether the condition included by the local authority had received the consent of the Secretary of State, as is required by the clause. The private individual would have no means of knowing.
      The Minister is suggesting that this could be overcome by the condition being specified in Regulations and the Regulations being published. They would then presumably be available for the individual concerned to see. He could check whether the consent had been given. I
      1424
      cannot see how the Secretary of State could come to the House to apply for Regulations, since we would have to consider whether to annul them. The Regulations will deal with a condition to be included by a specific local authority in a specific notice for a specific piece of land. The condition may be peculiar to the piece of land in question. I am not sure, therefore, how procedure related to regulations would help us in these circumstances.
      Mr. John Silkin: We are dealing here with a reasonable attempt to solve a very difficult problem. It is the uncertainty problem which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has put to us, not the situation itself. We are dealing with
      "Any other condition to which the Secretary of State has given his consent."
      I accept that it might be uncertain to the recipient of the conditional notice whether the condition was one to which the Secretary of State had given his consent or whether it could be challenged as not being one of the permitted conditions.
      Putting this in Regulations will provide the opportunity of seeing exactly to which conditions the Secretary of State will have given his consent, and the fact that this is subject to parliamentary scrutiny will enable the House to take up points as and when they arise.
      Mr. Graham Page: It will not be easy to scrutinise the Regulations and say whether they are within the powers of the Secretary of State. I assume that the words "Any other condition" would be interpreted as ejusdem generis with the first five conditions. When the Statutory Instruments Committee decides whether the Regulations made under this provision are within the vires of the Secretary of State, it will not be easy for it to specify the limits to what can be done in Regulations. If "Any other conditions" are ejusdem generis with the first five conditions the Committee will have to interpret them within that limitation, I presume.
      Mr. John Silkin: I have before me the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, where my hon. Friend said:
      "The intention of the schedule is to enable the Secretary of State to give general consent, not consent on a particular case. It is not envisaged at all that the Secretary of

      1425
      State will exercise the provisions of the schedule on particular cases."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 1st July 1975; c. 1944.]
      Frankly, I do not think that would be considered ejusdem generis.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 109, in page 79, leave out lines 21 to 36 and insert—
      "10.—(1) A notice under paragraph 4 or 5 above stating that the authority intend to acquire land shall be a local land charge.
      (2) If the authority subsequently serve a notice under paragraph 6 above stating that they have decided not to acquire the land, then, if they are not a local authority keeping a local land charges register, they shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, send a copy of the notice to every local authority keeping such a register whose area comprises any part of the land.
      10A.—(1) In relation to any time before the coming into force of the Local Land Charges Act 1975, paragraph 10 above shall have effect subject to the following modifications.
      (2) For sub-paragraph (1) there shall be substituted—
      "(1) As soon as practicable after serving a notice under paragraph 4 or 5 above stating that they intend to acquire the land, the authority shall send a copy of the notice to the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority whose area comprises any part of the land; and as soon as practicable after receiving the copy of the notice, the proper officer shall register the notice in the local land charges register in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 19 of that Act."
      (3) In sub-paragraph (2) the words "then, if they are not a local authority keeping a local land charges register" shall be omitted and for the words "every local authority keeping such a register" there shall be substituted the words "the proper officer (for the purposes of section 15 of the Land Charges Act 1925) of every local authority".
      (4)At the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—
      "(3) In this paragraph "local authority" does not include a county council or the Greater London Council."."
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may consider Lords Amendments Nos. 131, 132, 137, 138, 141, 142 and 144.
      Mr. Silkin: All that the amendments do is to take account of the fact that the Local Land Charges Bill, at present before Parliament, will make certain changes to the procedures concerning local land charges registers, and that these changes will need to be reflected in the Community Land Bill.
      Amendment No. 109 makes the changes needed in respect of notices served under the schedule. Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 make the necessary changes in respect of DNA resolutions. Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 do the same for notices by the Secretary of State in respect of DNAs. Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 deal with the notices required on the termination of a DNA. Amendment No. 144 deals with the transitional situation concerning DNA notices before the Local Land Charges Bill comes into force by replacing the existing provisions until then.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 21

      PERMISSION GRANTED ON OR AFTER RELEVANT DATE
      Lords Amendment: No. 116, in page 20, line 12, after "subsection" insert "(2A)or".
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may consider Lords Amendment No. 117.
      Mr. Silkin: The amendments provide that where the Secretary of State decides not to confirm a compulsory purchase order made after the relevant date for designated relevant development—that is, when the full duty is in force—the suspension of planning permission for relevant development shall be lifted from the land in question, if the Secretary of State so directs.
      Once the full duty is in operation, authorities in an area will have to acquire between them all the land needed for designated relevant development
      But there might be very limited circumstances in which, even when the full

      1427
      duty was operating, an authority ought not to acquire land even when it considered it was needed for designated relevant development. For example, there might be cases where the Secretary of State decided that the development should go ahead without public ownership.
      What is required here is a very limited power to cover special situations. The amendment therefore works by enabling the Secretary of State to remove the automatic suspension of planning permission where he refuses to confirm a compulsory purchase order. The procedure associated with an order will enable the Secretary of State to consider any special circumstances which might justify refusing allowing development to proceed without his confirming the order. Thus, where the full duty is operating, relevant development without public acquisition can occur only after full consideration of all the issues. Given the principles of the land scheme, this must be the right approach.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 23

      DISPOSAL NOTIFICATION AREAS
      Lords Amendment: No. 120, in page 22, line 22, at end insert
      ";provided that in the case of land on which there is at least one dwelling-house such resolution shall not be passed unless the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12(1) of the Act of 1971 or paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 10(1) of the Scottish Act of 1972 (publicity in connection with the preparation of plans) have in the opinion of the authority been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Here we are back to disposal notification areas, which have occupied so much of the time of the House and Committee. The amendment is unnecessary. Worse still, it could be damaging to the real interests of those with properties in areas which may be declared development notification areas. It provides that an authority cannot declare a disposal notification area which would include any dwelling-house unless it first carries out
      1428
      adequate public participation as defined in the 1971 Act. The amendment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of disposal notification areas in providing for some prior procedure before such an area can be declared. The amendment assumes that the declaration of a DNA will have far wider implications than in fact will be the case.
      6.15 a.m.
      The prime purpose of the DNA provision is to enable an authority to safeguard the position of an area in respect of which it is considering acquisition. Authorities will identify land for acquisition in their rolling programmes and it will then be for them to decide whether or not to use the DNA provisions. To use them will have certain advantages, as it will enable authorities to learn of land coming on to the market. It will also have considerable advantages for the owners of land in the area.
      The procedures under Clause 23 enable owners to require an authority to purchase their land if there is blight and if, in response to notification, the authorities state that they intend to acquire. It follows from this approach that the declaration of a disposal notification area will not have any particular consequences for owners of land in the area. The fact that a DNA has been declared will not in any way prejudge the decision of any compulsory purchase order that might need to be made. There is no question of anyone's rights being affected by the declaration and there is no need for a special procedure for public participation given the declaration of a DNA.
      Mr. Michael Latham: How can the Minister possibly say that people's rights are in no way prejudiced by the declaration of disposal notification areas when their whole purpose is to indicate that the local authority is considering substantial acquisition?
      Mr. Oakes: Acquisition of the area as a whole. That can be of benefit to the people in the area, because they can then make application for the blight provisions to come into effect. I consider that the amendment weakens rather than strengthens the safeguards for owners of properties in potential disposal notification areas. The Government's approach is to insist that any DNA must conform

      1429
      with the planning framework and rest on the procedures for public participation and inquiry as set out in the Planning Acts. There is power for the Secretary of State to veto any DNA which does not provide that basis of control.
      We accept that there must be arrangements for publishing the existence of DNAs when they have been declared. That is adequately provided for in the arrangements for publicity and registration in the land charges register. That is clearly laid down in Schedule 8. I ask the House to reject the amendment as both unnecessary and damaging to the real interests of those with property in areas which may be declared development notification areas.
      Mr. Graham Page: We have listened to the most extraordinary statement. We have been told that it is advantageous to have one's throat cut. The Minister is suggesting that disposal notification areas are for the benefit of those with property in the areas concerned. It can be said that covenants on property to keep it residential are beneficial, but what happens when a local authority creates a disposal notification area? A person might decide, while having a bath, that he had better sell his property over the next 12 months. He must notify the local authority and the authority can stop him from selling. That is the great benefit, we are told, of the disposal notification area.
      We believe that there should be full publicity before a local authority passes a resolution declaring an area to be a disposal notification area. Clause 23(2) provides that
      "An authority may pass a resolution declaring any land in their area to be a disposal notification area".
      In other words, anybody in that area who intends to sell his property may be stopped from selling it. Therefore, we wish to add a provision requiring publicity to be given to the proposal before the resolution is passed,
      "provided that in the case of land on which there is at least one dwelling-house such resolution shall not be passed"
      unless certain publicity has been given.
      This proposal deals with a matter that has been of great concern to people when they appreciate that they may fall within a disposal notification area. Such
      1430
      a designation may be imposed on any kind of property, not necessarily only on slum property. We must remember that in this respect we are talking not of action areas but of areas where a local authority may wish to take control of a property standing in two or three acres of ground. The Minister said that there was no question of anybody losing his rights, but surely he cannot maintain that the establishment of a disposal notification area does not take away the rights of a property owner.
      Before a resolution is passed, the amendment would require publicity to be given to the preparation of local plans. The situation is set out in Section 12(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as follows:
      "A local planning authority who propose to prepare a local plan shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—

      (a)that adequate publicity is given in their area to any relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area carried out by them under section 6 of this Act and to the matters proposed to be included in the plan;

      (b)that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority with respect to those matters are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so; and

      (c)that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations;

      and the authority shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period."
      That is a duty that is already laid on local authorities by Parliament before those authorities prepare local plans. The local plan sets out planning ideas only in respect of that area. A local plan does not say, "You shall not sell your property without giving us a chance to take it from you"—but that is what a disposal notification area does. Such an area will cause far greater damage to the rights of property ownership than will the preparation of local plans. It will undoubtedly cause damage to owners of dwelling-houses within a disposal notification area. The Lords amendment applies only to dwelling-houses. It deals only with the item that has proved of great concern to people who are beginning to understand the meaning of the Bill—namely, with disposal notification areas. Clause 23(2) contains one of the most damaging provisions in the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister will accept the Lords amendment because it will give

      1431
      a little relief to those who own dwelling-houses within what the Minister likes to call a "DNA". Those initials hide the true meaning of that concept—namely, an area in which an owner will not be allowed to sell his property without first notifying the local authority, and, indeed, may possibly be stopped from selling it.
      Mr. Michael Latham: A few minutes ago the Under-Secretary was kind enough to make some pleasant remark about me. I reciprocate by saying that I have always appreciated the answers that he has given to the Committee and the House. But he fell below his usual high standard in introducing this motion to disagree with the Lords. For anyone to try to pretend that a disposal notification area is of benefit to the citizen is ludicrous. The purpose of such an area is stated clearly in Clause 23 (1) which says that
      "An authority may exercise the powers conferred by this section for the purpose of obtaining information about disposals of development land."
      The local authority does not want to obtain the information for the good of its soul, or to fill itself up with paper—although that will certainly happen. It wants information so that it may subsequently undertake substantial acquisition in the area. The reason for requiring the information before undertaking that acquisition is that if anyone is rash enough to want to carry out development, the local authority can get in first and suspend the planning permission and make a compulsory purchase order. That does not seem to be of great benefit to the citizen.
      When the Lords tabled this amendment, and subsequently Lords Amendment No. 140—which I understand the Government are to accept, with a change—they were wisely drawing a distinction between the present wording of Schedule 8(1) and that of Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The publicity arrangements in Part III of Schedule 8 of the Bill are not very wide. The schedule provides that:
      (2) As soon as practicable after passing the resolution, the authority shall—

      (a) publish a notice of the effect of the resolution and naming a place or places where a copy of the resolution, and, in the case of a resolution affecting a part only of the area, a map on which that part of
      1432
      the area is defined, may be inspected at all reasonable times, and

      All hon. Members know exactly what that means, from their constituency experience. It will be a small advertisement in the local paper, and possibly one notice, written in legal jargon, pinned up outside the town hall—a notice which only those with knowledge of the matter can understand. For the private citizen this is meaningless, because he is unlikely to understand it or to know whether his home is being threatened.
      The provisions in Section 12(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act are much wider. They place a duty on the local authority to conduct a much more substantial participation exercise. It is required to see that adequate publicity is given in its area to any relevant matter and to ensure that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority are made aware that they are entitled to do so. Specific duties are placed on the local authority under Section 12—duties wider than those in Schedule 8 of the Bill. If we are to try placing on the statute book a law that says that people should be required to notify their local authority before disposing of their property, so that the local authority can decide whether it wishes to acquire it, the least we can do is to tell people that they have the right to object, and to circularise them in accordance with Section 12. I am amazed that the Minister, who is normally a reasonable man should seek to resist the amendment.
      6.30 a.m.
      Mr. Mayhew: I cannot emulate the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), but I invite the Minister to explore further his thesis that a development notification area confers a benefit upon the owner of property. The Minister says that the disposal notification area concept enables the owner of property to claim compensation for blight, but the very argument in our discussions on Lords Amendment No. 93 in respect of the five-year rolling programme—that it enabled compensation to be claimed for blight—was rejected. It is impossible to avoid the impression that the Minister is changing his mind from amendment to amendment in a manner that borders on the frivolous.
      The Minister rejected our amendment to Lords Amendment No. 83, on the

      1433
      ground that it was unnecessary, when it was clearly necessary. He rejected Lords Amendment No. 93, which was necessary, on the grounds that it was unnecessary. Now, he advances the argument that the DNA confers great benefit on the householder because it enables him to claim compensation blight, when he has rejected the argument that we advanced on Lords Amendment No. 93 that it allowed compensation to be claimed for compensation blight. What ground is the Minister advancing, or is he taking a frivolous, light-hearted approach to amendments which were seriously considered in another place and deserve to be accepted by him?
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am worried about the disposal notification areas. I am no scientist or biologist, but I believe I am right in saying that DNA is a vital ingredient in the cell structure and a basic aspect of human life. I cannot conceive that a disposal notification area has much to contribute in that sphere.
      I am doubtful whether the Under-Secretary appreciate the implications of disposal notification areas upon the ordinary householder. Those who take a not too close interest in the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament may be vaguely aware that there is a Bill called the Community Land Bill. If they have read the White Paper, any other publication, or newspaper comments on the Bill, they may be under the impression that it applies to development land. Those people will probably think that development land could properly come within public ownership without any damage being caused to their affairs. It would not occur to a home-owner who does not regard his home as having development potential that legislation which is concerned with development land could affect his ownership of his home or anything he did with it if he moved elsewhere.
      Yet people who live in the disposal notification areas are liable to find that their rights are affected in a nasty and remarkable manner. I go along with my hon. Friends who have commented on the extraordinary behaviour of the Under Secretary of State in advancing the theory that the concept of the disposal notification area is not dangerous to the rights of individual home-owners but is positively beneficial. It baffles me.
      1434
      I am not a member of the legal profession, but there are many legal gentlemen around me, including the Under-Secretary of State. He may even have had some passing experience of conveyancing. Anyone who owns a home knows of the uncertainty and distress that can result when what he thinks is an agreed deal does not go through. Even in the most perfectly regulated market, mixed economy, or whatever system the Government are seeking to create—it changes frequently—it is unlikely that we shall have a balance of supply and demand and absence of gazumping and other techniques in the house market. With DNAs we can be certain that transactions affecting ordinary people's homes—single houses owned by people who want to move from one town to another—will be delayed.
      People will find that they have to notify the local authority. I know that the Under Secretary is just waiting to say that here I go again criticising local authorities, but let us face the fact that they are not the perfect administrative machine. There is a local authority of a not inconsiderable size not very far from here, of which it is said that it sometimes takes over a week for correspondence to get from the front door even to the desk of the person meant to be dealing with it, let alone to the top of the pile—and what happens when that person is on holiday or on strike? The idea that there will be a reply in a month is not borne out by the experience of planning legislation of those of us who are at the receiving end—not inside the local authority, although I have been that at one time—of the non-delivery.
      Mr. Durant: It may be an advantage if there is just a month for the local authority to make up its mind. If the papers got lost, it might be to the advantage of the resident.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I am saying that the likelihood of any reply before the maximum time allowed is very small. In town planning legislation, as we are only too unhappily aware, there are some local authorities that just laugh if it is suggested to them that they can give an answer to a planning application in less than six months. They say that they are very busy, or that the planning

      1435
      committee meets only every month, or something like that.
      The public has an unhappy experience of the reaction of local authorities. They are very busy people and, sometimes, unfortunately, we make them busier by giving them too much to do. We must anticipate that local authorities will make a meal of this provision and will get into a muddle and ask for extensions, make one decision and then want to change it because it is the wrong decision. All this will have a serious effect on people owning homes in a disposal notification area.
      I do not want to go into the hideous cost of the administrative bureaucracy that will be created for a disposal notification area.
      Mr. Lawrence: Please do.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am being invited to do so, but perhaps my hon. Friend will enlarge on that a little. Undoubtedly disposal notification areas are one of the most ghastly aspects of this bureaucratic nightmare that we are being asked to process at a very appropriate time in the morning for nightmares.
      It is not without significance that questions have failed to elicit any information from the right hon. Gentleman as to what assumptions are made about the number of disposal notification areas in his costings for the scheme. It appears that no serious assumptions were made about the number of and expenditure on disposal notification areas and the number of property transactions that would have to be processed. All the assumptions and the costings of the scheme seem to have been based on even more frivolous ground than was apparent.
      We shall have delay, cost and bureaucracy, and, most of all, we shall have a serious risk that a number of people owning homes in a disposal notification area will find when they try to sell their property that the local authority will delay; and so the deal will fall through and there will be a ripple effect and a whole series of deals will fall through, and a lot of people will be upset. People should be given the opportunity to express their views on the matter indirectly, and they should be made more aware of the
      1436
      circumstances in which they are likely to find themselves, so that it does not come as an unpleasant shock at the last moment, when people have thought that they have set the sale of their house under way, to find out, probably from their legal adviser, that the local authority cannot proceed and that there is no way in which to help.
      This is another of those instances when one hopes that the Government will look at all the circumstances and will consider the implications for those likely to be involved. What is there to lose in accepting the Lords amendment? In his helpful manner, the Under-Secretary has tried to persuade us that this system will actually be helpful to people living in disposal notification areas. He has not explained why it would be helpful. Can he give us any reason for not accepting the Lords amendment? What would be the cost to those who might be affected?
      Dr. Glyn: It is incumbent on the Minister to explain one or two simple points. We should have some indication of the number of these areas and he should take notice that a very large number of people own fairly large houses with reasonably-sized gardens—perhaps with an orchard. These are the very people who will be affected by the Bill.
      All that the Lords amendment attempts to do is to give them a measure of protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said, these are people whose rights are being taken away by the Bill. It is about time people realised that the Bill applies to very small holders of medium-value property. My hon. Friend mentioned the problem of delay, and there are other facets, such as the difficulty of selling, and perhaps the almost impossibility of selling to anyone but the local authority.
      The provisions in the schedule are not sufficient. There should be far better machinery for informing these people of the position they are in by being in a disposal area and if they are single occupiers of dwelling-houses. The Government should accept the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friends have put their finger on the principal reason why the Government are ashamed to give publicity to this facet of their Bill. The Government appreciate that these disposal

      1437
      notices will affect owner-occupiers, and may do so in a big way. The Labour Party's election manifesto said:
      "The Labour Government will take into public ownership land required for development, redevelopment and improvement. These proposals do not apply to owner-occupiers, whose homes and gardens will be safeguarded."
      Sixty per cent. of the population are owner-occupiers. The Government dare not alienate them for their semi-Communist principles of a desire to take all land. The Government are moving in stages towards the full aim of public ownership of land, but cannot move too fast because of the owner-occupiers among the electorate. That was why they went out of their way in the manifesto to say that owner-occupiers would be safeguarded.
      But under these provisions there will be no safeguarding of owner-occupiers who will be affected. The amendment would give publicity to the fact. It would mean, if the 1971 Act provisions were applied to the Bill, that owner-occupiers would be given the opportunity to object. One can understand owner-occupiers in a whole street or whole area of a town rising up in an extremely agitated way against their local councillors, if they are Labour, or against their Member of Parliament, if he is Labour. People should understand why the Government are reluctant, on this issue of fundamental justice and interference with the rights of the individual, to give ample warning of the incursions about to be made on them so that they may make representations and protect themselves.
      For the Minister to pretend—as though we are particularly stupid at this time of the morning—that there is an advantage to people to have these notices over them, and that in some way they will benefit from the blight that will result, is an insult to our intelligence.
      At moments like this it is surely incumbent on the Minister to come clean. If the Government have some diverse reason for wanting to defend their Bill without giving these fundamental rights to people, it is only right and proper that they should say so. If they do not say so, the people will know how to judge them.
      6.45 a.m.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the House is aware that what is coming to the fore yet again is the difference of
      1438
      philosophy between the two sides of the House—a point to which the Minister referred earlier. In rejecting the amendment the Government are rejecting a small protection for the individual by way of the publicity called for in the amendment.
      Earlier in the course of our debates the individual was asked to trust the benevolent discretion of the Secretary of State, but now he is being told that he will be deprived of the benefit of blight provisions. I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State has explained at all adequately to the House why, if the amendment is not accepted and if the information is not given to him, the individual house owner or occupier can thereby be deprived of the benefit of these blight provisions.
      Mr. Oakes: Whatever Opposition Members may or may not think of the principle of disposal notification areas, what I was trying to describe to the House is the effect of the amendment from the other place on people who would be living in disposal notification areas.
      Two things are being confused here. One is publicity and the other is participation. There is no issue between us on the need for publicity concerning a disposal notification area. Clearly it is essential in the interests especially of the people in the area that there should be full and adequate publicity where a disposal notification order is being made, and that is provided for in the Bill. The amendment from the other place seeks to go beyond that: it wants publicity and public participation.
      May I spell out again what could be the detrimental effect of the amendment on people living in a disposal notification area? Where local authorities carry out a public participation exercise in precisely the way that their Lordships request in the amendment and then declare a disposal notification area, some of them, having done this, might wish to claim that the planning issues had been adequately dealt with by means of this process. This is something we do not want to happen, and neither do hon. Gentlemen opposite. The result could be to bypass the ordinary procedures for public participation and public inquiry under the Planning Acts. We are not discussing disposal notification

      1439
      areas generally but are discussing the effect of the amendment from the other place.
      There is one reason why we as a Government think that it would be wrong to accept their Lordships' amendment.
      Mr. Durant: Surely the hon. Gentleman is now admitting that our proposals to strengthen the public inquiry provision were right. He is now saying that there is insufficient public inquiry facility and, therefore, that this provision must be made.
      Mr. Oakes: I am not saying that. I am stressing the need for publicity, but I am saying that if the Lords amendment were accepted the ordinary planning process could be bypassed by the device of using public participation on the disposal notification area.
      We heard this discussed in relation to the five-year programme. The five-year programme that we were discussing earlier will not list sites and, therefore, cannot be used for the foundation of a blight notice. The disposal notification area comes much further along the line for the local authority. It is not the rolling programme, and one gets this constantly with disposal notification areas.
      I said on Report that anyone would think that the entire length and breadth of England, Wales and Scotland was to be one huge disposal notification area. I say now that the rolling programme is not a disposal notification area. A

      Division No. 403.]

      AYES

      [6.54 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cant, R. B.

      Doig, Peter

      Allaun, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Anderson, Donald

      Carter, Ray

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Archer, Peter

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dunn, James A.

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cartwright, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Ashley, Jack

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Eadie, Alex

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Edge, Geoff

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Coleman, Donald

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Conlan, Bernard

      English, Michael

      Bean, R. E.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Corbett, Robin

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cronin, John

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Boardman, H.

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Flannery, Martin

      Booth, Albert

      Cryer, Bob

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Forrester, John

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies. Ifor (Gower)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      George, Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Campbell, Ian

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Ginsburg, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dempsey, James

      Golding, John

      disposal notification area is far more concrete than that where an authority has made up its mind about a relatively small area that it is in the interests of the authority that it should be notified where people intend to sell within that area because it has development plans for the area as a whole.
      The Opposition have asked what possible advantage there can be in living in a disposal notification area. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that anyone in such an area would have to tell the local authority if he intended to sell and that the authority could stop him from selling. If the authority says vaguely to that person "We want this at some time in the future," he can say to the authority "Oh, no, you don't. You buy it now, at market value." That is the advantage that a person gets if he is in a disposal notification area. If it is not declared a disposal notification area, he does not get that advantage.
      I know that that is going beyond the subject matter of the amendment, but it is a problem to which reference has been made. The main point of the amendment is that it could be used by an authority as a device to bypass ordinary planning procedures. For that reason, we ask the House to reject the amendment from the other place.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 239.

      Gould, Bryan

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Graham, Ted

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Madden, Max

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Magee, Bryan

      Sillars, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Mahon, Simon

      Silverman, Julius

      Harper, Joseph

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Small, William

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Marquand, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hatton, Frank

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Stoddart, David

      Heifer, Eric S.

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Hooley, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Strang, Gavin

      Horam, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Swain, Thomas

      Huckfield, Les

      Molloy, William

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Moonman, Eric

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Hunter, Adam

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Moyle, Roland

      Tierney, Sydney

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Tinn, James

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Tomlinson, John

      Janner, Greville

      Newens, Stanley

      Tomney, Frank

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Noble, Mike

      Torney, Tom

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tuck, Raphael

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ogden, Eric

      Urwin, T. W.

      John, Brynmor

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ovenden, John

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Owen, Dr David

      Ward, Michael

      Judd, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Watkins, David

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Park, George

      Watkinson, John

      Kelley, Richard

      Parker, John

      Weetch, Ken

      Kerr, Russell

      Parry, Robert

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Pavitt, Laurie

      White, James (Pollok)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Lambie, David

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Whitlock, William

      Lamborn, Harry

      Radice, Giles

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Lamond, James

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Lee, John

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Litterick, Tom

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Luard, Evan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Woodall, Alec

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Roper, John

      Woof, Robert

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sandelson, Neville

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      McElhone, Frank

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Selby, Harry

      Mr. J. D. Dormand.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Alison, Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Arnold, Tom

      Buck, Antony

      Durant, Tony

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Budgen, Nick

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Elliott, Sir William

      Baker, Kenneth

      Burden, F. A.

      Emery, Peter

      Banks, Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Eyre, Reginald

      Beith, A. J.

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Channon, Paul

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fell, Anthony

      Benyon, W.

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Biffen, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Blaker, Peter

      Cockcroft, John

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Body, Richard

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fox, Marcus

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cope, John

      Fry, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Costain, A. P.

      Gardiner, George (Relgate)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Crouch, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Brittan, Leon

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Brotherton, Michael

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Goodhart, Philip

      Goodhew, Victor

      Loveridge, John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Luce, Richard

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Gorst, John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)

      MacGregor, John

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Gray, Hamish

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Grieve, Percy

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Grist, Ian

      Madel, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Grylls, Michael

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hall, Sir John

      Marten, Neil

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mates, Michael

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mather, Carol

      Shepherd, Colin

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maude, Angus

      Sims, Roger

      Hannam, John

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mawby, Ray

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Speed, Keith

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Spence, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mills, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Sproat, Iain

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Stainton, Keith

      Hicks, Robert

      Moate, Roger

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Monro, Hector

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Holland, Philip

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Stokes, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Morgan, Geraint

      Tapsell, Peter

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Taylor, R (Croydon NW)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hunt, John

      Mudd, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hurd, Douglas

      Neave, Airey

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Neubert, Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Newton, Tony

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Nott, John

      Trotter, Neville

      James, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pardoe, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Jopling, Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wakeham, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Percival, Ian

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Pink. R, Bonner

      Wall, Patrick

      Kimball, Marcus

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Walters, Dennis

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wells, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Raison, Timothy

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Knox, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lamont, Norman

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Younger, Hon George

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lawson, Nigel

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Mr. Adam Butler and

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 127, in page 23, line 10, at end insert—
      "(c) to a transaction which is not for valuable consideration,
      (d) to a disposal, or a contract for a disposal, to any authority or to the Crown;
      and as respects any transaction to which Part IIA of Schedule 8 to this Act applies notice may, but need not, be given under subsection (5) above."
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment excludes from the requirement to notify disposals in DNAs
      1444
      a transaction which is not for valuable consideration. Of course it is acceptable. It was a Government amendment in response to a point made in the Lords Committee.
      Mr. Rossi: It would help us if we could identify the amendment. Line 10 on page 23 is the end of subsection (7), which does not contain paragraphs (a) or (b). The Notice Paper therefore must be wrong. I wonder whether the Chair can assist us, because we do not know what we are amending.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Perhaps the Minister could help the Chair.
      Mr. John Silkin: The Minister will try, but he would like to point out that the

      1445
      effect of the amendment, even if we are not quite certain where it arises, must be exactly right and something which the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. It was introduced in the Lords to meet a Lords Committee point.
      Mr. Rossi: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the amendment he intended to move, but the amendment on the Notice Paper is not the one that he has moved. The amendment on the Paper seeks to add two paragraphs to the Bill in a place where they clearly cannot go. The Paper is therefore incorrect. Is there a precedent for this? What happens when an amendment is moved which makes nonsense of the Bill?
      Mr. Silkin: The answer is that Lords Amendments Nos. 123 and 126, to which we agreed in the last group taken formally, were paving amendments to No. 127.
      Mr. Rossi: With respect, that is still not the solution. I believe that I know it, but I do not know whether I should help the Minister. Having teased him sufficiently to show that he is not clear what he is moving, I would say that his amendment should be inserted in line 6, since it should be an amendment to subsection (6), not subsection (7). That is my guess, but it is for the Minister to tell us what he is doing.
      Mr. Peyton: Might I suggest to the Minister that it would be a novel practice to start throwing amendments into the air and hoping that they land in the right place in the Bill? I realise that he has to sustain himself with a certain amount of optimism in our passage through the Bill, but this is overdoing it. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot immediately clear up the matter beyond doubt, we should leave this amendment and come back to it another time. We should not leave the matter to chance.
      Mr. Silkin: The information I gave was correct. Amendments No. 123 and 126 were paving amendments. Now we come to Amendment No. 127.
      Mr. Rossi: If those other amendments were paving amendments, why was not Amendment No. 127 taken with them? No. 123 and No. 126 were taken with the fifth group of amendments which we discussed at about 5 o'clock yesterday. It
      1446
      is nonsense to deal with the matter in this way.
      Mr. Hastings: This is a very serious incident. I have some sympathy with the Minister. He has had about enough and he does not know which amendments we are discussing. This will get us into even more confusion than we are in at present.
      It is clear that we cannot go on discussing the Bill any longer. The Minister cannot lead us. He does not know where he is. The simple solution would be to adjourn now. When we return refreshed we shall be able to identify the amendments we are supposed to be discussing.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I have looked at this matter with some care and, being a mere lawyer and only learned—
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock and Port Glasgow): And half asleep.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I may be half asleep but I am also half awake, which is more than can be said for the hon. Member.
      This amendment means nothing, but that is helpful because the whole Bill means nothing. It is incomprehensible gobbledegook.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not going to have a Second Reading debate on the Bill.
      Mr. Fairbairn: I am a member of the senior house of the legal profession. Perhaps the geniuses in the lower House will explain to a simple Back Bencher like me how Amendment No. 127 will apply, regardless of whether there are paving amendments. It does not conform with the lineation or pagination of the Bill. There are no subsections in line 10 of page 23.
      Mr. Hastings: What exactly is pagination? It is bad enough not to know which amendment we are on, but now the language is becoming a little obscure.
      Mr. Fairbairn: For someone who had been introduced to the concept of LAM-ing, which I understand means some obscene form of bureaucratic tyranny, I should have thought that pagination was quite a decent English word. For a Scot to produce it at this hour of the morning shows that he has spent the night over his dictionary.

      1447
      Let us deal with page 23, line 10. Regardless of any previous amendment, paragraphs (c) and (d), which have no application whatever, cannot be added to Clause 23(7). That makes nonsense, and no attempt by an English solicitor to cure the nonsense will convince a Scottish counsel that he has done so.
      7.15 a.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: I must attempt to assist the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). Since they were leading me, and since both of them refused to divide against the group of amendments which included Lords Amendments Nos. 123 and 126, the paving amendments, I assume that they were in favour of them. Since they were in favour of them, they should have known what they were doing.
      Are they really now looking a gift horse in the mouth? If we could fit the amendments in and they made sense I believe that the Opposition would welcome them, as they were welcomed in another place.
      I urge hon. Members to turn to page 23 of the Bill. The effect of Lords Amendment No. 123 is to alter paragraph (a). It says
      "Subsection (5) shall not apply to"
      and there we insert Lords Amendment No. 123 to amend paragraph (a).
      Lords Amendment 126 deletes paragraph (b), which is
      "a disposal to any authority, or"
      and (c), which is
      "a disposal to the Crown".
      Then comes subsection (7), which after line 10 will read
      "(c) to a transaction which is not for valuable consideration,
      (d) to a disposal, or a contract for a disposal, to any authority or to the Crown"
      and so on.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister has made that satisfactorily clear.
      Mr. Graham Page: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He left out paragraph (b) altogether.
      Mr. John Silkin: I thought I made it clear that Lords Amendment No. 126
      1448
      keeps (b) as that part of subsection (7) which follows
      "Subsection (5) above shall not apply".
      Those words are being deleted. One then comes to the words "to a transaction é and then Lords Amendment No. 127 comes in to give (c).
      Mr. Page: The Minister said that the amendment took out (b), but it leaves it there.
      I shall read subsection (6), inserting the amendments, the last of which we are now debating. It then reads:
      "Subsection (5) above shall not apply to—

      (a) a disposal in performance of a contract for that disposal of which notice has been duly given under this section.

      (b)"—

      We leave that little (b) there.
      Mr. John Silkin: It says "or (b)".
      Mr. Page: No. The word "or" has been taken out by Lords Amendment No. 125.
      The subsection continues:
      "(b) a transaction carried out before the effective date specified in the resolution in accordance with subsection (3) above (but can apply to a disposal in performance of a contract before that date)."
      Then we add the (c) that we are now discussing:
      "to a transaction which is not for valuable consideration,"
      and
      "(d) to a disposal, or a contract for a disposal, to any authority or to the Crown;",
      followed by three more lines on the Notice Paper.
      I take it that that is how the subsection will read if we include all the amendments from No. 123 to No. 127. With all respect to the draftsman who drafted the amendments, we are left with a very ill-drafted subsection. It is very difficult to understand.
      However, I think that the Minister is giving us something for which we asked at an earlier stage. I hope that he is, and I am prepared to trust him on this matter. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. As I think that we have what we want, even if it is ill-drafted, I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
      Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. Would the Minister like to have the sitting suspended for two or three minutes to

      1449
      enable him to consult his advisers, so that he can make the position clear beyond peradventure? [Interruption.] I hope he will understand that, despite the barracking of some of his hon. Friends, this is intended to be a helpful and serious suggestion.
      Mr. John Silkin: I fully accept that the right hon. Gentleman is being helpful, but I think that between us his right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I have at last got to what the drafting is. This is a point to meet the Opposition, and in those circumstances perhaps we have gone far enough.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 129, in page 23, line 29, at end insert
      "and as if an interest qualifies for protection notwithstanding its failure to comply with section 192(4) of the Act of 1971 or section 181(4) of the Scottish Act of 1972."
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Subsection (9) of Clause 23 already provides that when an authority has served a counter-notice to a disposal notification stating that it intends to acquire the land, or has failed to serve a counter-notice within the required period of four weeks, the blight provisions of the Planning Acts shall apply so that those within the protected categories can serve a blight notice on the authority requiring it to acquire their land in advance. The protected categories are residential and agricultural owner-occupiers and owner-occupiers of premises with a rateable value not exceeding £2,250.
      The effect of the amendment is to provide that anyone with a material interest in land, and not merely those within the protected categories, could serve a blight notice. The effect, therefore, would be to remove the present limitation that applies to residential and agricultural owner-occupiers and owner-occupiers of property whose rateable value does not exceed £2, 250. Those are the only categories of persons entitled to serve blight notices. The system is designed to protect those who suffer the greatest hardship from blight—for
      1450
      example, residential owners who need to sell their houses because they have to move to other areas. It has always been accepted hitherto that this protection should not be extended to other categories—for example, the absentee landlord—
      Mr. Clegg: Oh.
      Mr. Silkin: That has been accepted by both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman may recall that we have cantered round this course before. The blight categories were carefully considered by the Opposition when they were in Government when dealing with the Land Compensation Act 1973. Part V of that Act contained a number of important provisions concerning blight. The Conservative Government took the same view that we have taken. That is one reason for my expecting the Opposition to support the Government on this matter.
      Mr. Clegg: At this time of the morning there is nothing I enjoy more than a canter round a course to which I am accustomed. The right hon. Gentleman has been carefully quoting Acts dealing with blight which were passed by a Conservative Government of which I was a member. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that before that I introduced the Planning Blight and Worsenment Bill. The Labour Government of the day saw fit to reject it.
      In arguing in support of the Lords amendment I contend that blight, if proved, should be capable of remedy. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we should reject the amendment because it widens the area of blight. I believe that if a subject of the Crown suffers, it matters not whether he be rich or poor. It seems that we are in the process of saying "If your property is of a certain kind and under a certain rateable value and you suffer a wrong, that wrong shall be put right. If, however, you suffer a wrong and your rateable value is above a certain figure, and if your property is of a certain nature, you shall not be recompensed by the State." I totally reject that point of view. There is either justice or injustice. The amendment provides for justice for all and not merely for a few.
      I reject the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. If there is blight and the State induces it, the State should recompense those who suffer. That is why I

      1451
      say that their Lordships have been right to present us with the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      DISPOSAL NOTIFICATION AREAS
      Lords Amendment: No. 133, in page 81, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
      7.30 a.m.
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that we may also take Lords Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136.
      Mr. Silkin: I congratulate you on your energy at this hour of the morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      These amendments would enable the Secretary of State to revoke all or part of a disposal notification area declared by an authority at any time rather than within the time limits at present specified—that is, 28 days from receiving the copy resolution from the authority, or longer if it requires more time.
      There may be instances—for example, where a new or revised local plan is drawn up—where there is a change in the planning strategy for the area such that the land concerned is no longer allocated for relevant development. In this situation there may be a case for terminating all or part of a DNA which was justified against the earlier planning background.
      As the Bill is drafted, there is provision in paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 for the authority itself to terminate a DNA, but none whereby the Secretary of State can initiate such action once the initial right of "veto" has expired. It seems desirable that there should be control over this situation, and the purpose of the amendments is to enable the Secretary of State to have a continuing power of revocation instead of just the initial power, which is all that is provided at present.
      The amendments achieve this aim by removing those provisions in paragraph 2 of the schedule which relate the Secretary of State's functions—his right of "veto"—to the initial declaration of a DNA. The effect of these changes is to
      1452
      allow the Secretary of State to require all or part of a DNA to be terminated at any time.
      Mr. Graham Page: I wish to raise two matters. First, will the Secretary of State have power to revoke a disposal notification area without consulting the local authority? Judging by the way in which the Minister introduced this matter it looks as though there is a complete right of veto given to the Secretary of State to revoke a DNA at any time without telling the local authority or consulting anybody. It seems rather high-handed of the Secretary of State to take such an attitude.
      Although I am not in the least in favour of DNA resolutions, I at least wish to point out that if the Secretary of State wishes to override the resolution of a local authority, we should be certain that he consults the local authority in question before he takes that step.
      Secondly, when a local authority has passed a resolution, will it be registered as a local land charge, and is there any obligation on the Secretary of State to remove that charge? I believe that it is important that he should do so. The DNA registered as a LLC—or, in simpler language, the disposal notification area registered as a local land charge—will be an encumbrance on the property. When the owner comes to sell, the purchaser will make his local search and, if the property is within a DNA, that will reduce the value of the property. If that property is removed by the Secretary of State, It should be removed as quickly as possible from the local land charge registry. I am not sure whether a local authority when it revokes a DNA has to remove the matter from the registry. If that is not the case, I hope that the Secretary of State will see that that procedure is followed.
      Mr. Silkin: I have to admit to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no obligation on the part of the Secretary of State to consult. In practice I can give him the assurance that the Secretary of State would do so. With regard to the question of the local land charge, I agree that it is an important obligation that the entry should be removed. There is an obligation under the local land charges rules to do this.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 140, in page 82, line 45, at end insert—
      "PART IIA
      Disposals of which notice may, but need not, be given
      3A.—(1) This paragraph applies to a disposal by an individual of a material interest in land which is the whole or any part of his private residence.
      (2) This paragraph also applies to a disposal by trustees of a material interest in land held in trust where—

      (a) that land is the whole or any part of a person's pivate residence, and

      (b) that person is entitled, under the terms of the trust, to occupy that residence or to receive the whole of the income derived from, or from the proceeds of sale of, the material interest.

      (3) In this paragraph—
      "disposal" includes a contract for a disposal,
      "dwelling-house" includes part of a dwelling-house,
      an individual's "private residence" means—

      (a) land comprising a dwelling-house which, at the date of the disposal, is that individual's only or main residence, and

      (b) land which at that date he has for his own occupation and enjoyment with that dwelling-house as its garden or grounds up to an area which, when aggregated with the area of the site of the dwelling-house, does not exceed one acre or such larger area as may in any particular case be required for the reasonable enjoyment of it as a residence, in the opinion of the authority, regard being had to its size and character;

      and a person's "private residence" shall be construced accordingly".
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment to proposed Lords Amendment made: In subsection (3)(b), leave out from 'acre' to end of paragraph.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
      Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.
      I move this motion on the strict understanding that our old friend, Lords Amendment No. 127 is also a paving amendment for Lords Amendment 140. I very much regret that, but I gather that the reason for this grouping was that it seemed better to have separate debates on these two different amendments rather than to have the same paving amendment leading in. Perhaps, after all, it did work out on the first debate.
      1454
      The amendment excludes from the requirement to notify the disposal of a private dwelling-house which is the owner's only or main residence on a plot of up to one acre or such larger area as the authority may decide as reasonable having regard to the size and character of the house. The amendment is acceptable, including the paving amendment, in so far as the exclusion from the requirement to notify disposal of a house relates to a house on a plot of up to one acre. What is not acceptable is the added qualification dealing with such larger area as may in any case be required for the reasonable enjoyment of the house as a residence. I hope to explain why. It will take me a little time and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
      As I have explained, one aim of disposal notification areas—there are others—is to enable an authority to endeavour to buy land at an early stage once it has made its development areas, so that the cost is not increased by the build-up of high base values for development land tax purposes. It makes no difference to the vendor but it makes a great deal of difference to the local authority because the lower the base value the cheaper the authority gets the land, since it gets it net of tax. For the vendor it is exactly the same.
      At the same time a declaration of a disposal notification area can be helpful to owners of land in an area where an authority is proposing to acquire because it provides them with the opportunity, if the land is blighted and if they qualify on the basis we have talked about—within the terms of Sections 192 of the 1971 Act—to acquire the authority to purchase. If an owner does this the amount that he gets is protected, as in other blight situations, by Section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides that the compensation in circumstances of this kind is not to be reduced by the fact that values on the open market may be affected by the threat of compulsory purchase.
      Now that substantial progress has been made with the drafting of the Development Land Tax Bill. it is clear that it is unlikely to be of any benefit to the authority in terms of avoiding the build-up of high base values if it is informed of sales of owner-occupied houses which are the sole or main residences of the

      1455
      owners and stand in up to one acre of ground. This is obvious because there is no net of development land tax applicable in this instance since the house standing on one acre of ground is exempt from development land tax. At the same time, it would not be right to take away from the owners of such houses the potential remedy for blight that is inherent in the declaration of a DNA.
      The Lords amendments, therefore, exclude from the notification provisions the sale of such owner-occupied houses, but they leave the owners of such houses the option of notifying if they wish to do so. This will not only provide the opportunity of serving a blight notice if acquisition is intended, but it will also enable the local authority to reassure a prospective purchaser when it does not wish to acquire, even though the property lies within a DNA, and serve a counter notice accordingly in response to a disposal notification.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 25

      ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION ON OR AFTER SECOND APPOINTED DAY
      Lords Amendment: No. 149, in page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to "that" in line 1 on page 25 and insert—
      "(2) For the purpose of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed—

      (a) subject to subsections (3), (3B) and (3C) below, that planning permission would not be granted for any development either on the land or on any other land, and

      (b) subject to subsection (3B) below"

      Read a Second time.
      Amendment to the proposed Lords amendment made: In para. (b), leave out '(3B)' and insert '(3C)'.—Mr. John Silkin.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 152, in page 25, line 20, at end insert—
      "(3B) The assumptions in subsection (2) above shall not be made where at the date mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) above, the interest in land is owned by a charity.
      1456
      (3C) Where during the whole of the period of one year immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

      (a)the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

      (b)the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof), has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes.

      then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, if the charity entitled to the compensation so elects, notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) above, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
      (3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

      (a)has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

      (b)is or was indefeasibly entitled to it under the terms of a deceased persons' will."

      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to: In page 25, line 20, at end insert—
      "(3B) Where during the whole of the period of seven years immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

      (a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

      (b) the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof) has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes,

      then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, subject to subsection (3C) below, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
      (3C) The assumptions in subsections (2) and (3B) above shall not be made where—

      (a) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

      (b) that period is a period of not more than eleven years.

      (3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above the interest in land shall be

      1457
      treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at any time, the charity—

      (a)has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

      (b)subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate, is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will."—[Mr. John Silkin.)

      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 155, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—
      "(6A) (a) The assumptions in subsection (2) of this section shall not be made where—

      (i) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has been owned by an approved pension scheme, and

      (ii) that period is a period of not more than eleven years.

      (b)For the purposes of paragraph (a) above, the interest in land shall be treated as having been owned by an approved pension scheme at any time if that time the approved pension scheme has, or had, entered into a binding contract for its acquisition.
      (c)In this subsection "approved pension scheme" means a retirement pension scheme approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under section 222 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 or a superannuation fund approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purposes of section 208 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970".
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The effect of the new subsection is that if the second appointed day occurs before the lapse of a period of 11 years from White Paper day, compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition during the balance of the 11-year period of an interest in land owned throughout the period since White Paper day by a pension fund would have to be on the basis applicable before the second appointed day, that is to say, at market value as opposed to current use value. In essence, the amendment puts pension funds on all fours with Churches and charities.
      As we said on Report, we regard Churches and charities as separate and distinct from other institutions because of their nature. Therefore, I do not agree that they are on all fours with institu
      1458
      tions—particularly financial institutions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) said, with Churches we are dealing with small pieces of land in inner city areas which become available as a result of a church having to be moved because the population has moved. That is quite different from the position that arises with pension funds.
      There is little distinction between the investment of a pension fund as a company and other forms of corporate investment, so on philosophical grounds a distinction between pension funds and other institutional investors would be hard to draw. There are those general and wide reasons why there is a total difference between the Churches and charities on the one hand and pension funds on the other.
      7.45 a.m.
      But there are a number of other matters. I hope that the House will bear with me at this hour of the morning, because some concern has been expressed about the investment level of pensions funds as a result of the Bill. There are therefore some things that I should like to spell out in looking at exactly how the Bill will affect investments by pension funds—indeed, how little it will affect them. I want to do so by looking at certain cases of both developed and undeveloped land and get rid of some misconceptions that have arisen in the financial Press and some journals interested in the Bill.
      First let us take the case of sites which are already developed. Will they be acquired? So long as they continue in their current use, the position is unchanged from what it is at present. What then is the position if an existing property is to be rebuilt within the limits of an increase of 10 per cent in the floor space existing before rebuilding? Rebuilding on this scale would come within the scope of the excepted development regulations. The duty of local authorities to acquire will not apply to such rebuilding, the power to suspend planning applications will not apply, nor would compulsory purchase orders be approved unless they could be justified on special grounds.
      So this leaves only development on a scale which is quite different from that of the present building. I am not aware that this is in fact the sort of investment which pension funds have been in the

      1459
      habit of making, but let us suppose that they have done so. In such circum stances, they will have a prior right to a leaseback which the Schedule 6 procedures will in practic provide.
      Let us now take the second leg—the question of the valuation for purposes of compensation if the land is acquired. Current use value means just what it says—value in its current use as a developed site. It is a value that reflects—and which will continue to do so under the land scheme both before and after the second appointed day—the assumption that planning permission to rebuild within the tolerances set out in Schedule 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 would be granted.
      What would not be within current use value after the second appointed day is an increase in value attributable to the expectation that a planning permission would be granted for a development in excess of Schedule 8 tolerances. In the case of the commercial properties which constitute the bulk of the pension funds' investments, the change will mean very little. Such expectations are already heavily discounted by the market. Thus, in practice, there will be little difference in the compensation payable before and after the second appointed day.
      Having dealt with the case of developed sites, let us now consider a second type of case—where undeveloped land has been bought at a price reflecting the fact that it is ripe for development, or where a site with buildings on it has been bought at a price reflecting the hope of planning permission for early and major redevelopment. I stress, as I did in Committee and on Report, that the move to current use value will be gradual—the second appointed day cannot be brought in until the duty to acquire land for all relevant development has been applied to all authorities.
      This is frankly some considerable time off and, unless the investment in the land was with very long-term purposes in mind, or highly speculative—which seems unlikely in the case of pension funds—it should be possible for the development to be achieved before the second appointed day is reached. If the land is acquired by a local authority prior to development, compensation will be on the full market value basis currently
      1460
      applying. If the authority grants planning permission and decides not to acquire, and the development has not yet been carried out by the second appointed day, that planning permission will still confer value for compensation purposes after the second appointed day. Again, therefore, there is no reason why the Bill should have any significant effect on the value of land acquired by pension funds before White Paper day.
      Finally, I will deal with the more general allegation that it is not worthwhile for pension funds to invest in property at all in future. It follows from what I have said that there is no reason why the market in existing property should be affected by the scheme. As regards investment in new development on land which has passed through public ownership, it is true that freeholds will no longer be available, but investing institutions are well accustomed to leaseholds, and there has been no problem in the past for investors negotiating satisfactory terms in, for example, the new towns. There is no reason why their experience should be any different in future.
      It has been made clear that leases of 99 years or more will be available, and this should allow ample flexibility for the negotiation of arrangements which will provide the necessary stability for investment portfolios, a satisfactory income, and an ability to realise the investment on satisfactory terms if desired.
      I have gone to some length to discuss the question of pension funds in regard to their relationship with Churches and charities and the differences between them, and to dispel many of the rumours which have been circulating by showing in what a very limited way the Bill will affect the pension schemes, largely because, of course, their investment is not in the type of development which would be affected by the community land scheme.
      I hope that the House, having heard my explanation of our belief in the difference between Churches and charities, which are highly exceptional cases, and pension funds, which are a much more commercial investment, and of the very limited way in which pension funds would be affected by the scheme at all, will disagree with the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman's explanation has indicated the appalling lack of appreciation there is of the problems of the pension funds under the Bill. He has sought to minimise and belittle the impact of the Bill on pension funds, but those intimately concerned, the pension fund managers, who have studied this Bill in depth and are fully alive to its consequences, take a wholly different view.
      It is not for the hon. Gentleman to belittle these anxieties and to dismiss them as newspaper rumour. The people expressing them are professionals intimately concerned with the day-to-day management of pension fund assets. They know what they are about, this is their daily business, and if they say that the Bill is disastrous to pension funds, the hon. Gentleman can take it that it is.
      The hon. Gentleman makes great play of the fact that if the site is to be rebuilt there is a 10 per cent. tolerance, and if the redevelopment takes place within that tolerance none of the dire effects of the Bill will be attracted to it. That 10 per cent. tolerance is not worth a row of beans because the current costs of demolition and reconstruction in inflation terms exceed the anticipated value and the extra revenue to be derived from that 10 per cent. It has already been overtaken and passed by inflation. The additional cost of demolition and reconstruction disposed of that great 10 per cent. concession that is being trotted out the whole time. It is not worth anything at all.
      For a redevelopment to be viable today, it must be in excess of a 10 per cent. capacity, and, of course, it is at that point that the State starts dipping its hand into other people's pockets—in this case into the pockets of the pensioners who have invested money over their working lifetime in order to provide for their old age.
      The hon. Gentleman said that pension funds do not look at long-term investment in property for redevelopment purposes—that that is highly speculative. It is the very essence of pension fund investment in property. The hon. Gentleman need not pretend that this is the first time he has heard of this, because we discussed this in some detail on Second Reading, in Committee and on
      1462
      Report stage. Various statements were made from this side of the Chamber as to the policy of pension funds in these matters.
      The hon. Gentleman has had the time between Second Reading and now to check with the pension fund managers, and he need not merely check with those firms in the City providing pension funds as an adjunct to insurance company activity. He can check with the pension fund managers of the nationalised industries. They will tell him what is their investment policy for their retired miners, their retired electrical workers, their retired manual workers. We have had the figures trotted out at each stage of the Bill. We have been told of the quarter of a million miner pensioners whose pensions are at risk because of this measure. We have that on the authority of the pension fund managers.
      The hon. Gentleman cannot come here and blandly dismiss the advice that we are receiving from those quarters, and read out to us a brief that says, "Do not worry about it. It is not going to affect these people at all." I do not know who writes these briefs for the hon. Gentleman, or what experience the writer of that brief has in pension fund work, or whether the gentleman who wrote that brief has spoken to the nationalised industries' pension fund managers and gone into the figures with them, or with the managers of private pension funds. I am sure that if, if he had, the House would not be treated to the nonsense contained in the brief read to us, because it does not accord with the information given to us by the professionals who work in this field day in and day out.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have already told him that the policy of a pension fund, investing the earnings and savings of people, and providing money against their old age, is to find Victorian and Edwardian commercial properties, looking 150 years ahead in regard to the potential of the site. Within a 150-year term investment such a site has the possibility of being redeveloped not merely once but possibly even three times. Each time a redevelopment takes place on that site, a building is constructed to meet modern requirements, so that modern rents can be obtained. The income basis of the pension fund is increased at each redevelopment.

      1463
      It is that increase in rental base at each redevelopment which enables the pension fund to pay out pensions which keep up with the level of inflation. That is not speculation. That is sensible, prudent investment in bricks and mortar on behalf of people who want pensions which will support them in their old age. That is what the hon. Gentleman is destroying.
      8.0 a.m.
      I have been told by the pension fund managers that since their properties can be acquired after the second appointed day at current use value, the value of those properties in pension fund hands will be reduced immediately on the passing of the Bill and that, as the second appointed day approaches, they will continue to decline in value. It is obvious that if there is a decline in the value of the assets from market value to current use value—antiquated building value—on the second appointed day, that obviously reflects the value as of today because the value as of today must reflect the value ultimately to be obtained on the second appointed day, and, as we get nearer the second appointed day, the value goes down until it reaches that point.
      I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has consulted the Treasury on the effect that will have and how it relates to present Government economic policy in requiring greater investment in industry. The hon. Gentleman may ask what is the relation between the two. I will tell him. If the asset value of a pension fund goes down, that asset value under the average pension fund trust deed has to be made up by the industry concerned out of its revenue. That is its obligation.
      Whether it be ICI, Tate and Lyle or the National Coal Board pension fund, the effect of the passing of this Bill is to reduce the asset value of the properties, with a rapid decline in the value of those assets down to the second appointed day. Each year, or whatever the accounting period may be, that decline in asset value must be made up out of the revenue of that industry. If the revenue of that industry is making up the asset value of its pension fund, it has so much less for reinvestment in industry in order to expand our production and our economy. I shall be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman has given any thought to that possibility. It that matter had been considered, I am
      1464
      certain that a different view would have been taken of it.
      I am not conjuring these thoughts out of the air. I have taken the best advice available to me. What I have said about asset values and about the impact that this will have on industry can be supported fully by those professionally concerned in these matters.
      Is the Minister aware that already this year ICI has had to make up the value of its employees' pension fund by £30 million merely because of the effects of inflation? That sum will be increased immediately the Bill is passed and the £30 million, plus whatever will be charged to ICI, will mean that that much less money will be available to be invested in industry.
      Who will be affected by these provisions? On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report we talked about the miners and electrical workers. We quoted the number of retired people whose pensions were subject to and put at risk by the effects of the Bill. However, I have been given another figure. At present there are 12 million people subscribing to pension funds. They, together with their dependants, make up one half of the total population of this country. Therefore, one half of the total population of this country will be affected. We are talking about a Bill which is intended to bring money to the community and which is meant to be for the benefit of the community, yet we are undermining the provisions which people are making for their old age.
      What are we doing and how are we doing it? We are merely shifting the value of assets from one half of the population into the hands of the local authorities. The straight transfer of asset value into the hands of local authorities will be done by the town halls. The Minister must explain the position. He must obtain the views of that half of the population that will be affected.
      Today we are discussing the Bill in hypothetical terms. However, after the Bill has been enacted and the immediate effects upon those pension funds become obvious, the chicken will come home to roost on the Labour benches. We shall see how many votes this measure is worth to the Opposition when the people realise what the Bill will do to their pensions and their insurance policies.

      1465
      We are making our case. We are not able to defeat these provisions, but we wish that we were able to do so. We know perfectly well that the Minister, having read the brief which was placed in front of him, without considering the matters which we are now putting to him will insist that all his hon. Friends are whipped into the Division Lobby. The Government will carry this measure, and then they will live to rue the day.
      The Minister also mentioned that these pension funds were not analogous to charities and Churches. The dividing line between charities and non-charities is very fine, and difficult to define in legal terms. Is the Minister aware that, for example, the City of London General Pension Society, although a pension fund, is a charity and that it will escape what most of the pensions funds will have to undergo because it gets just inside the legal definition?
      The real difference between a pension fund and a charity is that the beneficiaries of the pension fund have to enter into a contractual obligation to pay a proportion of their earnings into the fund. In consideration of that, their employers pay in a sum, and ultimately those people will benefit as the beneficiaries of the fund. The mere fact that it is a contractual obligation in law takes it outside the concept of charity and therefore it will not be accepted for registration by the Charity Commissioners. But a trust fund is non-profit making. Nobody makes a profit out of it. The only people who derive advantage are the beneficiaries in the same way as beneficiaries derive benefit from a charity. Therefore, the dividing line between charities and pension funds is very fine.
      For the reasons that I have given regarding the appalling, not the minimal, impact that these measures will have on pension funds, that the dividing line between charities and pension funds is very fine, and that they are non-profit making enterprises, we, and the Lords in their amendment, ask that pension funds be treated similarly to charities.
      That is not a tremendous deal in itself, because the original intention to give charities and Churches complete exemption from the legislation has been denied by the Government. Churches and chari
      1466
      ties are to get a miserly 10-year exemption from the worst affects of the Bill. At the end of 10 years their time runs out. The amendment seeks to give pension funds a similar 10-year exemption.
      I do not want to detain the House too long at this hour of the morning. I hope that I have put the argument clearly and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the amendment.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I certainly rise in support of this Lords amendment because, apart from the Churches and charities, it is the most important matter that we have discussed since we started our deliberations yesterday afternoon.
      The pension funds have already suffered from the Government's proposals, and there is no question that they will suffer substantially more in the years ahead. Both in Committee and on Report we suggested various methods to help the pension funds. We tried replacement development and other definitions which the Government felt unable to accept. This is the last chance, as I see it, for us to do anything for them.
      I imagine that hon. Members have seen the handout from the group representing pension funds. In it they point out:
      "Pension fund activities are similar to charities in the field of investment"—
      the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) also made that point—
      "and it is here that the cases overlap. It is only in relation to compensation for acquisition of pre-White Paper Day investments that the pension funds are claiming a similar treatment to the charities. Thus, if the Church Commissioners or the Trustees of a University College Fund bought land pre-White Paper Day in order to use income and capital to provide benefits to clergymen or dons, it is difficult to see why they should receive a more favourable treatment in this respect than the trustees of a pension fund who bought land to provide benefits for workpeople in industry."
      That is a plausible case. We are only asking for them to be put on the same basis as are Churches and charities. The amendment is not asking for much. It is what happens when the investment runs out, when the reversionary interest falls due, which is the great problem for these funds.
      The Government have not appreciated the Bill's effect on a large number of

      1467
      worthy trust funds. This is another instance in which the Government will have to help if these organisations cannot do the job themselves. I am sure that this appeal will fall on deaf ears, but I hope that even at this late hour the Government will see some sense.
      8.15 a.m.
      Mr. Oakes: I am touched by the concern of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about the effect of the Bill on the Labour Party and the Labour movement which he so vividly described. I am also impressed by the way in which he accepts so blindly, almost hysterically, anything that the investment managers tell him. When he was talking about the miners' pension fund, I expected some of my hon. Friends from mining constituencies to complain about the Government's action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are not here, perhaps because they do not have such touching faith in the investment managers as do hon. Members opposite.
      But who is on the Front Bench with me, obviously feeling great concern about the hon. Member's remarks about the effect of the Bill on the Treasury and pension funds? The Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is not pulling me down, worried about the effect of the Bill.
      There is a good deal of special pleading about the pension fund element of investment in property. As I have said before, I understand that the proportion of investment by pension funds in property—not only in property affected by the Bill—is 17 per cent. As I have said before in a long statement, only a fraction of that 17 per cent. will be affected. That is the position, and that is why my hon. Friends from mining constituencies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are not here because they do not share the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman is trying to propagate throughout the country by spreading alarm, fear and despondency, in the interests not of the pension funds but of the general property investor and speculator whom he is truly trying to defend and represent.

      Division No. 404.]

      AYES

      [8.22 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bishop, E. S.

      Allaun, Frank

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Boardman, H.

      Anderson, Donald

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Booth, Albert

      Archer, Peter

      Bean, R. E.

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Ashley, Jack

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Mr. Rossi: The Minister mentioned the miners. Is he aware that 30 per cent. of their pension fund is invested in property of this nature and that the total investment by pension funds in this country is the not inconsiderable sum of £1,500 million?
      Mr. Oakes: I accept the figure about the miners—I have no other figure—of 30 per cent. invested in property. What I do not accept is that 30 per cent. is invested in property of this nature. The hon. Member implies that 30 per cent. is invested in property which will be immediately and directly affected by the Bill.
      Mr. Norman Atkinson: Irrespective of the figures, can my hon. Friend assure me that these pensions will not be adversely affected by the Bill?
      Mr. Oakes: That is precisely what I am trying to say to the House. That was also the burden of the rather long speech I made in the first instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered. My hon. Friend is satisfied, and if he is not complaining I do not see why hon. Members opposite should complain.
      It is far better that investment takes place in manufacturing industry and not in speculative ventures as it has done in the past. If the Bill goes some way towards redirecting pension funds into manufacturing industry, it will have a spin-off which will benefit the country.
      Sir John Hall (Wycombe): The Minister has not answered the question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), or, if he did, none of us heard him. Will the measures in this Bill have an adverse effect on pension funds?
      Mr. Oakes: I answered that.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 233.

      Buchan, Norman

      Horam, John

      Parry, Robert

      Buchanan, Richard

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Koyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Huckfield, Les

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Campbell, Ian

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Radice, Giles

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hunter, Adam

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Carter, Ray

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Cartwright, John

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Janner, Greville

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Roper, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Conlan, Bernard

      John, Brynmor

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Corbett, Robin

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Selby, Harry

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Cronin, John

      Judd, Frank

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kelley, Richard

      Silkin, Pt Hon John (Deptford)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kerr, Russell

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sillars, James

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kinnock, Neil

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lambie, David

      Small, William

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lamond, James

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Stallard, A. W.

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lee, John

      Stott, Roger

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Strang, Gavin

      Dempsey, James

      Litterick, Tom

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Doig, Peter

      Loyden, Eddie

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Dormand, J. D.

      Luard, Evan

      Swain, Thomas

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Dunn, James A.

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Dunnett, Jack

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Eadie, Alex

      McElhone, Frank

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Edge, Geoff

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Tierney, Sydney

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Tinn, James

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tomlinson, John

      English, Michael

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tomney, Frank

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Torney, Tom

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Madden, Max

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Magee, Bryan

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mahon, Simon

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Filch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Flannery, Martin

      Marks, Kenneth

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marquand, David

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Forrester, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Ward, Michael

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Meacher, Michael

      Watkins, David

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Watkinson, John

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mikardo, Ian

      Weetch, Ken

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Millan, Bruce

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      White, James (Pollok)

      George, Bruce

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Molloy, William

      Whitlock, William

      Ginsburg, David

      Moonman, Eric

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Golding, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Graham, Ted

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Newens, Stanley

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Noble, Mike

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hardy, Peter

      Ogden, Eric

      Woodall, Alec

      Harper, Joseph

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Woof, Robert

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Orbach, Maurice

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Hatton, Frank

      Ovenden, John

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Owen, Dr David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Palmer, Arthur

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Park, George

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      Hooley, Frank

      Parker, John

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Beith, A. J.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Alison, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Arnold, Tom

      Banks, Robert

      Benyon, W.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Biffen, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pardoe, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Body, Richard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Penhaligon, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hicks, Robert

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Holland, Philip

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Brittan, Leon

      Hordern, Peter

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hunt, John

      Raison, Timothy

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hurd Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Buck, Antony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Budgen, Nick

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Burden, F. A.

      James, David

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Carlisle, Mark

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Channon, Paul

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jopling, Michael

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Clegg, Walter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Cockcroft, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Cope, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Colin

      Costain, A. P.

      Lamont, Norman

      Sims, Roger

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Crouch, David

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawson, Nigel

      Speed, Keith

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Spence, John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Loveridge, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Durant, Tony

      Luce, Richard

      Sproat, Iain

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stainton, Keith

      Elliott, Sir William

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Emery, Peter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Eyre, Reginald

      MacGregor, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stokes, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marten, Neil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mates, Michael

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mather, Carol

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Fox, Marcus

      Maude, Angus

      Townsend, Cyril D

      Fry, Peter

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Trotter, Neville

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Mawby, Ray

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      van Straubenzee, W. R

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mills, Peter

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wakeham, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gorst, John

      Moate, Roger

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Monro, Hector

      Wall, Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walters, Dennis

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gray, Hamish

      Morgan, Geraint

      Wells, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Hall, Sir John

      Neave, Airey

      Younger, Hon George

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neubert, Michael

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Newton, Tony

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nott, John

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      Hannam, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Fred Silvester

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 26

      COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN CERTAIN AUTHORITIES
      Lords Amendment: No. 156, in page 25, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert
      "a body mentioned in subsection (1A) below or a body specified in an order made under this paragraph by the Secretary of State;
      (c) the person acquiring the interest is a Minister, a body mentioned in subsection (1A) below or a body specified in an order made under this paragraph by the Secretary of State.
      (1A) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) above are local and new town authorities, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint and Lake District Special Planning Boards, and joint boards established under section 2 of this Act."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may consider Lords Amendments Nos. 157, 165, 166 and 167.
      Mr. Oakes: The main purpose and effect of the amendments is to enable the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to prescribe further bodies to which modifications of the compensation rules affected by regulations under subsection (2) are to apply.
      Amendment No. 157 adopts the affirmative resolution procedure, not only in respect of that power but in respect of subsection (2), for which the negative resolution procedure had been provided.
      It is always desirable that the authorities or bodies to which the particular provisions will apply should be specified in the legislation, but in the case of this clause that is not possible. First, the intention is that the modified compensation rules should apply to all transactions between public bodies where the vendor body is not liable to development land tax, but because the development land tax bill will not be enacted until after this Bill the clause cannot contain a complete list. Therefore, subsection (1)(a) specifies only the major authorities among those which draft clause 10 of the White Paper on development land tax proposals said should not be liable to tax.
      The clause, as amended, provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, with
      1474
      the consent of the Treasury, specify bodies in addition to those at present mentioned whose land transactions as vendors or purchasers will be governed by the modified land compensation rules. A further amendment alters from the negative to the affirmative procedure any addition to the lists.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27

      FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TRIBUNALS
      Lords Amendment: No. 158, in page 26, line 9, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 159 and the following amendments in lieu thereof.
      Mr. Silkin: As the clause stood originally, the Secretary of State had discretion whether or not to make regulations setting up financial hardship tribunals. The Secretary of State could also decide when they should be set up. The effect of the amendments is to make it mandatory that the regulations be made before the second appointed day. The Government amendments achieve the same effect, but for the sake of clarity and for drafting reasons they do so by amending Clause 7, which contains the main substantive provisions concerning the second appointed day. We do not think that there will be many if any cases of hardship arising from the change to CUV.
      Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was spoiled by his latter remarks. The financial hardship tribunals are important. During earlier stages we pressed for the tribunals to be mandatory. I think that the amendments that the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us make them, in effect, mandatory. Therefore, we need not bother about the disagreement with Amendment No. 158. The right hon. Gentleman's substitution for Amendment No. 159 is sufficient. We are grateful to him for putting forward the amendments.
      Mr. John Silkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I hope that he does not take the latter part of my speech as being anything other than a hope—
      Mr. Graham Page: A pious hope.
      Mr. Silkin: Whether it be a pious, secular or profane hope, I hope it will not be taken as anything other than a hope that the tribunals will never be needed. In any event, we both agree that there should be hardship tribunals.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to:
      In page 9, line 25, after 'when' insert '(a)'.
      In line 26, at end insert:
      'and
      (b) a draft of regulations under section 27 of this Act establishing one or more financial hardship tribunals, or conferring on one or more existing bodies or groups of bodies the functions of financial hardship tribunals, has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. John Silkin.]
      Lords Amendment: No. 160, in page 27, line 23, at end insert—
      "(bb) make such provision as may be expedient for dealing with the cases of deceased persons who, if they had survived, would or might have been entitled to additional payments under this section."
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment has the effect of providing that the Secretary of State may make Regulations to enable financial hardship tribunals to deal with the case of deceased persons who, if they had survived, would or might have been entitled to additional payments under the section. The Opposition moved amendments in Committee and on Report seeking to ensure that the right to make a claim, or the benefit of a claim which is accepted by a tribunal, can pass to the personal representative of any person entitled to make a claim. My hon. Friend undertook that, as it has been ascertained that this could not be achieved by process of general law, the intention of the amendment would be "placed in
      1476
      the Act". The amendment accordingly provides that the Regulations make such provisions as are expedient.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Clause 28

      POWER TO ACQUIRE UNOCCUPIED OFFICE PREMISES
      Lords Amendment: No. 162, in page 29, line 29, at end insert—
      "( ) In this section 'floor space' means gross floor space, and the amount of any such space shall be ascertained by external measurement of that space whether the office accommodation in question is or is not bounded (wholly or partly) by external walls of the office building."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment defines what is meant by "floor space" for the purpose of calculating whether that space in an office building exceeds the minimum 5,000 square metres. It is proper that the exact amount should be defined in the statute, and the Lords amendment will have that effect.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: I merely wish to ask the Minister why, for the purpose of floor area, the external measurements appear to have been taken, because in normal valuation circles the internal area is the measurement used. I understand that such a system also applies for rating purposes, and I wondered why, in this case, the Government had gone for external measurements.
      Mr. Oakes: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman, but I promise to write to him with the answer.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 39

      GRANTS TO AUTHORITIES WHO BUY OR RENT CROWN LAND
      Lords Amendment: No. 165, in page 38, line 37, leave out from "where" to end of line 41 and insert:
      "any interest in land is acquired from the Crown on or after the first appointed day—

      1477

      (a)by a local or new town authority, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint or Lake District Special Planning Board, or a joint board established under section 2 of this Act, or

      (b)by a body specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.

      An order under this subsection shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been appoved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      We propose that the House should waive its privilege. This is necessary because this matter falls within the privilege of this House.
      The effect of the amendment is as follows. It is intended that in cases where authorities buy land from the Crown the price they pay should correspond with what it would have cost them under the community land scheme if the land were in private hands—that is, market value less the amount of any development land tax payable by the vendor. Because the Crown will not be liable to pay development land tax, the clause makes special provision designed to achieve that result. The arrangement is that the acquiring authority will pay market value but will then receive, under the authority of Clause 39, a grant representing the amount of tax which would have been payable.
      Mr. Atkinson: On this point I feel that the House is slipping in its duty, because it is being less than vigilant over matters which the House receives from the other place and which cost the country money. Many of the provisions that we have discussed throughout the night have to be carried, in money terms, by the Government, and at the present time it is not within their power to spend that money. Therefore, the House should be much more careful in dealing with amendments that come from the Lords, many of which should be ruled out of order. We should stress to our Ministers time and again to look carefully at what the House of Lords is doing. Certainly in the last hour three or four amendments will add to the Government's monetary burdens in one way or the other. The other place is totally out of order in discussing these matters, passing amendments on them and then
      1478
      bringing them to the House of Commons for consideration. We as Commons Members should assert our authority and tell the Lords that they have no right to come to such conclusions.
      Mr. Speaker: With regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member, it has always been open to this House to waive its privilege, and I gather that that is what the Government have suggested in regard to this amendment. It is open to the House at any time to refuse to waive its privilege, in which case the Lords amendments could not be considered or passed. But in this case it is the Government who have suggested that this House should waive its privilege. If the House agrees to waive its privilege. I shall see that an entry to that effect is made in the Journal. We have a right to insist on our privilege, and we also have the right to waive it if we so wish.
      8.45 a.m.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am making my protest over the ease with which Ministers waive privilege because it is a convenient thing to do. If a fine analysis were made of all that is going on in the Lords at the moment, with employment, and trade union legislation, and a whole host of other things, it would be seen that we do not even bother to say that we shall waive our privilege; we close our eyes and allow things to go through. This sort of thing is not good enough. We ought to insist, as Members of the Commons—[Interruption.]—I invite Conservative Members to join me—that the Lords should not be allowed to do this.
      Mr. Oakes: In fairness to the other place, I should say that of all the many amendments we have moved, this is the first one involving privilege that I have brought before the House.
      Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend has not mentioned it before.
      Mr. Oakes: I have not needed to mention it before. This affects the privileges of this House because it deals with a financial matter which is the concern of this House. So far as I am aware, this is the only privilege motion that I have moved. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has moved any. I would

      1479
      add that this was a Government amendment in the Lords.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    New Clause C

      CONSENT FOR DISPOSALS
      Lords Amendment: No. 168, in page 39, line 29, leave out Clause 41 and insert the following Clause C—
      "C.—(1) The Secretary of State may make Disposition of material interest by an authority Regulations prescribing the terms under which an authority may dispose of any material interest in land acquired under this Act;
      (2) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the Regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The effect of the amendment would be to remove the comprehensive control which Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State over all disposals of material interests in land, regardless of the powers under which the land was acquired, by making all such disposals subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. It would substitute a provision that he could make regulations prescribing the terms under which an authority could dispose of any material interest in land which had been acquired under the powers provided by the Bill.
      It is unacceptable to the Government to draw a distinction between land acquired under the Bill and land acquired under other statutory provisions. Local authorities will continue to be able to use their existing powers, for example, under the housing and planning Acts, to acquire land for private development. Given this, it would be unacceptable to have a situation under which the disposal of land acquired under the Land Bill and disposed of for private development was subject to control, whereas land acquired under other powers and disposed of for the same purpose was not.
      It has been made clear that the intention is to issue general consents to disposals which will give local authorities
      1480
      wide flexibility to dispose of land without the need for specific reference to the Secretary of State in individual cases. Where a local authority wishes to dispose of land on terms which are not covered by the general consent, it will be free to come to the Secretary of State and seek his consent to other terms. This approach combines the advantages of giving a wide measure of discretion to local authorities with flexibility to deal with special cases on their merits and by reference to the particular circumstances of the case.
      If the Secretary of State had to attempt to foresee and provide for all circumstances within the Regulations provided for in the amendment the result would inevitably be that there would be cases in which local authorities would want to dispose on terms which would be precluded by Regulations but which the Secretary of State might be prepared to consent to having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The only answer to that problem would be to have a consent procedure for cases not covered by the Regulations but the effect of that would be to render the amendment nugatory.
      The approach to the matter by way of Regulations is, therefore, undesirable, on the ground that it would remove flexibility and the possibility of giving speedy approval for disposals on exceptional terms in circumstances where speed may be important. It is, furthermore, unprecedented in relation to the giving of consents to the disposal of land. The extent of the control over land disposals by local authorities has varied from time to time, but, where control has been exercisable, it has been achieved by a requirement for the consent of a Minister, and not by Regulations.
      Mr. Michael Morris: We have been over this ground in Committee, and we disagree with the Minister. We feel that what he is proposing will not give local authorities the freedom they seek, whereas the amendment that we put down will. I suspect that we shall want to return to this subject in a year's time, armed with evidence from local authorities that we were right and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. We shall take up the matter in a year's time.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 47

      POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      Lords Amendment: No. 173, in page 45, line 25, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert—
      "(4) The Secretary of State shall not make the order except after holding a public local inquiry unless the authority from whom the functions are to be transferred have consented to the making of the order; and an order made after such an inquiry has been held shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 174 and 176.
      Mr. Oakes: The amendments achieve two purposes. First, they meet the arguments put by the Opposition on Report—that where an authority objects to the transfer, there should always be a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend said that he would re-examine this, and we agree that it is proper that there should always be a public inquiry where the authority objects to the transfer.
      The second amendment is a drafting amendment. It provides that if a joint board is set up under Clause 2, the normal provisions of an inquiry under Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply.
      Mr. Atkinson: The amendment raises a matter which I raised previously and which the House should consider seriously. If the Lords are saying that a public inquiry should be held in accordance with an earlier statutory appeals procedure, that will cost money. On a strict interpretation of the rules of privilege, the Lords are not entitled to say that a statutory provision that costs money should be added to the Bill. The effect of saying that there should be a compulsory procedure, whether by way of public inquiry or otherwise, is that more money has to be spent. We should not be discussing these amendments, which are out of order.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. If the amendment were out of order I should not allow it to be discussed. It is in order and within the ambit of the Bill.
      Mr. Atkinson: I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the habit has crept in over the years because this is a convenient way of proceeding. If the Government wish to make amendments which are promised in Committee, they waive privilege and proceed in this way. That habit is growing. The House of Commons should assert itself and be more vigilant about Lords amendments which, I claim, are out of order. This amendment will cost money if it is carried. I understand that the House of Lords is not allowed to insert amendments that impose a monetary burden on the Government.
      Mr. Graham Page: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) should ask us to be vigilant when he has not been vigilant throughout the night. He has only just turned up to make a rather stupid speech.
      Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow that remark to pass. I have spent many hours during the night on this Bench. I have witnesses who have seen me here for many hours.
      Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Tottenham has not been awake on that Bench though, and that is what I was complaining about. He has not joined in the debate.
      It is interesting, too, that from that side of the House the hon. Member for Tottenham should object to a local authority's having the right to a public inquiry when the Secretary of State is depriving it of all its powers. Is he suggesting that the House should not agree to that public inquiry?
      Mr. Atkinson: What I am suggesting is that the House of Lords has no power to spend Commons' money.
      Mr. Page: If the Commons accept an amendment from the House of Lords and waive privilege, that is in accordance with the constitutions of the two Houses. On this occasion we are satisfied to waive privilege.
      Mr. Speaker: In fact no question of privilege arises on this amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 10

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 180, in page 90, line 30, at end insert "(a) in".
      Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 181, 182, 183, 185 and 186 and the amendments to Nos. 181 and 183.
      Mr. Silkin: The Government see no reason to go as far as the Lords amendment now does to give an owner of a material interest an absolute right of veto over the making of a planning application on land in which he has an interest. The Government are therefore prepared to agree to the Lords amendments only with the deletion of paragraph (b) in each case. I ought to explain that by leaving out head (b) is meant in each case leaving out from "relates" in line 6 to the end of line 7 of Amendments Nos. 181 and 183.
      It is our view that the inclusion of paragraph (a) affords adequate protection to the landowner. The Planning Acts already require anyone applying for planning permission on land which he does not own to serve notice on the owners. There is then an opportunity for the owners to make representations to the local planning authority, which can take them into account in reaching a decision on the application.
      There are, furthermore, two specific provisions in the Bill that adequately protect the landowner. First, there is the original provision in the Bill—as now slightly amended by the amendments introduced by the Government in the Lords. It has the effect of widening the Planning Act provisions relating to notification.
      Secondly, there is specific protection for an owner's position in the "prior right" provisions in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6. Under these provisions, anyone applying for planning permission may have a prior right to negotiate to carry out development on the land if it is acquired by an authority. Paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 specifically provides that a person making a planning application shall have the benefit of the prior right provisions only where his application to
      1484
      carry out development on the land is accompanied by the written consent of all those with a material interest in the land. The Government therefore accept that there is a need to protect the position of the land owner when there is a planning application from a third party, but they maintain that this protection is afforded by paragraph (a) of the amendments together with the prior right provisions and that paragraph (b) of the amendments are unnecessary.
      9.0 a.m.
      Mr. Sainsbury: It is not without significance that, at the end of a very lengthy consideration of the Bill, we return again to the rights of the individual property owner. There has been some limited strengthening of those rights since this appalling Bill was presented. One consequence of the Bill is that now a planning application from a third party can trigger off a sequence of events that could lead to a farmer's being deprived of his farm by compulsory purchase without the opportunity to do other than protest ineffectively.
      There is no need to go through the sequence of events that causes this to happen, but it is a direct consequence of the provisions in the Bill that again the rights of the individual property owner are seriously diminished in a way not shown at all in all the Government publicity and the White Paper. Because of this potential loss of rights of property owners, we regard head (b) of Lords Amendments Nos. 181 and 183 as essential.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 181, in page 90, line 32, leave out "shall cease to have effect and" and insert:
      "for the words from "that" to the end there shall be substituted the words "at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application, no person (other than the applicant) was the owner of any of the land to which the application relates", (b) in subsection (1)(b) for the words "given the requisite notice of the application to" there shall be substituted the words "obtained consent for the making of the application from" and for the words "service of each such notice" there shall be substituted the words "each such consent", and (c)".
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Lords amendment: Leave out head (b).—[Mr. John Silkin.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the proposed Lords amendment be made:—

      Division No. 405.]

      AYES

      [9.2 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Allaun, Frank

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Anderson, Donald

      Ginsburg, David

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Archer, Peter

      Golding, John

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gould, Bryan

      Newens, Stanley

      Ashley, Jack

      Gourlay, Harry

      Noble, Mike

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Graham, Ted

      Oakes, Gordon

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Ogden, Eric

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Grocott, Bruce

      O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

      Bean, R. E.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hardy, Peter

      Ovenden, John

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Owen, Dr David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hatton, Frank

      Park, George

      Boardman, H.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Parker, John

      Booth, Albert

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Parry, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hooley, Frank

      Penhaligon, David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Horam, John

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Radice, Giles

      Buchanan, Richard

      Huckfield, Les

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Campbell, Ian

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hunter, Adam

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Cant, R. B.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Carter, Ray

      Janner, Greville

      Rooker, J. W.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Roper, John

      Cartwright, John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      John, Brynmor

      Rowlands, Ted

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Selby, Harry

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Corbett, Robin

      Judd, Frank

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Kelley, Richard

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kerr, Russell

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cronin, John

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sillars, James

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Lambie, David

      Silverman, Julius

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamborn, Harry

      Small, William

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lamond, James

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davidson, Arthur

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lee, John

      Stoddart, David

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stott, Roger

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Litterick, Tom

      Strang, Gavin

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Luard, Evan

      Swain, Thomas

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Dempsey, James

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Doig, Peter

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Dormand, J. D.

      McElhone, Frank

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Tierney, Sydney

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Tinn, James

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tomlinson, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tomney, Frank

      Edge, Geoff

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Torney, Tom

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Madden, Max

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Magee, Bryan

      Urwin, T. W.

      English, Michael

      Mahon, Simon

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Marquand, David

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Flannery, Martin

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Ward, Michael

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Meacher, Michael

      Watkins, David

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Watkinson, John

      Forrester, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Weetch, Ken

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Millan, Bruce

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Molloy, William

      Whitlock, William

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Moonman, Eric

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 231.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Woodall, Alec

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Wool, Robert

      Mr. James A. Dunn and

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gorst, John

      Monro, Hector

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Alison, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Arnold, Tom

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gray, Hamish

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Grieve, Percy

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Grist, Ian

      Mudd, David

      Banks, Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Beith, A. J.

      Hall, Sir John

      Neubert, Michael

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Newton, Tony

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nott, John

      Benyon, W.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Onslow, Cranley

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Biffen, John

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Pardoe, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Body, Richard

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Penhaligon, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hawkins, Paul

      Percival, Ian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hicks, Robert

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Brittan, Leon

      Holland, Philip

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Raison, Timothy

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hordern, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Buck, Antony

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, John

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hurd, Douglas

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Burden, F. A.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      James, David

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Channon, Paul

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Jopling, Michael

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Clegg, Walter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Scott, Nicholas

      Cockcroft, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Cope, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Silvester, Fred

      Costain, A. P.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Sims, Roger

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Crouch, David

      Knox, David Lamont, Norman

      Sinclair, Sir George Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Speed, Keith

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Spence, John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawson, Nigel

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Durant, Tony

      Loveridge, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luce, Richard

      Stainton, Keith

      Elliott, Sir William

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Emery, Peter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Eyre, Reginald

      MacGregor, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stokes, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marten, Neil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mates, Michael

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mather, Carol

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fox, Marcus

      Maude, Angus

      Trotter, Neville

      Fry, Peter

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Mawby, Ray

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mills, Peter

      Wakeham, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Wall, Patrick

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Walters, Dennis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Walls, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 183, in page 91, line 11, leave out "shall cease to have effect and" and insert:
      "for the words from "that" to the end there shall be substituted the words "at the beginning of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application, no person (other than the applicant) was the owner of any of the land to which the application relates", (b) in subsection (1)(b) for the words "given the requisite notice of the application to "there shall be substituted the words "obtained consent for the making of the application from" and for the words "service of each such notice" there shall be substituted the words "each such consent", and (c)"
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment: Leave out head (b).—[Mr. John Silkin.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill, Mr. John Silkin, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Timothy Raison, and Mr. Hugh Rossi; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  PETITION

    High Court Action
    Sir Bernard Braine: With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present
    1490
    a petition from Mr. Richard Michael Latham Brown. In view of the fact that I shall seek to move a motion arising from this petition, I respectfully request that it be read by the Clerk.
    The Clerk at the Table read the petition, which was as follows:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Richard Michael Latham Brown, a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, of 130 Arthur Road, Wimbledon Park, London on behalf of Mr. Rotan Tito and the Rabi Council of Leaders, who are Plaintiffs in a pending action in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, 1971R No. 3670, against Her Majesty's Attorney-General, Defendant to the said action due to be heard in London shortly,
    Sheweth
    That the Plaintiff's claim in the said action an alleged breach of an alleged Trust on the part of the Defendant.
    And that reference is desired to be made at the hearing of the said action to the following Reports of Debates of your Honourable House

    Date

    Reference

    Cols.

    20th May, 1909

    H. C. Deb. 5

    565–566

    30th June, 1909

    H. C. Deb. 7

    373–374

    27th July, 1909

    H. C. Deb. 8

    1101–1104

    20th July, 1910

    H. C. Deb. 19

    1232–1233

    2ndJuly, 1914

    H. C. Deb. 64

    565

    6th July, 1914

    H. C. Deb. 64

    842–843

    7th July, 1914

    H. C. Deb. 64

    893–895

    9th July, 1914

    H. C. Deb. 64

    1219–1220

    7th July, 1937

    H. C. Deb. 326

    327–328

    14th July, 1937

    H. C. Deb. 326

    1243

    3rd Nov., 1937

    H. C. Deb. 328

    909–910

    Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave to the proper Officers of the House to attend the Trial of the said action and to produce the said Reports and formally to prove the same before the Court, according to their competence: and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Reports of Debates.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    Petition to lie upon the Table.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to the proper Officers of this House to attend the trial of the said action, and to produce the said Reports of Debates and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Reports.
    Question put and agreed to.

    High Court Action
      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

  ABERCONWY (RATING VALUATIONS)
  9.18 a.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: After the excitement of the night, hon. Members may agree that it is a pleasant relief to turn to the subject of the problem of dwelling houses rated as boarding houses. There are premises in my constituency, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that are used solely as private dwelling houses, but they are valued and described for rating purposes as boarding houses. There are at least 50 such premises in Llandudno alone.
  Some of these premises have no recent history of use as boarding houses. Nevertheless, they are valued and described as such in the valuation list, because in arriving at his valuation and description the valuation officer is required to envisage them as being vacant and to let. If, in his opinion, the premises would then command a rent commensurate with rents of boarding houses, they must be valued and described accordingly, irrespective of whether they are, in fact, occupied for that purpose.
  The Minister of State, Treasury, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), confirmed this view to me in a letter dated 15th September last. He wrote:
  "I can understand the concern of your constituents at the situation which has apparently arisen but, as far as the Valuation Officer is concerned, there can be no suggestion that he has acted incorrectly."
  The concern of my constituents arises from the fact that they are unable to obtain domestic rate relief together with the facility for the payment of rates by instalments and to obtain rate rebates where appropriate. Their inability to obtain these things, particularly domestic rate relief, derives from the fact that the local rating authority, Aberconwy Council, takes the view that domestic rate relief should be available only on those premises described in the valuation list as private dwelling houses, which alone attract the domestic element of the rate support grant under the 1974 Regu
  1492
  lations and similar regulations made previously.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the council's view. At the same time, it is clear that, under Section 48 of the General Rate Act 1967, where a property is used exclusively as a private dwelling, as defined in the Act, the ratepayer is entitled to domestic rate relief. Section 48 provides:
  "Every rating authority shall reduce the amount which, apart from this subsection, would be the amount of the rate levied by the authority for any year on any dwelling-house".
  "Dwelling-house" is clearly defined in Section 115(1) as
  "a hereditament…used wholly for the purposes of a private dwelling or dwellings".
  It follows that it is not necessary for the hereditament to be described as a dwelling house in the valuation list for the local authority to give rate relief.
  Furthermore, the Act requires that relief shall be given. It seems to me that the Aberconwy Council is in the wrong in not granting that relief. I should be glad if the Minister would confirm that that is the position under the 1967 Act.
  Why should the local authority give rate relief on premises that do not attract the domestic element of the rate support grant, the distribution of which is by reference to the rateable value of dwelling houses as certified by the valuation officer? Of course, the valuation officer cannot include in his certificate properties used as private dwelling houses but described as boarding houses.
  This results in the situation that, if an authority gives domestic rate relief, the relief cannot be recovered through the domestic element of the rate support grant, and the relief so granted by the authority is in fact being met by the remainder of the ratepayers of the district. Surely that was never the intention of Parliament, or of the Government who introduced the rate support grant in 1966. The intention was that domestic rate relief should come from Government funds.
  Commenting on Aberconwy Council's practice of using the valuation list to decide which properties qualify for domestic rate relief, the Treasury Minister, in the letter of 15th September to which I have referred, describes it as "somewhat restrictive". He adds:
  "The law is quite clear and the proper test is to consider the actual use of the property

  1493
  rather than the description of it in the valuation list."
  The law may indeed be clear—as clear as the braying of an ass often is—because it provides two different definitions of a dwelling house: one, in Sections 48 and 115 of the General Rate Act, to determine the entitlement of the ratepayer to relief and the other, in Statutory Instrument No. 428 and its predecessors, to determine the amount of the domestic element of the rate support grant payable to the local authority. The former definition includes dwelling houses valued and described as boarding houses, while the latter excludes them and confines itself to
  "…dwelling houses in the area as certified by the valuation officer."
  No one would dispute the superiority of the Act over the statutory instrument in an area of conflict such as we have here, or the need for the two definitions to be brought into line in the interests of all concerned, and in particular in the interests of justice to the ratepayers, especially those paying boarding house rates without relief for their private dwelling houses. It would not be necessary to amend the rate support grant regulations to allow the valuation officer to certify these properties for rate support grant purposes. He could certify them on the basis of actual use and specifically for the purposes of the regulations.
  Another suggestion, and one favoured by the Association of District Councils, is that there should be an amendment of the rate support regulations to allow certification by the treasurer and the district auditor of the rateable values of any properties on which domestic rate relief was granted but which had been classified as dwelling houses by the valuation officer. I am told that the district auditor already certifies mixed hereditaments, so there can be no earthly reason why he should not certify dwelling houses valued and described as boarding houses.
  I hope that the Minister will seriously consider these two proposals. I shall be surprised if he does not say that this is among the matters being considered by the Layfield Committee. He may dare to suggest that the final resolution of the problem should await its report and consequent Government action. Meanwhile, he may say that Aberconway Council should follow the practice of some other councils, which is to grant
  1494
  relief from rate revenue. But such an answer would not be satisfactory. The local authorities and their ratepayers are being hard done by while this situation, which is manifestly wrong, continues. There is no doubt that the Government are taking unfair advantage of them in giving them less by way of domestic rate support grant than they are required to give by way of domestic rate relief.
  Some of my constituents in the predicament that I have described have been advised to apply to the valuation officer for reclassification of their premises as dwelling houses and the valuation officer will probably lodge an objection to their proposals. I understand that he has already done so in 30 cases. It is not for me to pre-empt the judgment of the valuation court, although I have my own opinion of the value of the advice that my constituents have received.
  Others may consider taking the local authority to court for failing to pay domestic rate relief to them as required under Section 48 of the 1967 Act, or they may resist an application for a distress warrant for rates calculated at the full poundage, or they may appeal to a Crown court against the rate. It would not be proper for me to comment in advance on any such proceedings as may be contemplated. Some of the constituents involved are pensioners in their seventies and they find it difficult to understand why they should be involved in court proceedings of any kind. It frightens them. Their understanding of the law in this matter is justifiably imperfect and their financial resources are very limited. They depend on the Government, with all the legal advice available to them, to declare what and who is right or wrong. I shall expect the authorities to act on the advice of the Government.
  I shall only mention one case, but it is typical. Mrs. Peggy Emery is aged 77 and lives on her pension at Ludlow House, Clifton Road, Llandudno. Her home has not been used as a boarding house for more than a decade. Her rates this year are £239. There is no domestic rate relief and no possibility of a rate rebate. Something must be done for her and others like her.
  The Government must make a clear statement on two issues—that of domestic rate relief for those in private dwellings rated as boarding houses and on whether

  1495
  such relief, when granted, should not be recoverable by the local authority through the domestic element in the rate support grant.
  9.31 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Having gone through a rather lengthy night, I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I try to explain the somewhat complex problem that we have had presented to us. I do not propose to suggest that we should wait for Layfield. That is the first and last time I shall mention that name.
  The problem is in two parts. The first concerns the description and the rateable value of the property in the valuation list. In every town hall there is a valuation list giving details of property on which the local authority will levy a rate. Among other things, the valuation list will give a description of each property. It will also show a rateable value for the property. The question posed by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) is how a property can be described and valued as a boarding house when it is used for entirely different purposes.
  Here we must go back to the basis of our present rating system. All property liable to be rated will be given a value based on its rental value in the open market. The task of compiling and maintaining the valuation list is the responsibility of the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue. When valuing property, they will both describe and value the property as if it were vacant and to let. This is a long-established principle which is supported by the courts.
  Therefore, it does not matter for valuation purposes how a property is actually used. The question to be answered is what possible use or uses would govern the level of rent obtainable if the property were offered for letting in the open market. This is the decision which the valuation officer must take, based on his experience of the property market together with the facts of the particular case.
  However, I would emphasise that each case is decided on its own circumstances, and if any ratepayer disagrees with the decision made by the valuation officer concerning his property, he may appeal to the local valuation court. The hon. Mem
  1496
  ber's constituents, about whom he is so understandably concerned, certainly have this avenue open to them. They may go to the local valuation court and say "I do not agree with the discription of my property given by the valuation officer; nor do I agree with the rateable value he has decided." The valuation panel will look at all the facts of the case again and, if it so decides, it may change both the description and the value of the property.
  Let me also advise the hon. Member's constituents not to be put off by the word "court". I know this sometimes worries elderly people. One does not need to be represented at a local valuation court and no costs need be incurred. The proceedings are informal.
  So much for the valuation problem. I cannot intervene in this, nor would it be right for me to do so. Parliament has provided an appeal system which will ensure that everyone is dealt with fairly and on the same basis.
  The second part of the problem concerns the granting of domestic rate relief. All domestic ratepayers have their rate poundage reduced each year by a specified amount in the pound. This year the Government decided that in Wales domestic ratepayers would have their rates reduced by the very high figure of 36p in the pound. Perhaps our generosity here has made the hon. Member even more determined to pursue this matter.
  Domestic rate relief is distributed by rating authorities under the terms of Sections 48 and 115 of the General Rate Act 1967. These provide, in effect, that the rating authority is to grant domestic relief in respect of any hereditament which is used wholly for the purposes of a private dwelling. Here I would emphasise that the decision to grant such relief is based on the actual use of the property. I must also emphasise that the decision lies with the rating authority. However, on the facts as presented to me by the hon. Member, I see no reason why the Aberconwy rating authority should not grant domestic rate relief for so long as the solely domestic use continues.
  Why, then, does it not allow the relief? I understand that the council concerned has decided to allow such relief only on property described in the valuation list as a dwelling house. Therefore, if something is described as a boarding house or

  1497
  shop, but is now used only for domestic purposes, it will not get relief. There is certainly no need for that approach and it does not appear to me to square with the governing legislation.
  I understand that the rating authority adopts this practice because it believes that any relief that it pays in respect of property which has a commercial description on the valuation list will not be recouped through the domestic element of the rate support grant. That may be so; I would not dispute that the way the domestic element of the grant is calculated can lead to this result.
  The calculation is based on the total rateable value of all property which is described as a dwelling house in the valuation list. But an addition is made to the sum so calculated to allow for any relief granted to partly domestic property called mixed hereditaments. This addition might in some areas be sufficient to cover relief both to the mixed hereditaments and to property such as we are now considering, and in other areas I accept that it will not do so. The grant cannot be so finely tuned as to be dealt with pound for pound.
  If this is a problem I shall certainly ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether any arrangement should be made to take account of relief in respect of property such as the boarding houses in question. The hon. Member's suggestions, and those from the association, will be included in my request to my right hon. and learned Friend. This, however, does not affect the issue of the liability of the rating authority to grant domestic rate relief on the basis laid down in the Act.
  In our first attempts to deal with the problem we made inquiries which showed that no other authority in England or Wales was creating this sort of problem. We must therefore ask the Aberconwy rating authority to look again at its practice here and to consider whether it conforms to the criteria for entitlement to domestic relief in the provisions in the General Rate Act 1967 which I mentioned earlier. If it eventually comes to the conclusion that its current practice in this matter is not soundly based in law, it will, I know, hasten to put things right.
  If, on the other hand, it comes to the opposite conclusion, it is not for me
  1498
  or my right hon. and learned Friend to interpret the law in its application to the circumstances here. I could only advise, first, that the simplest way out of the difficulty is for the hon. Member's constituents to appeal to the local valuation court against the description of this property in the valuation list. If they succeed in getting it altered to dwelling house, all is well.
  Otherwise, I am afraid that they can question the decision only in the courts, and I accept the reluctance with which that step would be taken. This might most conveniently be done by their paying only the domestic rate poundage on their property and then arguing the legality of the council's decision by way of defence against legal action for recovery by the rating authority, thus putting the onus on the other side. However, I hope that the issue will be resolved without the necessity for litigation of that kind.
  Like the hon. Member, I have confined my remarks to the issue of the description of the property and the question of domestic relief. But he also mentioned rate rebates, and, as I am sure he realises, exactly the same point arises on these benefits. The entitlement depends on residence in a hereditament which is a dwelling house within exactly the same statutory definition. I agree that, if their other circumstances qualify them for a rebate, people who use a hereditament described as a boarding house wholly as a private dwelling appear to be entitled to a rate rebate, and they should press their local authority to grant them one. I can assure the hon. Member that if a rebate were granted in these circumstances, there would be no question whatever of the Government's not paying the 90 per cent. rate rebate grant on it.
  To sum up; there are certain remedies available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I appreciate some of the difficulties because of their age and reluctance to take those courses of action. I hope that, after what I have said, the local rating authority will at least look again at its procedures.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Ten o'clock a.m.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  The Arts
  The Arts
  Students
  Students
  Bedfordshire
  Bedfordshire
  County Education Authorities (Departmental Liaison)
  County Education Authorities (Departmental Liaison)
  Secondary Schools Reorganisation
  Secondary Schools Reorganisation
  Schools (Catchment Areas)
  Schools (Catchment Areas)
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Teacher Training Colleges
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Schools (Attendance)
  Schools (Attendance)
  Scholarships (Regulations)
  Scholarships (Regulations)
  Universities
  Universities
  Academic Results
  Academic Results
  Teachers (Training)
  Teachers (Training)
  Nitrate-Based Film
  Nitrate-Based Film
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Visually Handicapped Children
  Visually Handicapped Children
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Art Colleges
  Art Colleges
  Vocational Guidance (Senior Children)
  Vocational Guidance (Senior Children)
  Textile Purchases (Public Authorities)
  Textile Purchases (Public Authorities)
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  School Classes
  School Classes
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Correspondence Courses
  Correspondence Courses
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  TUC
  TUC
  OIL POLICY
  OIL POLICY
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (FOOTBALL MATCHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (FOOTBALL MATCHES)
  MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY
  MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SUMMIT MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SUMMIT MEETING)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  INFLATION
  INFLATION
  CABINET
  CABINET
  SCOTTISH CBI
  SCOTTISH CBI
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  TRADE UNIONS (DEPUTATION)
  TRADE UNIONS (DEPUTATION)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Angling (Thames)
  Angling (Thames)
  Farm Tenancies
  Farm Tenancies
  Elm Timber
  Elm Timber
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Wood Fuel
  Wood Fuel
  Timber Imports
  Timber Imports
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Computer Services
  Computer Services
  Government Publishing Costs
  Government Publishing Costs
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
ENERGY
  Reserves
  Reserves
  Production Platforms
  Production Platforms
ENERGY
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Gas
  Gas
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Staffs (Salaries and Pensions)
  Departmental Staffs (Salaries and Pensions)
  Nationalised Industries (Price Increases)
  Nationalised Industries (Price Increases)
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
INDUSTRY
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Steel
  Steel
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Boat Building
  Boat Building
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Nottingham
  Nottingham
  Ferranti Limited
  Ferranti Limited
  Regional Development Grants
  Regional Development Grants
  Giro
  Giro
  Zip Fasteners
  Zip Fasteners
DEFENCE
  Petty Officers
  Petty Officers
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Deserters
  Deserters
  Postal Rates
  Postal Rates
  Absence and Desertion
  Absence and Desertion
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Lands (Wales)
  Lands (Wales)
  Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Buildings (Compensation)
  Buildings (Compensation)
  Terrorist Organisations (Explosives)
  Terrorist Organisations (Explosives)
  Textile Purchases (Public Authorities)
  Textile Purchases (Public Authorities)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Toy Umbrellas
  Toy Umbrellas
  Fuel
  Fuel
SCOTLAND
  Electricity Payments
  Electricity Payments
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Nationalised Industries' Prices
  Nationalised Industries' Prices
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  Salmon Fishery (West Coast)
  Salmon Fishery (West Coast)
  Grampian Region (Finance)
  Grampian Region (Finance)
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Oil Industry (Nigg)
  Oil Industry (Nigg)
  Croft Houses
  Croft Houses
  Homicide
  Homicide
  Harbours
  Harbours
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
TRADE
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
  Knitted Wear
  Knitted Wear
  London and Counties Securities Group Ltd.
  London and Counties Securities Group Ltd.
  Steel
  Steel
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Lifeguard Assurance Company
  Lifeguard Assurance Company
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Companies (Departmental Inquiries)
  Companies (Departmental Inquiries)
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  Vehicle and General Insurance Company
  Vehicle and General Insurance Company
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Borrowings and Deficits (Public Sector)
  Borrowings and Deficits (Public Sector)
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Foreign Artists (Earnings)
  Foreign Artists (Earnings)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Credit Expansion
  Credit Expansion
  Correspondence Courses
  Correspondence Courses
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Nationalised Industries (Pension Funds)
  Nationalised Industries (Pension Funds)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television (Wales)
  Television (Wales)
  Electoral and Boundary Reviews
  Electoral and Boundary Reviews
  Travellers (Security Checks)
  Travellers (Security Checks)
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Police (Evidence in Trials)
  Police (Evidence in Trials)
  Suicide (Prisoners)
  Suicide (Prisoners)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Paroles
  Paroles
  Licensing (Music and Dancing)
  Licensing (Music and Dancing)
  Bombings
  Bombings
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance Contributors
  National Insurance Contributors
  Artificial Limbs
  Artificial Limbs
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Departmental and Health Authorities' Staffs
  Departmental and Health Authorities' Staffs
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Doctors, Dentists and Nurses (Pay)
  Doctors, Dentists and Nurses (Pay)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Health Service Administration Staffs
  Health Service Administration Staffs
WALES
  Industry (Grant Aid)
  Industry (Grant Aid)
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  Teacher-pupil Ratios
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Dr. Sheila Cassidy
  Dr. Sheila Cassidy
  Tonga
  Tonga
  Trade Missions
  Trade Missions
  Women's Organisations
  Women's Organisations
  Foreign Embassy Staff (Security Checks)
  Foreign Embassy Staff (Security Checks)
EMPLOYMENT
  Bury and Radcliffe
  Bury and Radcliffe
  Trade Union and Public Duties
  Trade Union and Public Duties
  Building Trades
  Building Trades
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Alnwick and Berwick (Temporary Employment Subsidy)
  Alnwick and Berwick (Temporary Employment Subsidy)
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Divers
  Divers
  Weighting Allowances
  Weighting Allowances
  Factory Inspection
  Factory Inspection
  Community Work Schemes
  Community Work Schemes
  Zinc Dross
  Zinc Dross
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Factory Inspectorate Technical Data Notes
  Factory Inspectorate Technical Data Notes
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Wheeler and Pearsall Ltd.
  Wheeler and Pearsall Ltd.
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Fishermen
  Fishermen
  Ansells Brewery
  Ansells Brewery
  South-West England
  South-West England
  European Ministers' Meeting
  European Ministers' Meeting
  Redundant Persons
  Redundant Persons
ENVIRONMENT
  Swimming Pools
  Swimming Pools
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Teachers (Local Authority Membership)
  Teachers (Local Authority Membership)
  New Palace Yard
  New Palace Yard
  Felixstowe (Go-Kart Racing)
  Felixstowe (Go-Kart Racing)
  British-American Parliamentary Group Office
  British-American Parliamentary Group Office
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Housing Land Prices
  Housing Land Prices
  Textile Purchases (Public Authorities)
  Textile Purchases (Public Authorities)
  Mopeds
  Mopeds
  West Midlands Metropolitan County Council
  West Midlands Metropolitan County Council
  Local Authorities (Trading)
  Local Authorities (Trading)
  Transport of Goods
  Transport of Goods
  North Reddish
  North Reddish
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Rents
  Rents
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  Government Offices
  Government Offices
  Rates (Business Premises)
  Rates (Business Premises)
  Roads
  Roads
  Vehicle Licensing
  Vehicle Licensing
  Renshaw Hall, Liverpool
  Renshaw Hall, Liverpool
  House Building
  House Building
  Railways
  Railways
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Airedale Trunk Road
  Airedale Trunk Road
  Housing (Standing Consultative Committee)
  Housing (Standing Consultative Committee)
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  Home Loss Payments
  Home Loss Payments
  Local Government Staffs (Pay)
  Local Government Staffs (Pay)

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 Wakefield):
LORD CHANCELLORThe LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN
Robert Arnold Schurhoff, Lord Bishop of Blackburn—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Ely and the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRADFORD
Ross Sydney, Lord Bishop of Bradford —Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.
The Lord Marley—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Ullswater—Took the Oath.

EAST GERMANY AND CSCE AGREEMENT
2.44 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 the new treaty of friendship between the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic is consistent with the letter and spirit of the agreement reached in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in recognising East Germany's unfettered right to self-determination and the pursuit of independent domestic and foreign policies; and whether it conflicts in any way with four-Power rights and responsibilities in Germany as a whole.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic are signatories to the Final Act of the CSCE. It is the task of each individual participating State to ensure that its bilateral treaties and agreements are compatible with that Final Act and, as the Act itself makes clear, to respect and put into practice the principles guiding their mutual relations with all other participating States, irrespective of their political, economic or social systems. As for quadripartite rights and responsibilities, the three Powers made it clear in a statement issued in Bonn on 14th October by the British, United States and French Embassies that these can in no way be affected by any treaty concluded by any of the Four Powers with a third State. I am arranging for a copy of that statement to be made available in the Library of this House.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, with respect, I very much regret that the noble Lord has not answered the main part of my Question, so may I please put it to him in another way? Is it not disturbing to Her Majesty's Government that, so hard on the heels of the signature of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference, the Soviet Union should not only cynically reiterate the Brezhnev doctrine, but should even go quite a long way beyond the position which they took up in 1968, when they sought to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, who always speaks with knowledge and great thoughtfulness on these rather sensitive matters, I am bound to say that perhaps that is an exparte judgment. I suggest that we wait a little longer to see how the implementation of the CSCE, in this particular as in others, proceeds. I need not remind the noble Lord and the House that we are watching the situation very closely indeed. I repeat that we expect all signatories of the Helsinki agreements to honour their signatures ill practice. We shall seek proof of genuine implementation by the 35 countries, without exception, who affixed their signatures to this hopeful agreement.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware, after the 30 years that this State has been in existence, of the impracticability in German

1667
politics of ever having a united Germany? Is it not nonsense now to refuse to recognise Eastern Germany as a State, and bring it within the community of nations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have in fact recognised the German Democratic Republic, as we have recognised the Federal Republic of Germany. We have taken the sensible and practical view that my noble friend, as I would expect, has supported. Beyond that, we make no exception among all the other 35 signatories of this agreement as to implementation. We are examining how much more we need to do than is our historic practice to implement these agreements, and we therefore have every right, historically and perspectively, to expect all the other signatories to live up to their signatures.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while taking note of the Minister's interesting information regarding the note of the three Powers the other day, can he kindly inform the House whether or not this Treaty is in conflict with the quadripartite agreement of 1971 concerning Berlin?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we do not see that it is. It makes no reference to the quadripartite agreement and we assume, because of that lack of reference, that the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic accept the position in regard to the rights and responsibilities which emanated from the conditions at the end of the Second World War applying to all four Powers engaged in the quadripartite agreement. Put more concisely, we do not see in this Treaty an assertion of change in the quadripartite agreement and, if there were, we should most strongly resist it.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, if words have not lost their meaning, may I ask the noble Lord what possible interpretation can be put on the preamble to the treaty and on articles 1, 4 and 9, other than that the Soviet Union is still claiming the right to intervene, by force if necessary, to keep their minions in power in the
1668
formerly independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is an interpretation, as I have said, for which I have every respect. However, if one examines the terms of this treaty closely one sees that, while it refers to other countries within the Eastern Zone, it also explicitly refers to agreements between the Soviet Union and the GDR. It is early days to decide whether this treaty is incompatible with CSCE. I think I ought to add that CSCE, as has been abundantly pointed out from all quarters of the House, is not a legal instrument; it is a political agreement. For that reason, the question of implementation and of retrospective revision as to performance is all-important. I would caution a little less haste in assessing the relationship of this treaty and the terms of CSCE at the present time.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is there not a contradiction in the assertion which we have just heard from my noble friend? Is it not a principle well established in the United Kingdom, a principle that has been in operation for many years and a principle that remains, that we do not recognise the use of force by one country over another or, if force is not actually used, control over another country established by virtue of the force that can be utilised as and when it is regarded as necessary? Therefore, are we not violating the principle by not asking the United Nations to express an opinion on the relationship between the Soviet Union and the GDR?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are not violating any principle that has been laid down in CSCE, because we arc implementing CSCE. It remains to be seen whether all countries will, like us, implement CSCE to the fullest possible extent. As to referring this matter to the United Nations, I doubt very much whether it could effectually be so referred, in view of the fact that one is faced with the ostensible fact of two willing partners reaching an agreement.

CYPRUS: COMMONWEALTH COMMITTEE
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 what progress has been made in preparing a report on the situation in Cyprus by the Committee appointed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at Kingston.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Commonwealth Committee on Cyprus has met on two occasions, 30th July and 22nd September. It has of course made reports to Commonwealth Heads of Government and, in line with its mandate of maintaining close liaison with the United Nations' Secretary-General, has kept closely in touch with him.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him this question: In view of the tragic situation in Cyprus, is it not desirable that this Committee should rather speed up its proceedings? Can the Minister tell me who is its convener and whether the British Government are represented on it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are certainly represented on this Commonwealth Committee. I should need to have notice of the question as to who is the Committee's convener. It has an ad hoc secretariat, which I imagine convenes the Committee. As to whether it is desirable that it should speed up its deliberations and recommendations—certainly. We are not the only member of this Committee. I have no reason to believe that it has not proceeded with due and appropriate expedition in its study and recommendations both to Heads of Government and to the United Nations' Secretary-General. I think the spirit as well as the content of my noble friend's supplementary will be very much borne in mind by those responsible for this Committee.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would not we be in a better position on this Committee if we had not
1670
welshed on our responsibilities in Cyprus long ago?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, while not an uninterrupted admirer of my noble friend's prose style, I will take exception with him on another basis. Our policy in regard to Cyprus has been explained so many times in this House and in the other place that I should think that noble Lords and everybody else are well aware of it. First, we seek a grass-roots agreement without which no overlaying agreement in Geneva or otherwise will last very long. Secondly, we hope that it will be possible on that basis to move to Geneva or some other cognate international venue under the auspices of the United Nations and with the immediate promotion of the United Nations' Secretary-General. Bilaterally we are doing everything we can, day by day, week by week, to promote that policy. One of the ways in which we are trying to help that along is by active participation in the Commonwealth Committee to which my noble friend drew notice in his Question.

HOSPITAL CLOSURES
2.57 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 which hospitals it is proposed to close in Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Area Health Authorities concerned are currently undertaking local consultations with community health councils and other bodies in regard to the possible closure of Leazes Hospital, Wolsingham, which is temporarily closed because of staff shortages. This is the only proposal at present being considered with local interests, but the noble Baroness will appreciate it is the duty of the Health Authorities continually to review the use of all premises for which they are responsible, and this may lead to further proposals.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the

1671
noble Lord for that rather restricted Answer. In view of the fact that the Sanderson Home, so far as crippled children are concerned, is already being closed down, may I ask the noble Lord this? Where hospitals are being closed down which have been provided in the past by generous people, who have given the hospitals and endowed them, what guidance has been given about what is to happen to the money which was originally given? I have in mind local hospitals such as the Sanderson Home in Gosforth, Newcastle-on-Tyne. What will happen to the money that was given, when the children in that home are transferred to another hospital?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have no information as to the treatment by the National Health Service of hospitals which formerly were charities. I will write to the noble Baroness when I have discovered the position.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that answer, may I ask whether it is not very odd that no guidance has been given about private money given to endow private hospitals which have since been absorbed into the National Health Service? Since it is most important, would he not think that that decision would be taken?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, at this time when there is a need for controlling Government expenditure, will the noble Lord bear in mind how important it is to think in terms of keeping going the hospitals which we have, rather than engaging in vast new building projects?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is fully aware of this point. Indeed, that is the reason why only a single decision to close a hospital is being considered in the three areas mentioned by the noble Baroness.

SCOTTISH GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who cannot be present, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given each of the independent grant-aided schools in Scotland the information necessary to enable them to choose whether to remain independent or to become comprehensive public schools; and which of these schools have so far reached a decision.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the managers of the Scottish grant-aided secondary schools are fully informed of the Government's intentions as to the phasing out of grant. They have been asked to discuss with the appropriate education authorities whether, and, if so, on what conditions, their schools might be integrated into the public system of education and to inform the Secretary of State of their decision as between integration and independence. Fourteen boards of managers representing the interests of 18 schools have so far responded, all of them opting for independence. In the remaining cases discussions are continuing. It is known that the intention of the Edinburgh Company of Merchants is that their schools should become independent, but that one of their school buildings should be acquired by the education authority concerned.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, the Government having afforded this choice, and a large proportion of the schools having opted to become independent, will the Minister now give an absolute assurance that a Labour Government in the future will not be a threat to abolish independent schools and so nullify the decisions just taken by these schools?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is aware, the decision in Scotland to move

1673
to a system, where possible, of all-through or two-tier comprehensive schools is one which expresses the political philosophy of the Party to which I adhere. Within that framework, unquestionably a great deal of negotiation and complete frankness on the part of the Government was made available to each board of management.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, again may I ask the Minister whether or not he can give an assurance? Does this not make a mockery of the choice which has been given to the schools?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government believe that to move to a system of comprehensive education means that the educational door of opportunity is held open for a greater length of time in the hope that those who presently are somewhat disadvantaged may indeed enjoy the full benefit of every educational opportunity that is available. Within that framework, therefore, it seems to us that the selective school end of the scheme works disadvantageously against the comprehensive ethos.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would not be wise for noble Lords opposite to wait until the debate tomorrow on direct grant schools?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to answer that question? May I also point out that direct grant schools in England and Wales are quite different from grant-aided schols in Scotland?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is not for me to respond to a question that has been put to the other side of the House by one of my noble friends. I can confirm that the system in Scotland is quite disparate from that in England.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the wholesale decision of these distinguished educational bodies and very distinguished schools in Scotland to opt for the private system makes him think that the comprehensive system may have something wrong with it?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, this comes to the very nub of the problem on
1674
the Scottish scene. On the other hand, the pupils represented by these schools form a very small percentage of the total school population in Scotland. Certainly where the all-through comprehensive system is already in being, as it is in Aberdeen, some outstanding results are now available.

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I make a Statement about a change in the timing of Business for tomorrow? As the House will be aware, we shall be sitting at 11 o'clock. It is proposed, following agreement through the usual channels, that we should begin with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on direct grant schools. We shall take the Commons Message on the Community Land Bill after that debate.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:—
Leave out Standing Order 121 and insert—
121.—(1) There shall be committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee—

(a) every Private Bill against which no Petition has been presented, or if presented has been withdrawn, or which has become unopposed by reason of any of the provisions of Standing Order 113, except any Bill as respects which the Chairman of Committees has in pursuance of Standing Order 92 reported to the House that in his opinion it should be proceeded with as an Opposed Bill;

(b) on recommitment, every Opposed Private Bill in respect of which a report has been made from a Select Committee that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, provided that no decision taken by such

1675
a Select Committee may be varied by an Unopposed Bill Committee.

(2) Each Unopposed Bill Committee shall consist of the Chairman of Committees and such Lords as think fit to attend.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [208] as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Clause 1, page 2, line 28, leave out ("by a local authority")
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This Amendment is consequential upon Clause 1(1)(a). It ensures that the charges referred to in Clause 1(2)—which is intended to apply to all charges arising under Clause 1(1)(a) —are not confined to charges recoverable by a local authority, but include charges acquired by water authorities or New Town Development Corporations arising under Clause 1(1)(a). My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out from ("was") to ("deemed") in line 4 and insert ("granted at any time before the commencement of this Act or was or is (at any time)")
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. By removing future planning conditions from the categories in
1676
Clause 2 of the matters which are not local land charges, this Amendment makes these conditions local land charges. The categories in Clause 2 negative or qualify the categories of local land charge in Clause 1. Under the Amendment, future planning conditions will be local land charges within Clause 1(1)(b) or (c), the words of which are wide enough to include planning conditions. Under the Bill as it stands, planning conditions are excluded from Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) by the special words in Clause 2(e).
The purposes of the Amendment which were urged on both sides of the House in another place are these: first, to bring planning conditions within the statutory provisions in Clause 10 for compensation for loss resulting from the nondisclosure of local land charges; secondly, to give statutory force to the present practice whereby planning conditions imposed by local authorities are usually recorded in the registers of local land charges, so that the information provided on the registers about these conditions is provided in pursuance of a statutory duty. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4]
Clause 10, page 7, line 10, leave out ("as registered in it").
Clause 10, Page 7, line 11, at end insert ("as registered in that register").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. These are purely drafting Amendments designed to make the wording at the end of Clause 10(1) consistent with the wording at the end of Clause 10(1)(b).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, this is a purely technical matter. Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 3 reads:
page 7, line 10, leave out ("as registered in 17").

1677
That is a misprint. It was Amendment No. 17 in the Committee proceedings in another place. It may be that there will now have to be a manuscript Amendment to rectify the position.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for drawing my attention to that matter.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, so far as it goes, and subject to my undertaking, if what the noble Earl has said is true, I will see that the matter is rectified.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5]
Clause 10, page 7, line 41, leave out ("making") and insert ("the effect of which is to make").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. This is a drafting Amendment for the purposes of clarification. Its explanation is lengthy and elaborate, and in view of other business which your Lordships have to deal with I hope it will suffice to take it from me that it is merely a drafting Amendment for the purposes of clarification. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6]
Clause 10, page 8, line 37, at end insert ("or on grounds of fraud").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This Amendment is for the avoidance of doubt. It makes it clear that Clause 10(6) (which restricts the right of registering and originating authorities to recover from third parties compensation paid under the clause) does
1678
not preclude the right of those authorities to recover by way of damages for fraud any amounts paid by way of compensation. The Amendment meets a point which was raised by Mr. Graham Page in another place. Although it is considered that Clause 10(6) as it stands would not preclude proceedings for fraud, the Amendment makes this abundantly clear. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7]
Clause 14, page 10, line 35, at end insert ("which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This Amendment is designed to render the rules under Clause 14 subject to Negative Resolution procedure.
The Amendment (which was moved by Mr. Graham Page in another place and accepted by the Government) is unfortunately defective, for it provides for annulment "by resolution of either House of Parliament" If interpreted literally, this would mean that on a Prayer against the rules the Negative Resolution would of itself annul them. That is an unprecedented provision and departs from the usual formula "in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament", which follows the wording of Section 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. Under that subsection a Prayer for annulment is followed by an Order in Council revoking the instrument, and under that procedure there is time to prepare new rules to come into force immediately after revocation of the old.
Accordingly, it becomes necessary to move Amendment No. 7A to leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a") which corrects the defect in the Commons Amendment No. 7. It provides that the rules under Clause 14, instead of being subject to annulment by resolution, are to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution and it is upon these fine refinements that the Parliamentary system appears to work. The Amendment

1679
adopts the usual formula used in innumerable Acts and enables the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to apply.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7A, to amend the Amendment to which I have just spoken.
Amendment moved—
[No. 7A]
Leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a")
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8]
Schedule 1, page 22, line 14, leave out from ("section 126") to end of line 40 and insert ("omit the words from "and the instrument is registered" to the end of the subsection in subsection (1) and after subsection (4) insert—
'(4A) In relation to a covenant falling within subsection (2) above, section 1(1)(d) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 shall have effect as if the reference to the commencement of that Act were a reference to the coming into operation of this section.'")
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This Amendment aligns covenants made under Section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 with the general regime of the Bill, by making them local land charges falling under Clause 1(1)(d). The Amendment also inserts a new subsection (4A), providing that these covenants, even where made before the coming into operation of the Bill are local land charges under Clause 1(1)(d). I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Schedule 2, page 24, line 30, column 3, at beginning insert—
1680
("In section 18(3), the words "Subject to subsection (4) below" ").
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. There is a long chapter of agreement which I have invited your Lordships to consider, which may be in some contrast to the subsequent proceedings in the House. This Amendment effects a minor consequential repeal which I do not think needs elaboration. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 4) REGULATIONS 1975
3.17 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approves the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975. With the leave of the House I should like at the same time to deal with the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, and also the two corresponding Scottish Regulations standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. They are in similar terms to the English ones, and my remarks apply equally to both.
These Regulations increase the income limits for legal aid advice and assistance. The background to the regulations is that when the income limits for legal aid were raised towards the end of 1973, with effect from 1st January 1974, the then Government announced that in future they would be reviewed annually to take account of increases in supplementary benefits which were themselves reviewed annually. This was a considerable improvement in the legal aid field because it meant that the income limits would not be eroded by inflation as would happen if they were reviewed only at irregular intervals, as had been the practice previously.
However, since that announcement inflation itself has resulted in supplementary benefits being increased more than once a year. The increases in the legal aid income limits last June reflected

1681
increases in supplementary benefit in the previous month, and the Regulations now before your Lordships follow increases in supplementary benefit which will come into effect on the 17th November as a result of the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 1975. These include a rise of just under 14 per cent., from £9.60 to £10.90, in the ordinary weekly rate for short-term supplementary benefit. The Regulations before the House make similar increases in the income limits for legal aid advice and assistance.
I now come to the actual provisions of the Regulations. The Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 raise from £1,580 to £1,790 the disposable income limit above which a person ceases to qualify for legal aid and from £500 to £570 the disposable income limit below which a person is eligible for legal aid without payment of a contribution. The disposable income is a person's net income after certain deductions have been made for various living expenses, such as rates, rent, dependants, income tax and so on.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975 raise from £29 to £30 the disposable income limit above which a person is not entitled to legal advice and assistance. The increase is not as high as for legal aid, as the financial limits for advice and assistance are calculated on a slightly different basis from that for legal aid. These Regulations must be read in conjunction with a third set of Regulations, not before the House today since they are not subject to Affirmative Resolution, which come into force at the same time as the other Regulations. These raise from £15 to £16 the disposable income limit above which a person in receipt of legal advice and assistance is required to pay a contribution, and also make consequential amendments to the scale of contributions for advice and assistance.
I commend these increases to your Lordships. While they are by no means remarkable, they are important in keeping step with inflation following the principle of annual reviews, accepted in 1973. They must also be considered in the light of two important studies currently being carried out by my Office and others. The
1682
first is a general study into legal aid financial limits, which my Legal Aid Advisory Committee asked the Law Society and the Supplementary Benefits Commission to undertake. This is a complex subject, and it may be some time before suggestions are formulated, but I look forward to receiving the recommendations of my Advisory Committee in due course. The other study is one which I myself commissioned last year into the nature and extent of the need for legal services which is not being met at present. This study will also be dealing with financial priorities, and I hope to receive advice on it from my officials early next year. When I have been able carefully to consider the results of both studies, I shall be in a much better position to judge whether the current principles for reviewing the legal aid limits are the best that can be devised, and, indeed, whether there should be any radical changes in any or all of these financial conditions. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 27th October, be approved. (The Lord Chancellor.)
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will welcome both these Motions, and the other two to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken, coming as they do from the other side of the Border. Anything that I say about them should not be taken as carping criticism, but really mainly as taking the opportunity to remind your Lordships as to the present state of legal aid and, indeed, legal advice and assistance in the financial sense, and possibly as an invitation to the Government to say what they are going to do in the future so far as increase of benefit is concerned.
My Lords, the 25th Legal Aid Annual Report shows, if nothing else, the appalling effects of inflation even on this part of our economy. For instance, if one looks at legal advice and assistance, which is the subject of the No. 4 Regulations, if I may so call them, in April 1973 the upper disposable income limit —that is to say, above which legal advice and assistance was not available—was £20. On 1st January 1974 it went up to £24.50 on 1st September 1974 it went

1683
to £28; on 1st June last it rose to £29, and now, indeed, the figure is going up again to £30, so that the criteria by which these reviews were made are becoming out of date.
My first objection, if it can be called an objection, is concerned with whether the Government consider that these increases are at all adequate. It is fair to say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's Committee and, indeed, the Law Society's Report, bear out that they do not. Furthermore, if one takes the position so far as legal aid is concerned with a similar illustration, the upper disposable income limit above which legal aid was not available was, in 1970, £950; in January 1974, £1,175; in September 1974. it had gone up to £1,380; 1st June 1975 fixed the upper limit at £1.580—and that, too, has gone up, as we have heard, to £1,790.
That may seem to be quite a lot of money, but the position is pointed out with considerable clarity in Appendix B of the second part of the Report which illustrates in a table the net incomes of persons entitled to legal aid either free or on payment of contribution as at 1st June 1975. So far as the single person is concerned, taking into account income from all sources after deduction of income tax, National Insurance contributions and rent, the maximum permitted free legal aid was £604 or £11.61p per week, and the minimum which makes the applicant ineligible for legal aid, was £1,685. Perhaps rather more starkly, if one takes the case of a single parent with two children aged 4 and 8 years, and an income which includes £1.50p a week family allowance, there the maximum 'permitted free legal aid is £919, or £17.67p per week; and the minimum which makes the applicant ineligible for legal aid goes up to £2,000, or £38.46p per week. These figures, which in a sense are rather technical, show that although the Government are doing what they contracted to do—and other Governments beforehand have sought to do—in my submission the time is fast coming when the whole of these legal aid limits and conditions should be reviewed. If we really are to allow people the benefit of the legal rights which they are entitled to claim. I would suggest these limits will have to be greatly increased.
1684
My Lords, the other matter I would raise—and I hope it is not out of order to do so, because we are having what might be called a mini-debate on legal aid—concerns capital limits. The position, as I understand it, is that those limits were last raised in December 1972, and the limit above which legal aid may be refused is £1,200; the limit below which legal aid is available without a contribution from capital is £250. The disposable capital limit for the availability of legal advice and assistance is also £250. I have no doubt that all noble Lords will agree that these limits are much too low. To my mind, there really cannot be any excuse, since we are nearly three years in time from the period when they were last raised. In fact, this recommendation has been made each year since 1972. Even to keep step with inflation, to put such an applicant in the same position as he would have been in December 1972, according to the Report the limits would now need to be raised to £378 and £1,819 respectively.
My Lords, as I have said, this really is a matter which shows the evils of inflation. Nevertheless, the people who depend on legal aid for civil matters are those who in many ways are the least able to cope with inflation, and the least able to arrange their affairs so that they can enforce their rights without the help which this otherwise excellent scheme gives.
3.30 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I had intended to say only a couple of words on the second of the two Regulations, but the extension of the debate by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack beyond the Tweed I find rather embarrassing, because I have not studied with care matters so far from Oldham. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has made an important contribution, some of which I would have hoped to make. Another place has recently received a report on the processes of legislation and I have not yet been able to obtain a copy of this. I understand it deals rather sensibly with some of the very odd features of these two Regulations.
At first sight noble Lords might think they were non-identical twins, because

1685
they are inspired by the same Act, they are made on the same day, they are laid on the same day and they come into operation on the same day. I confess I started under that impression. But, No, under an Act passed last year I find we have now got at least six statutory Amendments. We are running a whole series of statutory Amendments under one section and a whole series of statutory Amendments under the other, and the reference in the No. 2 Act to the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 is nothing whatever to do with the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1975. No doubt a Member of the House should have realised that at once.
I sometimes look back at my old profession. They are, I believe, prosperous; I believe they are very overworked. When I go to the Law Society's hall now I very rarely receive a smile. They are endeavouring to understand at one and the same time the whole of the Statutory Instruments, the whole of the EEC secondary legislation, as well as taking an interest in the statutory laws of this country. It is a very heavy burden.
The one point I had intended to raise (and I will not pursue it) was No. 4 of the No. 2 Regulations being debated today. I read that several times without understanding it. So I turned to the explanatory note and found that it does not mention it. I turned up the report of the Joint Committee and found that they have no observation to make. I therefore listened with the utmost care and attention to the learned and lucid statement from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and noted that this was the one question to which he referred. So far as I know, there is nothing sinister. I think it is regrettable that one should introduce into an Act passed last year a new system of computation, which is stated in terms not clearly intelligible to a Life Peer of 73 suffering from premature senile decay, and which I think would not easily be readily intelligible to quite a number of people and to busy solicitors.
Therefore, I intended to concentrate my remarks on the other Regulation No. 4, because there is an exceptionally clear explanation of precisely what it means in about two lines of 10 words:
1686
"These Regulations increase the disposable income limit for the availability of legal advice and assistance from £29 a week to £30 a week."
There is no question about that. I do not know why it needs a Statutory Instrument. Some 22,500 solicitors and 2,500 banisters will have to know about this in order to advise their clients, and law libraries will need to have them. It would be very indecorous of me not to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, not for a step in the right direction but for a slight shuffle in the right direction. But I should like to add that clearly we are not advancing, in Napoleon's phrase, "à pas de charge".
3.35 p.m.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, not being a lawyer, I have listened with interest to my noble friend on the Woolsack. Reflecting upon the introduction of this measure of legal aid for the unfortunate people in the country who are in need of such aid because of their financial circumstances, I recall that during my Parliamentary career many people came to me, as they have come to other people of such standing, for advice on these matters. It was most pleasing to me to listen to the observations and comments made by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, and also those of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will not forget the observations that he has made in regard to this measure and the recommendations that have come from the Government through my noble friend who sits on the Woolsack.
I reflect that many things have been introduced since we were children before the Second World War, and are costing this nation a tremendous amount of money when we need as much positive help as possible. I, like many others, should like to see a much greater increase, as tangible evidence to those unfortunate people who have to apply for this financial aid when they find themselves in dire circumstances. I sincerely hope and trust that the House will not forget the observations that have been passed on to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and also those of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield.
3.38 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the muted

1687
approval which has been given to these Statutory Instruments which I moved. Their purpose is to keep pace with the rate of inflation. That has been linked to the changes in supplementary benefit payments. Those changes are linked to the inflationary rate. I think that the proposals in these Regulations also faithfully keep pace with inflation. It is, of course, the great enemy that we as a community now face; it challenges every aspect of our lives, voluntary work, assistance to the needy in this way. Everything is under challenge and under threat as long as the inflation rate continues to rise.
Certainly I wish we could have said that we could pay more. This year £40 million is about the figure paid out of the public exchequer for legal aid, advice and assistance. It is a substantial sum, and at this time he would indeed be a very bold man who called for greater increases. At any rate, in this important field we are keeping the limits in line with the increase in inflation. On the capital limits, I am waiting for recommendations. In regard to the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, as I have said, an inquiry has been commissioned into the whole question of financial limits, and I have no doubt we shall be returning to this important problem in due course.
I am sorry that my noble friend has purported to find difficulty in understanding the Statutory Instruments. I would have hoped that the explanatory memoranda, at any rate, are self-explanatory. It is necessary to produce this flood of Statutory Instruments because the basis of the financial limits for legal aid and advice and assistance have to be set down. We tried to enable those limits to keep in touch with the inflationary changes. So what is being done, while it results in, I am afraid, an accumulation of Statutory Instrument, at any rate fulfils the duty the Government have to ensure that those needing legal advice and assistance do not suffer because of the inflationary position. Therefore, in the light of those explanations—I am grateful for the observations of my noble friend Lord Slater—I hope that the House will be disposed to approve the relevant Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1975
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 27th October, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 2) REGULATIONS 1975
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 30th October, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE (SCOTLAND) (FINANCIAL CONDITIONS) (No. 4) REGULATIONS 1975
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 30th October, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
3.42 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments, the Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons Amendments in lieu be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments, the Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons Amendments in lieu be considered forthwith. —(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU.
[References are to Bill (82) as first printed for the Lords. The Lords Amendments are printed in italics; the Commons Amendments are printed in ordinary type and the Commons Reasons and further amendments are printed in italics underlined.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
(as amended by Commons Amendments to which the Lords have agreed)
[Nos. 1–4]
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Freedom of the press
("After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Charter on freedom of the press
1A.— (1) If, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975, there is agreed among parties including employers of journalists, or employers' associations representing such employers, editors or editors' organisations, and trade unions representing journalists, a charter containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions, editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that charter.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (I) above, matters relating to the freedom of the press include

(a) The rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union;

(b) the rights of journalists to join a trade union of their choice;

(c) the rights of editors to commission, publish or not to publish any article free from pressure by industrial action;

(d) the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union.

(3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned in subsection (I) above, the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in that subsection, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a charter containing rules of conduct designed to secure the rights mentioned in subsection (2) above together with such other matters as may have been agreed among the parties mentioned in subsection (1) hereof, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by resolution of
1690
each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.
(5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (I) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised chatter before both Houses of Parliament.
(6) If a draft laid under subsection (5)above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.
(7) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsection (4) or (6)above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.
(8) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter but the obligation to comply with the charter is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it and any breach of that duty by industrial action or otherwise is actionable accordingly subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
(9) In this section—
"article" means any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio;
"industrial action" means—

(a) a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers, whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and conditions of employment and whether it is carried on during or on the termination of their employment, or

(b) any concerted course of conduct whoch—

(i)is carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services, and

(ii) in the case of some or all of then:, is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or (where they are not employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service.".")

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
In subsection (2), leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert ("such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and

1691
publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.").

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
In subsection (2) leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—

(" (a) the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism;

(b) the application of union membership agreements to journalists including the right of journalists not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from trade unions and to belong to the union of their choice and the right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union;

(c) the right of editors to commission and to publish or refuse to publish any material;

(d>) the assurance (subject only to editorial discretion) and access to the press of all contributors at all times.")

The Commons disagree to the Amendment numbered 3 proposed by the Lords in lieu of the Commons Amendment numbered 2 to the Lords Amendment numbered 1; and they insist on their Amendment numbered 2 for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment deals appropriately with the contents of the charter.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4, and doth not insist on their disagreement to the Commons Amendment No. 2. The Reason is that the Amendment deals appropriately with the contents of the charter. We may have a rather complicated procedure to undergo this afternoon in considering this matter, but since the issue is the same, the question of the Press, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to discuss all the matters together.
Listening to political commentators on television and radio and reading articles in the Press, one could well imagine that this was a piece of legislation dealing with matters of direct consequence to the Press and the media. But this is a Bill about industrial relations. Its primary object, if not its sole object, is to repeal the remaining parts of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, and I suspect that there will be few who are sorry about its complete repeal. The repeal was an essential part of the Labour Party Manifestos
1692
in the two Elections in 1974. All the contents of the Bill have been approved, somewhat reluctantly I admit, with the exception of this one remaining clause dealing with the freedom of the Press. Noble Lords opposite have agreed to measures making a closed shop agreement lawful, as it was prior to 1971, but say that for special, perhaps remote. reasons special provisions should be included for the Press.
If I may say so, I do not believe that Mrs. Thatcher's intervention on Friday was entirely helpful regarding the claim of the independence of your Lordships' House within Parliament as a whole. Perhaps I might ask some noble Lord opposite to remind the right honourable lady that Czechoslovakia lost its independence in 1938 not through the failure of the Press or the journalists, but because the democracies did not feel it opportune to fulfil their treaty obligations to that country in its moment of dire trouble. The right honourable lady said:
"It is not that we doubt the good faith of the overwhelming majority of journalists. The case made by the Opposition in another place was that there was no immediate danger, but one had to guard against a remote possibility that because of a closed shop for journalists the freedom of the Press could be imperilled."
I repeat, "a remote possibility".
The position of the Government has been made clear by words and deeds, with their determination to maintain the independence of the Press and the media. This is an essential factor to democratic Government in a free society. But this Bill, as I have said before, is a general approach to industrial relations. We do not think that it is right to select one group of workers for special provision; that a principle for industry generally should be withheld from one group of workers, or from one industry.
On the belief that putting the law back to what it was prior to 1971 creates a threat to the independence of the Press, I can only say that the real threat to the Press, and to its service to our democratic society, is not the activities of journalists but the very structure and the financial weakness of many, if not all, of our newspapers. We have said that we would act if there was a threat to the independence of the Press. Such legislation would i require most careful consideration, and

1693
I suspect that it would be more substantial in detail than the Amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which, in my view, are obscure and ill-defined. As drafted, these Amendments could cause grave consequences to the Press, and their very presence might cause reactions which, in the interests of the Press, we should seek to avoid.
I have no doubt that the freedom of the Press depends on a large number of papers, national and local, and, apart from economic viability, freedom depends on the determination of all within the industry to ensure its independence. In my view owners and editors, if embattled by hostile journalists, even supported by the law, could not ensure that freedom. Let us remember—and most forget—that, apart from the journalists, there was a right to closed shop agreements on the production side of this industry for many years prior to 1971. One did not hear then, and certainly one did not hear when we were discussing the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act in 1974, of a possible threat to the freedom of the Press. In fact, in regard to the production side, owners and editors many years ago positively encouraged closed shop agreements.
There are three sets of Amendments before us and the Government see objections to all of them. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained these when the House considered them last. These Amendments have been rejected by another place, and I will briefly explain to the House why I ask your Lordships not to press them further. There is the group of Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which sets out in great detail what, in his view, should be included in the charter. As a consequence of an Amendment made in another place, at least three of those provisions have been included in a Government Amendment. However, we believe that whatever may be the merits of the rights that should be put into the charter, these are matters which should be freely negotiated by industry, which brings me back to a principle which I have mentioned; namely, that if this charter is to have any value at all, it must be freely entered into and, as a consequence
1694
of that, an obligation is placed on all sides to comply with it.
I come to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. These would build on the Government's own proposals for a supervisory body which could hear complaints of breaches of the charter, and issue and publish declarations. They would also enable that body to award compensation for financial loss, and would give to its decisions, declarations and awards the legal effect of decisions, declarations and awards of the High Court. And noble Lords should take note that there is no right of appeal at all in regard to the decisions of this supervisory board. The noble and learned Lord seems to me to be making two mistakes. First, he assumes that without the force of the law nothing will happen as a consequence of the supervisory board and, secondly, he assumes that what ought to happen is that the plaintiffs should be able to pursue a claim for financial compensation.
On the first point, the Government propose a body to which all concerned in the Press will look as the guardian of the charter which they themselves will have drawn up. Their own involvement is what will ensure that the results are not ignored, and if some particular interest wishes to ignore the results in a certain case, then I suggest we have seen enough of this subject to know that public and Parliamentary attention will not overlook it. On the second point, it is argued that what the body does to supervise the work of the charter will not be affected by the addition of compensation where the body finds that there is a breach of the charter. The Government believe, and our experience of the impact of the law in industrial relations indicates, not that this provision will interfere directly with the supervisory body, but that the nature of that body, its procedures and attitudes to cases will change. Its primary aim should be to provide a forum and focus for conciliation in those matters which adversely affect the freedom of the Press, and not to act as a court for those seeking compensation.
Apart from these general considerations, we believe that this Amendment has particular and serious defects. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

1695
concentrated on compensation partly because he thought it would be less far-reaching than some other courses, although I shall explain shortly that the Amendment has very wide implications which I do not think he foresaw. No amount of compensation will safeguard the freedom of the Press. What we want to do is to prevent breaches in that freedom, not to ensure that they are paid for, and employers will pay to avoid trouble. Nothing is clearer on that than our lessons over the Industrial Relations Act.
I turn to another defect. The noble and learned Lord seemed to imply that his Amendment would operate only in cases where an individual had lost his livelihood or had suffered damage or had suffered materially in his pocket, but his Amendment goes much wider than that. Employers and others could sue, as well as an individual who had lost his job or who had an article commissioned but not published.
I ask your Lordships to suppose that there was a complicated dispute, essentially about something else— overtime conditions, perhaps—which led to action involving a breach of the charter (and I remind your Lordships that we do not yet know for certain what that charter will contain) and that there was a loss of production. Suppose, also, that the action taken did not have the support of the trade union concerned; indeed, that the trade union, as soon as it learned of the situation, did all it could to resolve the problem and did so quickly. I must remind the House that these are cases where the freedom of the Press has previously been thought to be threatened, and that they have generally had these two characteristics. They took place in the context of an industrial dispute about another issue, and they were often not supported by the union officially. The noble and learned Lord's Amendment could lead to a case where there might be substantial compensation to the employer for loss of production, perhaps even for a drop in circulation thereafter; he might have to be paid by the union, by a union official or by an individual employee, and this inevitable obscurity hardly makes the effect more acceptable.
This is an issue of such importance that I will give yet another illustration. Let us suppose that the charter adopts
1696
the rights already spelt out in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in subsection (2); the NUJ instructs its members to withdraw their labour in support of a pay claim—a tactic considered legitimate in every other industry —and, as a result, a newspaper cannot appear. The proprietor may have a consequential case against the union, if it is held that the strike action amounted to improper pressure to suppress news. An advertiser might have a claim to compensation, and so, for that matter, might any other contributor, because they had been denied access at the relevant time. An editor might have a case in that he had been unable to exercise his right to publish.
The sums of compensation involved to all the parties potentially aggrieved by anything other than legitimate strike action could be absolutely enormous. A union or an individual union member might be unable to pay; the aggrieved parties could go to court to enforce payment, with the possibility, at the end of the road, that the union's funds and resources were sequestrated. That is a fact; it is not in any way precluded by any of the Amendments before this House. I have indicated some of the particular effects that this Amendment could have. The short point is that it would take us right back to all the sorry experiences of the Industrial Relations Act, and I have to tell your Lordships' House that we are not prepared to accept that position.
Turning to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in my view that has received too little attention by your Lordships, with the notable exception of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman has been extremely coy about it. He has been most forward in explaining why something needs to be done, but rather backward in telling the House why the Amendment could be helpful. He seems to think—and I would not wish in any way to be offensive, because we have been sitting with him for a number of hours in the past few days—that he is to be congratulated on his Amendment because of its ambiguity, because it is obscure. Moreover, he seems to think —and I have in mind his remarks of 3rd November at column 927—that ambiguity and obscurity in drafting will discourage

1697
litigation. I should have thought that it ill-behoves this House, which rightly prides itself on its role as a revising Chamber, deliberately to insert ambiguities and obscurities in the law. Moreover, since when have ambiguities and obscurities reduced the likelihood of litigation? Surely the experience of solicitors points to the opposite conclusion.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has really worked out what he is seeking to do. He has described his Amendment as mild and moderate. Apparently it reasserts Common Law rights such as they exist. This is, of course, not particularly helpful. If a Common Law right exists at the moment—such as the right to go to court to complain of a breach of contract—there is no need to repeat it. If the right exists at present, not only will the Bill not take it away, but it will add to it by requiring the charter to be taken into account in any of its proceedings. There is a great deal of confusion in this matter. It declaring the charter to be public policy meant that the courts merely had to take it into account when deciding cases, the provision would be pointless. The Government's proposals go that far. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, must intend some new cases to be taken to the courts, and it is the Government's belief that that is what is intended and that that would be the effect.
Moreover, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, public policy is a difficult horse to ride. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirmed that view, particularly when taken in conjunction with the charter, the contents of which we are unaware. May I give an example of the difficulties that we foresee in regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman? Let us suppose that the proprietors and the NUJ reach an agreement, as they have done in the past, limiting the use of non-journalists to report on sports events. In consequence a contributor might find that he is able to get only a certain amount of material published and he may feel that the rights of access, apparently guaranteed to him by the charter, are infringed. He may consider that his case—his
1698
chance of some income on the side and of establishing his name as a sports correspondent—suffers.
A possible consequence of the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—I must admit that we cannot be sure about this; but neither can we with certainty discount the possibility—is that, because the agreement between the proprietors and the NUJ will be rendered void as contrary to public policy, a contributor could take the proprietor and the NUJ to court, on the grounds that a void agreement which was contrary to public policy was being used against him and was damaging his interests by restricting the contributions he could make. Not only would this be a new development of Common Law, but there could possibly be many unforeseen complications and ramifications. It would also be a fairly sizeable interference with collective bargaining between proprietors and journalists, about matters affecting terms and conditions of employment, and a sizeable interference with a legitimate aim of any union to negotiate agreements to safeguard the position of its members.
My Lords, we have repealed legislation which sought to outlaw the closed shop. It is the Government's hope and expectation that the charter will lay down guidance on the application of union membership agreements to journalism in a way which will avoid any threat to Press freedom. Earlier Amendments made to this Bill meant that they could be drawn up in a flexible manner designed to take account of the circumstances of the newspaper in question. I cannot think that the right to resolve problems relating to the closed shop should enable the courts to restrain an action in pursuance of agreements relating to them, if such agreements are contrary to the charter. The unions concerned will be party to the charter, and if there are problems at a local level surely it is better for the unions, rather than the courts, to resolve them.
There really is considerable uncertainty about the effect of this Amendment, even in the form originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We would be leaving the matter very much in the hands of the parties who would be responsible for the charter, and the courts would be given very little guidance on

1699
what they could do about it. Clearly, in these circumstances agreements could be declared void. But precisely how much further they could go is very uncertain. Moreover, what kind of rules and agreements are affected? There are trade union rules, certainly; agreements with proprietors and editors on a paper's policy, perhaps; agreements between proprietors and unions, no doubt, on a number of subjects. But what is more, the Amendment refers not only to rules and agreements but also to acts and conduct.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead seemed to think that even with this inclusion in the Amendment there was introduced no new statutory course of action and no new statutory right of any kind. It simply makes a resounding declaration in favour of certain developments in the Common Law which have been going on during the past 20 years or so, and it gives the courts encouragement to pursue the line.
I do not wish to debate whether the rights should be statutory or Common Law. But it seems to me that we would in a Statute be declaring that any acts or conduct contrary to the charter would be contrary to public policy and that this would give the courts a right to intervene where, generally speaking, they do not at present. Acts and conduct go very wide indeed; they can cover actions of individuals in a way which rules and agreements cannot; they cover fields of activity where rules and agreements are less likely to do so; for example, the question of access by outside contributors. The result is that it is much more likely that any contravention of the charter could be the subject of appeals to the courts.
In this House we accepted an Amendment from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sower by establishing a charter; it was originally a thought in the mind of Mr. Hetherington, who was then editor of the Guardian. We now attach very great importance to the charter and, as I said a few moments ago, we believe a charter that has been entered into voluntarily, through co-operation and negotiation by both sides, will be the one that will have a true value, and there will go with it an obligation by both sides to honour not only the words but also the spirit.
1700
We have to take into account the fact that, if the bodies could not agree, the Secretary of State would himself have to produce a charter after 12 months. I think the general view then was that that would be a very great tragedy indeed; it would be far better for the Government not to interfere in matters of the Press. It should be only a last resort, and, if possible, there should be an agreement freely entered into by both sides. But does any noble Lord really believe, bearing in mind all the lessons of the Industrial Relations Act and the present climate, that union leaders would or could sit down with the owners and editors and work out a charter in which they had to have regard to such matters as the rights included in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but which were to be followed by sanctions in the courts which could in themselves lead to the sequestration of their union funds? My Lords, let us be realists. The charter, to which we attach the greatest importance, depends upon cooperation from all sides. Setting down those terms and conditions with sanctions at the end would, in my view, preclude any chance of an agreed charter.
My Lords—I say this with a degree of hesitation, but I think it needs to be said—the campaign has been led in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and others who have been very close to (shall I call them?) the Press management; certainly, those influential in the Press field. How will It be seen by employees in the industry as a whole? They are being asked to sit down and work out a charter with sanctions already provided for as a consequence of the pressure and leadership of management in this House. It will be seen as an owners' and editors' charter —in no other way.
I have to say that, in these circumstances, the position of the Secretary of State will be quite impossible. With whom will he consult?—perhaps the management alone. There could be only one answer to all this, my Lords. We would be back in the Industrial Relations Act situation, with court cases, sequestration of funds, bitterness and lack of that co-operation on which, in my view, the Press so desperately depends. I cannot myself imagine a more effective recipe for

1701
a further weakening of the Press and the certain loss of more papers. The Government firmly believe that a charter agreed by both sides, with a supervisory body to examine complaints should the charter appear to have been infringed, and with the power and the duty to report, is the best and only way forward. This is a constructive approach; and, to use the phrase of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, "For Heaven's sake let us give the industry a chance."
My Lords, as to the Government's intentions, as I said earlier this Bill is a part of our Manifesto commitment. Our intentions have always been clear, and there is no avoiding the commitment that we should repeal the Industrial Relations Act. This Bill is the final stage. Its passage is essential, not just because it is part of our Manifesto, but because it is essential for the general improvement in industrial relations throughout the country, in all industries. I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but I have to tell the House that we shall take any necessary steps in the next Session to ensure the passage of this Bill. It is required under the Parliament Act 1949 that the Bill should be introduced in this House in the state in which it was originally introduced, although there is a procedure under which, by a Speaker's Certificate, any Lords Amendment that has been agreed by the Commons could be included. There is just a chance that a Bill could come to your Lordships' House without containing any provisions regarding the Press. However, recognising the concern which has been expressed on both sides of this House and also in another place, it would be the Government's intention to suggest Amendments that have already been agreed to by both Houses, wherever they may have been moved originally.
The Parliament Act procedure has not been used for many years—not since 1949. Most, I believe, could have foreseen its use only in a supreme clash of principle; a step to be avoided except in exceptional circumstances. During my period in Office, I have seen a number of Bills which have raised great matters of principle that have divided the Parties. There have been moments of deep anxiety, anger and, sometimes, bitterness. Noble Lords opposite have fought hard,
1702
but in the end they have been content to acquiesce to the Commons' view. They have been content that they have made the Commons think again. On this Bill, we have made them think more than once.
My Lords, here we have a disagreement, not on principle or on purpose, but solely on method. Is this a matter on which the two Houses should come into conflict? I doubt it, for reasons I shall give in a moment. But it seems to me that there are two immediate consequences, and I beg your Lordships' not to brush either of them lightly aside. Today, as I think we can all agree, the country is faced with a critical economic situation. Great sacrifices will be called for from all our organisations and our people. This is a time of reconciliation, my Lords, and not of confrontation. We are seeing emerging a new sense of cooperation within industry. The unions, with great courage, are parties to an incomes policy which is vital to this country. Their co-operation and support are essential. We have seen, too, the cooperation, the new hope, emerging from the meetings of the three—the CBI, the TUC and the Government—at Chequers. What will be the consequences if this House now fails to pass this Bill, to which supreme importance is attached?
I would ask the House to stand back for a moment to answer this question. On the maintenance of the independence of the Press, we arc not divided. The issue between us is solely a question of means. It can be only a matter of months before this Bill is passed into law. It is accepted that the danger is not immediate; it is even considered remote. Again, I would ask the House not to brush this lightly aside. How would the trade union movement react to the rejection of this Bill this afternoon? True, there will be only delay, but will a few months' delay he a sensible mice to demand, hearing in mind the damage to relations within the newspaper industry itself, and within industry generally? I ask your Lordships not to forget the provisions of this Bill. It concerns not only matters of the Press, but very many matters which the whole trade union and Labour movement has dedicated itself to repeal. Co-operation at any time, and perhaps at this time more particularly, depends on a general spirit of understanding.

1703
I have to say to your Lordships' House that to reject this Bill this afternoon would have grave consequences indeed. I would not wish to speculate on what might be the final outcome to your Lordships' House of the rejection of this Bill, but there is an immediate consequence to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention. This House, despite its critics, has provided an essential role as a revising Chamber. It has some notable achievements to its credit. Some have been achieved after great heart searching by some of my colleagues; and this Bill is, in itself, no exception. We chipped away at the problems within the constraint of rejecting legal sanctions except where they now exist. We have seen substantial progress. I do not believe that anyone would accuse the Government of having maintained a closed mind except on the legal sanctions and allowing the two sides to be free to agree on the charter. To force a clash between the two Houses could well place in the gravest jeopardy the growing co-operation which a number of us have noticed between the two Houses.
So, my Lords, I pose this question again. Is a few months' delay a proper price in itself to pay for placing in jeopardy the increasing co-operation and understanding between the two Houses? I am nearly at an end. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having spoken at such length, but this is a matter of considerable gravity to this House. If, despite the publicity and the comments surrounding this issue, the House, for the reasons I have indicated, were now to decide not to press the position, I would not see that as a victory for any one side. If it were a victory at all, it would be a victory for Parliament as a whole. The House will know of the Government's deep commitments to the freedom of the Press—not only in words but also in deeds. I repeat that should there be a threat to the freedom of the Press from whatever source we should not hesitate to legislate. But concerning the Press, and recognising its role within the democratic society, such legislation ought in my view to arise from and be the consequence of agreement and support by all Parties within Parliament. In my view that is essential.
As to deeds, I would refer the House to the Royal Commission on the Press. I will not repeat all the terms of reference but all the matters that we have been
1704
debating anxiously over these months are covered by those terms of reference. I understand, and I think the noble and learned Lord himself referred to this, that the Commission have not felt able to consider these matters while legislation is pending. Once we have put this Bill aside then, of course, the Royal Commission are completely free within their terms of reference to consider all these matters. It is clear that we could not anticipate their Report; but if the Report raised matters (especially in regard to the matters we have discussed on this Bill) for which there is all-Party support, and legislation was required, is it conceivable that any Government would fail to legislate?
My Lords, this Bill, in whatever form it eventually emerges as an Act, may not perhaps be the end of the road. I have given at some length the reasons why I would ask this House to agree with the Commons. I would ask your Lordships to remember one last thing. The Press is not just the owners; the Press is not just the editors; the Press is not just the journalists, the compositors, the printers, the packers and those who deliver. The Press is made up of all of them. The independence of the Press, in my view, cannot be protected solely by the law. The law may give it minimal protection; but the independence of the Press as a whole in our democratic society depends on the living body that is within it. Those who spoke in another place did not recognise that there was an immediate threat; they foresaw only the remote possibility. In those circumstances, may I humbly suggest that we should allow both sides of the industry to get together and work out the charter; because that charter, if it is entered into voluntarily and by agreement, has a far greater chance of providing for the independence of the Press than any Act of Parliament or any Amendment to a Bill which is primarily concerned with industrial relations.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 4; and do not insist on their disagreement to the Commons Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Shepherd.)
4.26 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, we have listened to a speech of great eloquence and I venture to say of great

1705
sincerity. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the expressions of opinion made by the noble Lord, but I regret to have to say that it was also a speech of positively Himalayan irrelevance to the matters that we have to consider. If a prize were to be given for a speech of eloquence and sincerity that in no way related to the matters that we are concerned with, then I think we should award that prize with every kind of distinction to the speaker who has just spoken.
I think it is necessary to tell your Lordships what has happened since we last adjourned. The notion that we have driven this matter to an issue is totally unfair. May I also say, although I do not intend to make a point of it, that I resent the innuendo in the speech that I was in some way speaking on behalf of the proprietors and of other Press interests that had some secondary concern in this matter. That was the innuendo; it was said on that account and it should not have been said. It is a total untruth. I say that here and now in the clearest and most public fashion. Since we last met, I have made every conceivable effort to see whether an accommodation could be reached. My colleagues concerned with me in the matter have made every conceivable effort. The Government have not budged an inch, not a millimetre. The suggestion that this will affront trade union leaders—and they are concerned in the matter—may be true, but the notion that there arc hundreds of thousands of other people, not trade union leaders, who are deeply concerned in this matter, towards whom the Government have not made the slightest gesture, is something that seems to have missed the attention of the noble Lord in making his eloquent speech. Not a whisper or suggestion has been made that their anxiety or concern should be deferred to by any kind of concession.
My Lords, since we last met there has been a debate in the other place. That took place last Thursday. I expected, consequential upon that debate, when there were suggestions that we ought to reach an accord and that accommodation should be come to between us, that some approach would be made to me or my colleagues. No approach of any kind was made, but it reached my ear that there
1706
might be an approach made by some devious means. I do not stand on dignity or pride or anything else. I did not want this matter to reach a constitutional issue, and I do not believe it is anywhere near a constitutional issue. I think this is a wild, exaggerated conception that is done, like the fat boy in Pickwick Papers—whose role I would better play than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—to curdle the blood. There is no constitutional issue. Anything we are doing here today, we are doing in deference to the rights that we possess in an entirely constitutional fashion. This, if I may say so, is not open to argument.
I sought out the Government to see whether there were any proposals. If I am not in splendid form it is because we were negotiating until well into the early hours of this morning. We had, in my belief, reached agreement in relation to the legal matters that arose. A suggestion was made—and I at once acknowledge that no one said that it was put forward as an official proposal—which was designed to "test the water", but it was a suggestion which emanated from the Government and we totally accepted it in principle. We said, that, subject to a slight revision of the wording to clarify something, we would agree with it. That suggestion, having been put forward at 2 a.m. this morning, was withdrawn at 9 a.m. The idea that the Government are making desperate efforts to conciliate us and to reach an accord is not correct. The suggestion was withdrawn because of the obstinacy of certain persons. I do not wish to attach a stigma to any individuals nor to criticise any individual people. They are all old friends. I would only say that the idea that a united Government are moving forward in the belief that they are doing something for the benefit of mankind is as remote from reality as any conception which has ever been put forward in this House.
I do not wish to arouse laughter, if I may venture to say so to those who are most likely to support me. Nor am I seeking anyone's support. If we have to divide today, I want everyone to divide on the basis of his own conscience. If nobody follows me into that Lobby, I shall be happy to go there on my own. But the notion that this is a situation in which there is a genuine, ingrained belief on the part of the Government that they

1707
are doing something which is right cannot be supported if they will question their own consciences and question their own colleagues.
What we are doing is to defer to a view that the only consideration worth having in mind is a trade union consideration. Time and again, I have heard the proposition that this is an assault on the National Union of Journalists. It has nothing to do with the National Union of Journalists and, when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, detailing the horrible consequences that might ensue if either my Amendment or that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, were accepted, I felt that, though it may be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right, he should have come forward with Amendments. All I want to do is something very simple. I want to provide a situation in which a man who is engaged in a creative process cannot be prevented from exercising that creative process because he has been expelled, arbitrarily, without cause and without justification, from a union. If that happens, I want him to have some effective remedy.
That is all I want. If the legal methods which I have proposed are inappropriate or likely to cause the earth to tumble, why do the Government, possessing the resources of legal draftsmanship and all the skill and knowledge man could wish for, not produce a means of doing it without the awful consequences which will follow my Amendment? I, in my humility, know that I am quite capable of producing legal Amendments of the most terrible character. But I have done the best I could and it has been open to the Government, with the utmost simplicity, to use their resources and to say that they accepted the fact that a man must not be expelled from his union without redress, without justification, without appeal and without compensation, and that they would provide some sort of remedy together with a legal means of enforcement. It would have taken the Government half an hour to do that.
As it is, we have had an immense debate instancing the awful things that might happen if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, were accepted. I might say that the noble and learned Lord had to draft his
1708
Amendment in half an hour. If people realised the speed at which these matters are being tossed back to us, they would understand that what happens at Wimbledon is slow in comparison. It is positively in slow motion. We had a debate in the other place on Thursday and we are debating the matter again today after a most complicated set of Amendments on a Monday. We have to produce Amendments to deal with that situation and then they are analysed, subjected to strictures and it is suggested that they have been drafted with some ulterior motive in mind.
That is all we want. We want nothing else. In relation to this Bill, I wish it to be inserted that a man who writes—a creative man, a journalist—may not be expelled by his fellows without cause, without justification and without some means of redress. There is no means of redress. What has been put into the Bill is a suggestion that an unofficial, informal tribunal should adjudicate in these matters and that that should be the only remedy. I am not saying that that may not well have a substantial moral effect. I am only saying that responsible people, concerned for the welfare of the profession, would not regard that as an adequate redress or an adequate protection.
Some most astonishing things have been said. We were told that if one set up a domestic tribunal and if subsequently one had a right of appeal from its deliberations, that would make it impossible for the tribunal to do its work. I do not know anyone who can say such a thing. There are innumerable domestic tribunals working very successfully and efficiently. Take the General Medical Council, where there is a right of appeal to the courts if something outrageous is done. I could spend an hour listing the domestic tribunals in which this happens. Why is it impossible only in this instance to have one? If I were prone to suspect motivation, I should say that the speech we have just heard might, had it come from a less honourable man, have been exposed to the risk of being wholly disingenuous. That it was not wholly disingenuous I accept in view of the source from which it came. But the notion that one has to rely on a domestic tribunal because it cannot operate if there is an occasional right of appeal is, if I may say so, pure nonsense.

1709
I have made every effort arid every suggestion. I want to tell the House, if we have to fix the responsibility for what ultimately happens, that I have had discussions with the NUJ and with every side, and that I have, for instance, made the proposal that the domestic tribunals should be resorted to before there is any resort to the courts. This is done in Canada, where one has to exhaust the rights in a domestic tribunal before one can go to the courts. What is wrong with that? Anyone who wants to can appeal to the domestic tribunal and if he thinks that he has not obtained justice there he can go to the courts.
Another matter which I have to point out is that all the appalling consequences of my Amendment and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, can only arise after a finding on the facts by one of Her Majesty's judges. It is only if a man is found to have been wronged, victimised or affronted that there will be any judgment in his favour. It is only then that the question arises as to what sort of law applies. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, appeared to suggest that these Amendments would create factual situations and that they could give a man who was not wronged a right to a remedy which did not arise because his behaviour had not entitled him to it and that he would become entitled to it because of some such Amendment. We are concerned only with the situation in which a man has been plainly and patently wronged and where the courts, having established that fact, apply some law.
There was some difference between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and myself—and I may say that it was a most honourable difference—about the nature of the legal remedy that ought to arise. I accept that there are doubts about his remedy, as there are doubts about my own. I am sorry that, in the event, I did not adhere to the original proposal I had down, which was a simple one to insert a statutory right to protect rights under the charter. It was simple and uncomplicated. I abandoned it because I was given strong encouragement from certain quarters not immensely remote from the Government that if we pursued the Common Law remedy and pursued the remedy of public policy it was likely that this would find acceptance.
1710
I did not want a constitutional confrontation. I wanted to follow any course that was likely to be most acceptable. Hence, I abandoned something clear and simple in favour of something which was unquestionably uncertain, unquestionably obscure and unquestionably open to argument. I did so in the hope that it at least provided the glimmer of a candle that the liberty in this case could be preserved. We kept a candle alight. That is ail we are seeking to do. If a candle is kept alight in a country where liberty thrives, or has thrived, it will not be long before a blazing light ensues because other people will follow in its wake. What we do not want to do is to snuff out that candle.
Heaven forbid! that we should have a constitutional crisis. If we divide today, we shall be exercising the rights we have. No sort of threat will move me in the slightest because I take a view—which may not be shared by others—that a House which is incapable of exercising any sort of influence is a House which might just as well be abolished.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I see no possible reason for apprehension about the dark forebodings uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. All I can say to him is this: we shall do what is constitutionally right. We shall raise no levies in the courtyards. We shall not arm the people in Yorkshire or Cornwall or anywhere else. We shall not march on anyone. We shall exercise constitutional rights given to us by the other place and we shall exercise them to a point where we shall have exhausted the legal remedies available to us and shall have demonstrated to the people of this country that we believe this to be a bad and evil law. Having succeeded in demonstrating that to them, we shall make no further efforts to hold anything up. We shall not engage in childish play about whether or not we can hold things up for a week or a fortnight. We shall merely have declared our intentions.
I regret the time that I am taking, but this is a very serious matter and I feel it important to explain to the House what are the differences between us. They are very simple. If there is to be a charter—and at this moment there is no charter and all the prating about the

1711
charter is the most unrealistic part of the whole of this unreal discussion, for no charter exists, no discussions or meetings have taken place and there is no reason necessarily to suppose that any charter will be brought into being—it will not be discouraged by anyone, but the likelihood of an agreed charter must be regarded as speculative. There is no charter of any kind, and nothing anyone has said has discouraged anyone trying to achieve a charter. But what we have said is this: if there is to be a charter, there are a few fundamental matters: they do not constitute a charter, they do not constitute the beginning of a charter, they constitute the essential safeguards that are requisite if a charter makes any sense. The one to which I particularly draw attention is the one on which the negotiations have broken down:
"The rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union."
All I have asked is that that should be inserted in the framework and structure of this charter as one of the matters that gets included in some tangible form. That is the major difference between myself and the Government; that is the major difference that justified that splendid oration by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in which he informed us of the dangers with which we are confronted. Forget the remedy, my Lords; do not think anything about the question of whether or not it is legally enforced. I want this charter—whether it be on a voluntary or a legal basis—to contain a provision that journalists should not be unreasonably excluded or unreasonably expelled. That is the major difference between myself and my friends in the Government; that and nothing else, except on the question of what form of legal remedy should exist, upon which I will say something in a moment.
If the noble Lord will rise now to say that he will accept that that is inserted in the charter, we shall be three-quarters of the way home. If he will say, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that he is prepared to have that put into the charter, there is no real issue between us. But what I will say to him is this: if he will not say it, then the suspicions that we entertain about why he will not say it, and why his friend the Secretary of State will not say it, seem to be very well founded. Why will he not say it? Would
1712
he like me to sit down in order that he may explain why? That is what I am asking him. He talks darkly about constitutional issues; he talks darkly about people who are associated with Press proprietors, and he refers to other mammoth irrelevancies. What he will not say is why we cannot make that provision, as one of the matters that is to be fixed there for all time when they come to create the charter.
Is he telling me that that will inhibit the negotiators, when the time comes, in their free negotiations and that with petulance they will have a little tantrum and say, "We cannot negotiate a charter; look what the terrible Lords have done; they have required us to accept that as part of this charter we shall not throw a man out of the union without reason, without justice, without excuse."? Is he seriously saying that the National Union of Journalists will raise any such childish suggestion? I challenge him on it because I do not believe it is true. I will ask him something else: does he really believe that this is discrimination against the NUJ? I heard on the radio the other Sunday the Secretary of State say that what we were doing was extraordinary, discriminatory legislation against the NUJ. Reflect, please, what is the extraordinary discrimination? The extraordinary discrimination is that we are bestowing on every member of the NUJ—which means on the NUJ as a whole, because the union is its membership, and its membership is the union—a right of appeal if any of them are flung out of the Union wrongly, improperly and without redress. That is the discrimination that the NUJ are suffering. I venture to think that it is a discrimination which most people would suffer with alacrity and great willingness. There is no other form of discrimination against that Union.
If he is saying that we are discriminating against the people who might want to throw them out without excuse and without justification, then I am prepared to say that this is discrimination about which I have a total composure; this is a discrimination which the House will accept without any sense of guilt. But to suggest that there is a discrimination against that union because they are being given that right! I should like to invite the noble Lord to invite his friends in the NUJ to hold a ballot of the entire union and ask themselves whether they

1713
regard themselves as discriminated against if they have bestowed on them a right of appeal, a right of redress, if they are thrown out of the union unjustly and without cause. I should like to see the result of that ballot. I would be prepared to wager a substantial part of my own very modest fortune that the result would not vindicate the view expressed by the noble Lord. We would find an overwhelming number of people who would say, "What is all this about? We are being told those monsters in the Lords, those capitalists, those bloated proprietors, are seeking to do us some injury and to damage our cause. What they appear to be wanting to do is to give us a right of action, a right of appeal, if arbitrarily and unjustly a man who writes is thrown out of the Union".
Consider one of the observations made by the noble Lord when he referred to "one group of workers". May I venture to say this is an absurdity. This is not a group of workers in any sense in which that phrase can be used. The people assembled on the shop-floor—working side-by-side in fraternity, doing the same job—are a group of people, some of whom work at home, some of whom work in Washington, some of whom are climbing the Himalayas, some of whom are in bed deciding what to write. The notion that you can impose an industrial discipline on this disparate collection of human beings can be entertained only by someone who is seeking to persuade us of the total unreality of the Government's case.
What is the other Amendment? The other Amendment we want is a faint flicker of a suggestion that the law has not been expelled from human transaction. There are two issues on which this matter ought to be considered by the country. One is whether people can be expelled from a union or any other organisation where their right to work is involved without any appeal and any redress. The second issue is whether it is appropriate for the legislature to say that there are circumstances in which the rule of law should be totally outlawed. I know that the trade unions were seriously affronted by the operation of the 1971 Act. I would point out—and I do not wish to make debating points—that we are not concerned with the repeal of
1714
the 1971 Act. We are concerned with the repeal of a section in an Act passed by Her Majesty's Government—the 1974 Act.
Section 5 says in the clearest terms that if a man is thrown out of a union or excluded from a union, he has a right of redress. That is what we arc being asked to amend; we are being asked to amend it on the footing that, having been inserted by Her Majesty's Government, they have now found that that provision is inconvenient to certain people who do not want to abide by it. I can only say this: that the day we set our seal on a refusal to allow the courts to redress a wrong of this kind, after the utmost discouragement to the people who are seeking to bring litigation—litigation will be slow to be brought by journalists, and, in certain circumstances, they will resort to this tribunal, and they will go to the courts only when there is no other remedy to enable them to work—that we should deny them that remedy, seems to me wholly inappropriate and wholly wrong.
My friends and I have made every effort to compose this matter; I hope that it is not the end of the day. I have explained what there is between us: there is between us that we want in the charter, an explicit statement that in some form the expulsion of journalists from a union, or their exclusion from the union, will not be permitted without cause and without redress. We want that in the charter, and we want some form of legal remedy to enable them to enforce those rights in the event of their being excluded from justice by circumstances we cannot envisage, since we are not prepared to assume that all bodies of men act like communities of angels. That is what we want. If the Government decide to make a constitutional issue on this matter, the fault is theirs and not ours.
4.49 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and to the House for the fact that I was absent for the first moments of his speech. I was performing a public duty at the request of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, one of which he is fully aware. Therefore, I hope I may be excused. I have had the

1715
advantage of reading a fairly full note made by my noble friend at my side.
I do not want to spend very much time in this debate; indeed, in spite of the appropriately full length of the first two speeches, I hope that our debate may be reasonably short, since much that would properly be said on an occasion of this kind has been said more than once during the passage of this Bill. Least of all do I wish to spend much time myself, since I found myself addressing your Lordships' House on the main issues only a few days ago, within the recollection of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke as if there was general agreement between the two sides of the House on everything except minor matters of procedure and methods, and as if there was no difference of aim but only of method between us, and no question of principle. I regret that I part company from the noble Lord there and I will tell him what I think are the questions of principle upon which we differ— because I think they are questions of principle and not of method.
The first is that the Government have appeared from first to last to take the stance that this charter, upon whose desirability we are now agreed, with different degrees of enthusiasm, should be left entirely to the industry as something which it is their business to decide, and nobody else's. We believe, and certainly I believe, most sincerely that if we are to have a charter of this kind the minimal requirements of it are something with which the people, and therefore Parliament, are intimately concerned, because the freedom of the Press, which is the subject matter of the charter, is not a private matter to be debated between the various organs within the industry enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It is something which concerns us all.
The availability of the Press, access to outside contributors, the freedom of editors from pressure to suppress or distort news, the independence of editors, the continued existence of more than one professional body, so long as there are substantial numbers of journalists who support them—these are not matters which are purely private concerns of the various parties within the Press. We think that the minimal requirements
1716
should be stated in the charter. That, I think, is more than a question of means or method; it is a question of principle. If we are wrong about that, then of course we are wrong about the merits. But if we are right about that, then we can hardly be wrong to express our view in accordance with our deeply and sincerely held conviction.
The second point of principle which I think exists is that where there is a wrong, a proven wrong, by which an individual has suffered, this would not be a civilised society, nor one in conformity either with the European Convention or with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if, in the end, access to the courts were not provided to give effect to it. Those are the two questions. They are not questions of detail; they are questions of principle. I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I quite agree with him that the situation of this country is not such that one would seek to provoke any unnecessary dispute, nor, I hope—and I speak within the recollection of my fellow Peers—have I done so during the course of these debates, although I have had some hard things to say, either personally to the Government or in wider fields with any other section of the community, or in connection with another place.
Where differences of principle are sincerely felt, they must be dealt with not by asking one side to abandon its stance but in accordance with the law of the Constitution, which provides a way out of these things. It is not a matter for bad temper, but it is also not a matter for papering over cracks which are deep cleavages of conviction in matters of this kind. Therefore, if I may, I should like to say this about my own Amendment, although my noble friend Lord Carrington will be giving advice to those who wish to follow it as to the course we should take about the individual matters.
It has been said from the start from the Government Benches—more often from the Back-Benches than from the Front Bench or from the Woolsack, for a reason which I will disclose—that what we must do in order to have peace in industry is to keep trade relations of this kind out of the courts. That has been the cry. I doubt not that it is sincerely put forward by whomsoever it was put forward, but I am bound to remind the

1717
House that it is the purest nonsense, because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said during the course of this Bill, not once but, I think, four times, and the Attorney-General in another place has said not once but, I think, about six times, that the courts are not being kept out of these relationships.
The Common Law remedy is preserved. The member of the union excluded contrary to rules or natural justice is allowed to sue for damages, even if the union does not want to pay. Judgments can be given, funds can be sequestrated and the whole procedure which has caused so much alarm can be re-enacted in those circumstances; and the court, as the noble Lord well knows, can also declare certain rules ultra vires and invalid because they offend against reason and common sense. In fact, more than once in recent years the courts have done so. A third party who is injured by a union otherwise than in the course of a trade dispute can bring an action against the union for tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds, and judgment can be given, irrespective of this Bill, even if the union does not want to pay. The whole processof sequestration can be enforced in that case and no-one has suggested that this will cause bitterness.
It is only when I propose an Amendment, the terms of which I will venture to remind the House, that this immense but wholly imaginary bogey is introduced. And what is my Amendment? It is nothing like that: it is nothing like Stratford v. Lindley; it is nothing like the Torquay hotel case; it is nothing like the other cases to which I have referred by implication. It is that if, after the members of the industry have sat down and agreed a charter with certain minimum requirements, which are not themselves in dispute but on which we ask that the Statute should make them pay, someone is aggrieved thereby and has suffered material damage, it shall be the business, not, indeed, of the courts, but of a body to be set up by the industry itself, with the full approval and at the suggestion of the Government, to decide whether there has been a grievance and, if proved, to state how much the damage is; and that their decision should then be treated not as a judgment which can
1718
be taken to the Court of Appeal or to the wicked Old House of Lords, but which can be enforced as an arbitrator's award. What could be milder than that, in comparison with those instances I have just given? If your Lordships are really going to say that a union, an employer or a third party who has put his hand to a charter and has broken it, and has put his hand to the formation of a tribunal—
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): Address the House!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am addressing the House, if the noble Lord will forgive me. But this is rather a serious debate and I should be grateful if he did not interfere—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: —who has put his hand to a tribunal of the industry's own composition, has broken the charter and has been found by that tribunal to have broken it and to have damaged somebody else who is wholly innocent, would then not only refuse to pay but would prefer to go to prison rather than to obey the award of his own tribunal based on his own charter, or prefer to allow goods to be sequestrated rather than to write a cheque, where are we coming to, and what is the rule of law which members of unions and other bodies are prepared to accept at any time? And when we hear that they are prepared to accept an award of hundreds of thousands of pounds by the courts to which they object, at the suit of a third party—such as the Torquay hotel—but not of their own tribunal based on their own charter, what kind of intelligence or common sense or even good faith can we attribute to them?
These are questions which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not answer. Instead he wants us to accept a charter without minimal requirements and without any sanction of any kind behind it. When I was a child a charming story was written by Beatrix Potter called, The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse. Mrs. Tittlemouse was a mouse who offered hospitality to a toad called Mr. Jackson. The hospitality which she offered to the

1719
toad was two hard, round cherry stones, which she could appreciate but Mr. Jackson could not. Mr. Jackson rejected the proffered hospitality with the words: "No teeth, Mrs. Tittlemouse. No teeth" —and that is what is wrong with the Government's attitude today.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, professed to find in this matter a danger of some terrible constitutional crisis between the two Houses of Parliament. I say with some confidence to your Lordships that there could be no constitutional crisis unless it were contrived. A constitutional crisis between the two Houses could take place if in fact the process of Government were held up. One knows from the other side of the world that another and more democratically organised Second Chamber has in fact created a constitutional crisis, rightly or wrongly, in such circumstances in accordance with the terms of its Constitution, of which we have no right to speak except by way of illustration. But, my Lords, there is no danger of that here. There is no danger at all of a crisis being caused by this Chamber's holding up the process of government, the elected Executive, which bases its powers constitutionally upon a majority of the other place. Nor is there any possibility of a crisis when, quite conscientiously, on a matter of principle about permanent legislation, or legislation which is intended to be permanent, the two Houses sincerely differ and the matter can be put right by process of law.
The Parliament Act enables the Government to pass the Bill in their own form by January. And we are asked to believe that we must vote otherwise than in accordance with our consciences in order to save the Government the embarrassment of taking the responsibility for this legislation, in which we do not believe, by passing it over our heads under the Parliament Act by January. I cannot believe that the noble Lord is serious in putting forward that proposition. The noble Lord strove to say that the Parliament Act was designed to operate only in moments of supreme crisis—I forget the actual language which he used. That was never the argument in 1911; it was never the argument in 1949 when the amending Act was passed, and I have ample quotations to establish that. It was designed to establish that where there was a genuine disagreement,
1720
after proper discussion in which each side played its part constitutionally and sincerely—as I take it both sides have done in this case—the Government of the day, through its Commons majority, should have a legal way out which would cause dishonour neither to themselves, unless their proposals were inherently dishonourable, nor to this place if it happened to differ from the majority in another.
My Lords, I have said all I have to say. I put forward the Amendment which stood in my name simply in order, as I said before, to be helpful. I did so because I thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was inadequate. I did so also because it was much milder in some ways than Lord Good-man's because I made use of the body proposed by the Government themselves. I have no desire to act in a spirit of rancour or vanity. So long as the two principles with which I began are properly observed, I claim no pride of parenthood of this particular form. I will take whatever course is proposed by my noble friend Lord Carrington. But I would ask the House sincerely to believe that it will not in the end preserve either its existence or its honour if it refuses to follow its conscience in a matter of principle.
5.8 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I hope that this debate will last long enough for the matter still remaining between us to be thoroughly thrashed out. I shall not raise the constitutional issue. If the Government decide to invoke the Parliament Act, then your Lordships can debate that matter when it arises. There are questions of the merits of this dispute that obviously are still misunderstood. A great deal of confusion exists about what is at stake here. Last Saturday night I heard a British Broadcasting Corporation commentator refer to this Bill as "the Press Bill" One has heard a great deal about freedom of the Press or Press freedom. These are the words which have been used in connection with this dispute and this Bill. This is not the Press Bill; this Bill relates to industrial relations, trade unions and employees generally.
The first thing that should be pointed out is that the provisions of the Bill before the House have been accepted by your Lordships as applicable to all other trade

1721
unions and all other employees except those engaged in journalism—all other trade unionists, including the printing unions in the newspaper industry. All other unions are to be brought within the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Your Lordships have agreed to that. So the first question is whether discrimination is being made against one particular union or one industry. I do not call it discrimination but I do call it distinction. There is no doubt that we all agree on drawing a distinction between the Press and those engaged in it and other industries in the private sector. We are doing this because we recognise the special role of the Press and its importance to the basic freedoms of the country. We are trying to do that by providing a charter that will relate to this industry and to no other. All centres around the charter.
When this Bill first came to your Lordships' House no charter was provided for in it and the Amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and other noble Lords provided for no charter. There were sanctions but there was no charter. I proposed the charter in the hope that it would provide the basis upon which fears could be resolved and doubts and disputes between representatives of the industry could be settled in such a manner as to produce in the end a code of conduct which would be agreed to by those directly concerned and would meet with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. This distinguishes the Press, the industry of journalism, from every other union and every other industry; so already we have gone a long way towards recognising the importance of those people who are engaged in this vocation.
Where have we come unstuck on this charter? Not, I submit, on its scope, but on two matters: first, preconditions and, secondly, sanctions for infringement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, referred to preconditions as minimum requirements. This reveals not a difference of principle but a difference of approach. Those who want preconditions, minimum requirements, stipulations to be imposed upon those who are directly concerned with the discussions on the charter do not trust those who are to draw up the charter to fulfil the requirements of this House. Preconditions are not laid down if you are satisfied
1722
that common sense, judgment and a full sense of responsibility will prevail. There is no need to lay down preconditions unless you fear that without them your requirements will not be met. Therefore, in laying down preconditions there is an clement of mistrust.
When my noble friend the Leader of the House referred to the possible effect upon the unions concerned he was stressing what to most of us is the obvious. If one shows mistrust in people, in many cases the response one gets is not the kind of response, the kind of mood, that one is hoping for. This is deeply psychological and it is not yet understood. This afternoon we have heard echoes of the debates on the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I imagine that we could find in Hansard of that period the speech which was made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in relation to the attempt to impose the same conditions upon the trade union movement generally. However, the 1971 Act has been abandoned. The former Government went to the country to try to maintain their hold upon the framework of the law that had been imposed upon the trade unions. They failed and a Government came in that was pledged to remove that Act from the Statute Book. That is part of what this Bill is about.
Should we have preconditions? Should we have minimum requirements? I say, my Lords, No. We must define the range of the discussions on the charter—what we are expecting it to deal with and what we are calling upon it to do—and then allow the discussions to continue. At the end of the day there are two remedies for possible mishap. One is that an agreed charter has to come before both Houses of Parliament. If there is not an agreed charter, the Secretary of State has to lay a draft of his own. A few minutes ago the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question. I waited until there was a pause in his argument. Supposing that there had been no question of a charter and that the Common Law, which applies to every other trade union and to employers, had been allowed to prevail, could not we have avoided a great deal of this trouble?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I will reply to my noble friend, although it takes me away for a moment or two from the main course of my argument. When my noble friend Lord Shepherd said that the Government desire to sweep away the last vestiges of the 1971 Act, he may have overlooked the fact that we are not restoring the pre-1971 position. This Bill and the 1974 Act does more than restore the 1971 position, for this reason. Before the Industrial Relations Act 1971 there was no Statute Law either about the closed shop or about compensation for dismissal arising from a closed shop situation.
There was the Common Law compensation for wrongful dismissal if the court held that the dismissal had been wrong and had damaged the employee concerned. However, the 1971 Act provided for compensation for wrongful dismissal by a process other than that of going to the courts. Industrial tribunals could deal with complaints of unfair dismissal and award compensation. But when the present Government dealt with the 1971 Act they did not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the 1974 Act they re-enacted the compensation provisions for unfair dismissal that were included in the 1971 Act. Industrial tribunals are now awarding compensation under the 1974 Act which contains this re-enactment of the compensation provisions of the 1971 Act.
In order to avoid any doubt or difficulty, this Bill and the 1974 Act provide that in a closed-shop situation dismissal is not to be regarded as wrongful dismissal. An employee who seeks a remedy for alleged wrongful dismissal has to go elsewhere for it. In my view, that distinguishes materially the post-1974 and pre-1971 situation. Therefore, when my noble friend asks why could not we sweep it all away and go back to the pre-1971Common Law position, the answer I must give to him is that both Houses of Parliament passed the 1974 Act. It is on the Statute Book and the provisions about wrongful and unfair dismissal are contained in it. That is my digression in order to answer my noble friend.
I come now to the question of sanctions. Here there is always a plausible argument that if there is a wrong one should be able to go to the courts for the remedy. In many cases that is so, but we have
1724
this very complicated, intricate and dangerous matter to deal with in connection with the 1971 Act, and although we may recoil from the conclusion that, in some circumstances, the law cannot be enforced against a mass of people, we have to be realistic about the new centres of powers in the community and about what the law is appropriate for and what it is not.
There is provision for redress, first, in the proposal that there should be a tribunal to consider, to reach a judgment upon and to publish their conclusions on any alleged breach; and there is also the recourse to the special tribunal which has been set up under the Employment Protection Bill for the consideration of matters of this kind. I said on a previous occasion that, on the whole, the chances of getting justice in matters of this kind are better if the judgment is made by those whose judgment will be respected and accepted, rather than by a tribunal whose findings may not commend themselves to the bodies of people concerned. It is matter of judgment and not a matter of principle, and this is where the difference between us lies.
Apart from the Parliament Act and the words being uttered, I hope that your Lordships will see reason in the plea that we should accept the Commons Amendments and give this a trial, leaving the Royal Commission on the Press to continue its work on this and other matters relating to the Press. I understand that the Royal Commission feels unable to give consideration to the matters which arise in our debate today, while Parliament is still discussing them. That is not an unreasonable view for a Royal Commission to take and, while we are at it, the Royal Commission cannot proceed. If we resist the House of Commons this afternoon, it is obvious that this matter will remain open for months to come, because it will require the reintroduction of a new Bill in the House of Commons and certain Parliamentary processes will have to be gone through.
While all that is happening, I understand that the Royal Commission will not feel able to consider these matters of the closed shop and the other issues which we have so fully debated from time to time. In my view, that will be a great handicap. We want the Report from the Royal Commission. We want to

1725
know far more about the Press than the matters that we are dealing with, and the Royal Commission cannot complete this mammoth, difficult and important task if it is to be inhibited in dealing with matters of this importance because they are before Parliament at the present time, and are likely to remain so for a while to come. So I hope your Lordships will bear that in mind. No irreparable harm will be done, even if your Lordships think that if the Bill is passed as the Government want it to be passed there may be harm in it. Nobody will see the difference between one version and another for a little while to come, but we certainly want the Royal Commission to get on with the job.
I wish that the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Thatcher, had not made her speech on this subject. I have convinced myself so far that this is a genuine difference of opinion on the merits of the matter and is not politically motivated. I hate to think that the Conservative Party might wish to put out the story that a Labour Government arc using the Parliament Act to suppress the freedom of the Press. I hate to think of the kind of propaganda which, in unscrupulous hands, might be disseminated about this matter, while we, who are thoroughly acquainted with it, know that no such construction could possibly be put on what the Government are asking the House to do. It is true, of course, that we are asking the House to diminish—not to remove—the degree of distinction drawn between the National Union of Journalists and all other trade unionists. I am not going to call it discrimination, but the National Union of Journalists is asked, because of the nature of its vocation, to accept conditions which no other trade union in the country is asked to put up with, and we have to be fully justified in attempting to impose those conditions before we do so. I do not believe that we have yet given the National Union of Journalists a chance to show its constructive approach to the question of the charter.
I conclude by saying this. The final remedy lies in the hands of Parliament, whether the charter is an agreed one or whether it is drafted by the Secretary of State in the event of disagreement between the parties concerned. No dam-
1726
age of the kind feared can possibly happen, unless and until a closed shop agreement is reached. I must stress this. There is no divine law descending upon the scene in Fleet Street, imposing closed shops. Closed shops are agreements between the parties concerned, and the conditions relating to closed shops are matters of agreement between the parties concerned. A closed shop agreement with the National Union of Journalists, in conformity with the charter, could make special provision for the position of the Institute of Journalists; it could make special provision for the position of the editors.
In fact, all these things are suggested heads of agreement in the Bill itself, and the difference here is about whether there should be minimum requirements, whether there should be imposed preconditions before anyone starts talking at all, or whether we rely on these things being done, and, if they are not done, being remedied here and elsewhere, or by the Secretary of State. There is the remedy. Nobody else has these conditions and they are very valuable indeed. This is the long stop of Parliament against the failure of voluntary effort to reach agreement in the interests of those concerned, and in the interests of the community.
I feel passionately about this subject. I believe that the whole approach from the Benches opposite is mistaken and misconceived and will presage disaster in this field, as indeed it did in the field of industrial relations generally in 1971. Have they not learned anything from what happened then? Have they not taken a measure of the situation in 1975? Nobody needs to agree to a closed shop agreement in Fleet Street which does not satisfy employers, proprietors, editors and the rest. Nobody will force a closed shop arrangement down the throat of anybody, except by an attempt at industrial action to do so, and then we shall know what it is all about. Then we shall know what is the danger, if it occurs; then we shall know how to deal with it, if it occurs. The pledge given by the Government is surely one on which we can rely, and if anything happens which remotely impairs the freedom of the Press and puts editors in strait jackets, or sends them trembling down the corridors to their offices for fear of what the chapel of the NUJ may say or do, then Parliament can

1727
step in and say, "We will not have it." If the indications already given are fulfilled at the end of this debate, I believe that the mistake made on more counts than one this afternoon will reverberate in Parliament and elsewhere for a long time to come.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, sits down, might I ask a question of some relevance? Nobody has played a more worthy part in seeking to compose this difference, and I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to mislead the House. The noble Lord said that an agreement might be reached with the NUJ which made provision for, for instance, the continuing survival of the IOJ, or an agreement might be reached which made provision for editors not being members of unions. Has the noble Lord made any inquiries of the NUJ as to whether they would agree to these provisions? I have, and I will say no more than that.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, the answer is that I have not, for a very good reason. I have no desire to prejudge the attitude of the NUJ, or to find out what their attitude may be. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is in touch with various elements in this industry and what he has to say on these matters is important. But I do not myself accept that any prejudgment on the intentions of the NUJ is justified in this House this afternoon. I should want to know what was the authority, and what accompanied the words that may be in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Let us keep them out of it. Let us assume that there are here people of good will, honour and common sense. They surely exist in the NUJ in large enough numbers to sec that, at the end, we will have a charter which is acceptable to both Houses of Parliament.
5.32 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for intervening in what is becoming a private quarrel. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sower by, in his prophecies of doom. I am sure the noble Lord believes sincerely that the end is nigh, and I have the sense that your Lordships
1728
would like to come to a conclusion of the debate, so I will not take up too much time. However, I think that a contribution from the Liberal Benches is called for.
I think we should first recognise that since the Bill was first introduced we have made a great deal of progress. I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in believing that there is a great deal of confusion. I think there is a much better understanding of the issues at stake, and a much better understanding of the problem. There are still genuine and sincere differences of opinion—and they are genuine and they are sincere. I shall revert to this question of what is a matter of judgment and what is a matter of principle in a moment or two. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, can take a great deal of credit for the fact that in the Bill we now have provision for a charter and for a tribunal to pronounce on breaches of the charter when they occur, which is a step forward. What is absent, unless certain Lords' Amendments are included in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, is any form of remedy for an individual or organisation suffering damage from breach of the charter. That concerns us greatly as Liberals on these Benches.
I fully understand the view of those who say that the experience of the Industrial Relations Act, so far as the trade unions were concerned, was such that we must never use the courts again in matters affecting the unions. I understand that view. I also understand how sincerely it is held. But I believe that this issue is really one of principle. It is an issue of a fundamental freedom, a freedom which has to be protected if it is to continue. Freedom must be protected by law. It cannot be protected by hope; it cannot be protected by assurances; it cannot be protected by the results of a ballot responded to by 30 per cent. of the members of a union. The ultimate protection of all the freedoms we enjoy today must surely be by way of the law of the land to which all of us, for our common protection, must be subject. Therefore, if there is a charter and a tribunal to pronounce on breaches of the law, there must logically be a remedy within the law if the protection, particularly of the individual, is to be made a reality.

1729
We are told that we should not select one particular group of workers for special provision. I do not accept that as a principle. There is a very great difference between an industrial closed shop in which pay and conditions are negotiated, and a closed shop which can censor contributions to newspapers, restrict the rights of editors if it is so minded, and contain the freedom of the Press. As a matter of fact, we deal specially with and make special provisions for certain groups of workers—the Armed Forces and the police. This is not something which we can just push to one side. It is suggested that we should leave all this—which, to our minds, constitutes a principle of the freedom of the Press—to both sides of industry. I believe that there is a case for the public interest to be represented on an issue of this sort.
My Lords, I have no hesitation in believing that this House will be doing its duty by insisting on its Amendments, though perhaps not all of them. In the interests of getting closer agreement, we may well be prepared not to press the Amendments—and, when I say "press", I mean support if it is decided to go through the Division Lobby—proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to which my noble friend Lord Wigoder added his name. In our view, there must be something done to give an indication of what should be in the charter and, at the end of the road, there must be a remedy which people can use. These Amendments may not be perfect, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Government must share responsibility for any imperfection there. They would have done much better in the interests of the House to come forward with assistance in drafting an Amendment which would enable us to put in a proper remedy.
Above all, I hope we shall not be put off from doing our duty by threats from some quarters of another place. I speak as one who would welcome reform of this House, a reform which was frustrated by the Member of another place who today villifies us for exercising our rights. It was a very bad piece of work that was perpetrated by the present Secretary of State for Employment in 1968. There are a number of people who will never forgive him for teaming up with Enoch
1730
Powell to frustrate the proper reform of this House. I have been over this ground of Lords Reform for 30 years. I voted in 1949 against the proposals of the Labour Government to reduce the power of the Lords, because those proposals contained no element of reform at all. The Liberal Party has a consistent record of wanting to see power and reformgoing together.
The fact is that in insisting on the Goodman Amendments we are working within the limits of delay imposed by the Parliament Act 1949. We are doing nothing more than was contemplated and openly accepted by the Labour Government of the day—and many of us were in that Parliament, and know that that was so. In 1949, the late Mr. Herbert Morrison, in closing the debate on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill said:
"The Lords are in our view entitled to ask that the Commons should be required to give time and consideration to the Amendments which they propose to Commons Bills. That, as I think v, e should all agree, is reasonable. If the position were that the Lords sent their Amendments to the Commons but the Commons could indifferently ignore them and pass the Bill without further ado"—
which is what Mr. Foot would like to see in the end, then, said Mr. Morrison—
"the Lords would be entitled to say that there was no guarantee that any serious consideration would be given to their Amendments, and we might as well resort to single-Chamber government."
This is what Mr. Michael Foot wants; he is on the Record as wanting it, but not his other Cabinet colleagues. Mr. Morrison concluded by saying:
"The present Bill adequately safeguards the rights of the Lords in this respect."
These were the rights which could be exercised by an unreformed Chamber. These are the rights which we are now exercising, and for which we are criticised. The reduced delaying power under the 1949 Act could in this case, if exercised, amount to a period not exceeding six months in delaying this particular measure, and I do not think this is reasonable.
My Lords, in 1968 the White Paper on House of Lords reform was produced by the Labour Government of that day. I was a member of the full committee under the chairmanship of the then noble and learned Lord the Lord

1731
Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and of the Sub-Committee—there were three—which studied the matter in very great detail. We dealt with this question of the Lords' powers with some care, and we obtained full agreement in the Committee. The conclusion was put forward with cogency by the then Lord President of the Council, the late Mr. Richard Crossman, who said in November 1968:
"A reformed House given the same powers as the present House would challenge the sovereignty of the House of Commons. If we want a Second Chamber subordinate to the Commons we have to make sure that its powers are exactly attuned to this purpose."
The Labour Government of that time accepted that even for a reformed House a period of delay of six months from the date of disagreement of both Houses, with a carry-over if necessary to the next Session or even the next Parliament, was a reasonable period of time. This is what we shall be doing if we cannot resolve the disagreement between the two Houses. Those Members of your Lordships' House who have any worry about the need for a Second Chamber might read the philosophy of Richard Crossman, in that remarkable speech where he described to the House of Commons how he went through the various stages and ended by believing in a reformed House with this sort of power of six months' delay.
Therefore, I would hope that the Government will recognise that these are not wrecking tactics; that this is not the deliberate disruption of a Government's legislative programme for Party advantage. It is a sincere attempt to uphold the protection of a fundamental freedom by bringing it within the law, and to us on these Benches it is a matter of supreme principle; it is not a matter of judgment, it is a matter of principle in which we sincerely believe. It is the kind of issue which may well arise in different forms in the future, and, in my view, whenever it does this House should exercise the powers bestowed upon it by the Statute which defines our functions and responsibilities.
5.43 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has demonstrated with his usual clarity that every effort that has been made in the past to reform the House of Lords has led only to the result that your Lordships' House
1732
has remained the same. But that is not the issue before your Lordships' House tonight. The issue—apart from all the specious arguments, the irrelevancies, the ambiguities and the distortions—is a very simple one. It is whether your Lordships are prepared to accept the decision of another place. It is not even a dispute as between Members of your Lordships' House on the Opposition Benches and the Government; it is a dispute between Members of your Lordships' House on the other side. If they decide to implement all their principles and sincere convictions, about which we have heard a great deal, and resolve to go against the decision taken in another place by, according to the evidence, a substantial majority, that is the issue.
My Lords, in almost every dialogue that has emerged on this subject of industrial relations the issue of sanctions has be devilled the judgment of all concerned, both employers and trade unions. In the time of the Wilson Government from 1966 to 1970 an effort was made to introduce an incomes policy. That policy, with some exceptions, would have been quite acceptable to the majority of trade unions in the country if it had not included the issue of penal sanctions against trade unions in the event of some issue arising as between those who were on the shop floor and the employers. I can recall an incident that occurred when I happened to occupy the position of Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
The late Mr. Ness Edwards, who was the chairman of the trade union group in the House of Commons, came to me one evening, very late, and asked whether I would see the Prime Minister and intervene on behalf of the trade union group —I was not a member of that group, not being a sponsored trade union member—and plead with the Prime Minister to withdraw the penal clauses which were embodied in the legislation. I saw the Prime Minister, and without going into details I can only repeat what he said: we must have reserve powers, by which he meant to impose sanctions if and when it was found to be necessary. I reported back to Mr. Ness Edwards and his two vice-chairmen. As a result, the dispute within the Labour Party at the time between a large section of the membership and the Government became even more turbulent, and in the event the

1733
proposed legislation was abandoned, with the results that are known only too well.
It has now emerged again. I ventured, when my noble friend Lord Houghton was speaking, to ask a simple question. It was this: on the assumption that the question of a charter had never emerged —and, of course, we know it was intended as a compromise, quite sincerely submitted by my noble friend Lord Houghton—what would have remained so far as sanctions were concerned? The answer was in evidence this afternoon from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, because he propounded the law on the subiect. In effect, what he said amounted to this: if a dispute occurred as a result of the expulsion of a member from a trade union, that person had a right to invoke the Common Law and ask the courts to decide.
There have been cases of that sort that have come before the courts and compensation has been awarded. The Common Law propounded this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, still remains the law of the land and can be invoked at any time as and when it is regarded as essential. But what has happened has been an endeavour to produce some kind of discrimination as between the union of journalists and, for example, the union of miners or the steel-workers or general labourers or builders. Frankly, I can see no distinction whatever. It is perfectly true that journalists may be spread all over the world—to use the language of the noble and learned Lord—and they may be in Washington, or in Cairo, or in the West End of London or the East End, or in Fleet Street, or in the various habitats they occupy from time to time. But they arc an organisation, they are a group and they have an affinity, and as such can be recognised.
Then emerges the question of the freedom of the Press. I want to ask a question about this matter of the freedom of the Press. Let us assume that the Press of this country, instead of being politically motivated by capitalist owners, had been politically motivated by the trade unions and the Labour Party, would there have been so much dialogue about the freedom of the Press, retaining that freedom and permitting editors to utilise the services even of militant authors,
1734
writers and journalists? Why, of course not. By the freedom of the Press we simply mean that the newspapers of the country, taken by and large—there happens to be only one exception, I never read it, unlike some right reverend Prelates— say what they like, do what they like, but in the main denounce the Labour Party, denounce the trade union movement, single out trade union leaders and Labour politicians to ther detriment. That is what is meant by the freedom of the Press. I do not want to interfere with the freedom of the Press. Let them write what they like, let them say what they like, but I misunderstand what is meant by the freedom of the Press.
The journalists of the country, whether editors or sub-editors, and their associates, are no more entitled to privileges than miners or building workers, or any person who works on the shop floor. On the other hand, I want to make my position perfectly clear as regards the editors of capitalist newspapers or capitalist periodicals. I would no more interfere with the right of an editor to decide what appears in his periodical or newspaper than I would deny the right of a managing director associated with an industrial establishment to declare how his factory should be managed. I believe in participation by the workers, but not to that extent. The editor of a newspaper must have the essential right—I do not call it a privilege—because of his position to produce in his newspaper or periodical anything which, in his judgment, is regarded as proper. That is my position.
I dismiss at once the specious arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I shall tell the House why. On several occasions, not only this evening but in the course of previous debates, he used the word, "We". He speaks on behalf of "We" Who did he mean? The newspaper proprietors. That is what he meant. If he was speaking on behalf of the newspaper proprietors, the freedom of the Press issue is totally specious and irrelevant.
The final issue remains, and it is this: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, "We must rely on our principle. We have sincere convictions" I agree. On a previous occasion I ventured to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition,

1735
"If you denounce the Labour Government and are in opposition to those in another place, you must act according to your convictions." What will be the consequence? In the course of a few months the Bill will return to your Lordships' House and we shall again go through the same dialogue. I shall not plead with the other side, as my noble friend the Leader of the House did, that they should refrain from opposing the decision of another place. I merely venture to point out the consequences, and this is not associated with any threat or any intimidation. I dismiss all that. If the House of Lords is to be reformed one day, or if there is a demand for its abolition, it will have to be dealt with in a commonsense, logical, and pragmatic fashion, so we shall leave that for the time being.
Let the other side act according to their convictions. We on this side will act as sincerely, and in accordance with our principles and convictions. Then when the issue is joined tonight a decision will be reached contrary to what my noble friend the Leader of the House desires. There will be delay, and we shall come back to it with the same dialogue, arguments, convictions and principles, but in the end what is to happen? Nothing more than this: a delay of a few months. But the Opposition in the House of Lords will have the right to say, "We acted according to our convictions. We did what we regarded as what was right, and we defied the House of Commons." That is all. I am bound to put it this way, I shall bear it with my customary fortitude.
5.57 p.m.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I want to make two brief comments. I do not want to repeat arguments that I have used in this House previously. This afternoon the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, disposed of Lord Goodman's arguments if he did not dispose of the whole of his Amendment. But while this debate was taking place it occurred to me that time and expedience have disposed of Lord Hail-sham's arguments. His argument is that after you have arrived at agreement between employers and employees, you must then give it legal force in order for it to be acceptable to the country.
What has been our experience on this? I hope that the Front Bench will listen
1736
to me, because the argument that has just occurred to me I do not believe has been put forward before. The 1971 trade union Act gave employers and trade unionists the right, having made an agreement, to give it the force of law. That is what they were privileged to do under the 1971 Act. In all the years since that Act was passed not one employer or trade unionist gave the agreement legal enforcement. There is a lesson to be learned from this that is, that in this country an agreement arrived at between a trade union and an employer is invariably agreed to. It may be difficult to arrive at but, once an agreement is come to and agreed to, in the years since that Act was passed no employer has asked for it to have the force of law behind it, and for very good reasons.
Once one starts to put the law behind an agreement, one then brings in the lawyers and all the interpretations that have gone into making that agreement. When employers and trade unionists have arrived at an agreement and they interpret it they do not ask, "What did we put in here or there?" or, "Should there be a comma or semi-colon there?" They simply ask, "What was the spirit of this agreement?" I remind noble Lords that many discussions have been going on among trade unions, employers and Government through Neddy and that, through this medium, they arc now producing a code of practice dealing with the £6 limit on wage increases, which is designated to prevent inflation escalating.
In those discussions we have the employers, the trade unionists and the Government, but we do not have the Opposition. I therefore feel a little sourness creeping into our discussions, because the Opposition are recognising the success that is being achieved with this code of practice or code of conduct in trade union negotiations through the medium of Neddy, the only instrument of consultation which the last Conservative Government left on the Statute Book.
I can sum up my remarks by saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has disposed of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am sorry to have to say that, because I always wanted to carry the Cross-Benchers with me, for I believe that when we are dealing with them we

1737
are dealing with people who are objective. The Liberals are also objective but not quite to the same degree as the Cross-Benchers because they have their own axes to grind in the political world. In any event, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has disposed of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and events and history have disposed of the argument for putting legislative force behind agreements arrived at between trade unionists and employers, we have thereby disposed of all the arguments against the speech of my noble friend Lord Shepherd.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord GORE-BOOTH: I am sorry, but on this occasion I intend to exercise my right of free speech, my Lords. That is what this debate is about. Did the noble Earl, Lord Arran, rise to speak?
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, I wish to add a brief postscript to what my noble Leader said a few minutes ago. I must first declare my interest, in that I am a director of the Daily Mail and General Trust and I am a journalist. I have only one point to make, but it is an important one; not only is it the freedom of the Press which is at risk, it is the freedom of speech. If we get a Press which sings the same song—and there is a real risk of this—then people will tend to say the same thing and it will be difficult, even dangerous, not to follow the Party line. We saw it in Nazi Germany, where the Press slavishly followed the Nazi newspaper and the freedom of the Press was systematically eroded. The most famous example was the bringing into line of the Frankfurter Zeitung, possibly the best newspaper in Europe, and with that erosion went the same erosion of freedom of speech; no one dared say a word against Hitler and the Nazis.
I will not go so far as to say that no one will dare say anything opposed to the late unlamented Trotsky, Marx and Lenin, but the doctrine according to these saints will, in the end, come to be regarded as Holy Writ, and to deny the doctrine, privately or openly, will be considered blasphemy punishable by im-
1738
prisonment or death. Quite simply, we shall have a police State, and that, I am sure, is something none of us wants, particularly the Secretary of State. Your Lordships may think me fanciful, but it is because I do not want to see Britain turned into a one-Party State in which no one will dare to speak his or her own mind that I am so strongly a supporter of the noble Lord's Amendment.
6.5 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I did not see until the last moment that he had risen to speak and, when I saw that he had, I gave way immediately. I, too, will be brief and, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, has been polite to the Cross-Benchers I should like personally to reciprocate to him. I wish also to make the point that there is some talk about the role played by your Lordships' House in this matter. It is right that the public, the media and the other place should note that throughout this discussion, if one looks at the records of voting, these Benches, each noble Lord making up his own mind, has with practically no exception shown a sympathy in the voting with the general line of thought presented by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We are not newspaper publishers, we have no axe to grind and practically all of us have no direct interest in this matter; but we have found that there is something exceptional about the situation which has in general made us vote for his ideas. This was much better expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, than I could possibly express it; it is that this is not a distinction between union and union. It is the distinction between the subject of people who give services or who build anything from a half-million ton tanker to a pin and the exercise of words, thoughts and ideas. That is the real distinction and why there is a worry, and why many of us have a feeling that one man's penal action is another man's safety net.
Why should we worry about this now? That is a question which nobody has attempted to answer. I think the first answer is a national one, the fact that we have had a scare. Thank goodness! it has gone, but we have had it. Secondly, if one looks around the world in countries in which there is an attempt to suppress part of an opinion or the whole

1739
of it what one sees in common is that the people who wish to do that make for freedom of expression as their first target, whether by infiltration or anything else. To illustrate what I mean I need not go further or come nearer than Portugal. Therefore, there seems to some of us to be a problem which might arise with great suddenness—I am almost sure it will not arise in this country—and then, perhaps, a general Common Law, legal safety net would not be a bad thing to have. Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, talks about this matter I feel one kinship with him, which I can perhaps put in a sentence: this is a situation in which I would say compassionately that diplomacy will still go on and on, and we should try to get it right together. I hope that politics has the inspiration and the machinery to do that.
6.8 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know whether I correctly sense the feeling of the House, but after many months of debate on this subject perhaps your Lordships might feel that we have reached a moment when we should make a final decision. I apologise for intervening in this discussion because I have not so far intervened on this Bill; my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone needs no help from me and, indeed, I do not intend this evening to speak about the merits of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, or about my noble and learned friend's Amendment, except to say that there are those of us in this House who feel that the freedom of the Press in its widest sense —the freedom and the right to publish and to contribute—is something which is overwhelmingly important, particularly at this moment when in other countries we see so many basic freedoms disappearing, and when even here institutions and customs which hitherto we have taken for granted are beginning to be questioned and attacked.
This does not seem to be a matter which should divide the House on Party political lines. We have to decide this evening whether, in the opinion of this House, the Government proposals as they now are adequately ensure the free Press which all of us wish to see maintained. There are those who think that they do.
1740
There are those, among them myself, who think that they do not, and my view is shared, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, just pointed out, by many of your Lordships in all parts of this House.
It seems right, therefore, that, on this occasion and on an issue of such importance, we should also look at the constitutional position of your Lordships' House. There has been a great deal of talk, as there always is, in the Press, in another place and by some of your Lordships on previous occasions, of a constitutional crisis should the House decide to insist on these Amendments. This is to misunderstand the Constitution and to misconceive the purpose of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The purpose of those two Acts was not to prevent your Lordships' House from expressing an opinion on the legislation which came before it from another place, but to put a term on the delay which it could impose if it rejected or amended such legislation. Nobody now disputes that, in the final analysis, the will of the House of Commons—the elected House—must prevail. The point of disagreement over the years has been as to how long that delaying power should be.
The Parliament Act of 1949, on which work was begun in 1947, expressly gave this House—composed as it then was of no Life Peers other than the Law Lords and the Bishops—the power of one year's delay from the time of the Second Reading of a Bill in another place. It was a Labour Government which thought that 12 months was the right period. During those debates, which I remember very well, as does the noble Lord, Lord Byers, though he was in a different geographical location then, it was agreed by the then Government—though not by the Opposition which thought the period too short —that 12 months was the minimum which should be given to a Second Chamber if it were to be effective.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I looked the other day at some of the debates in 1947. I came across the following passage from Mr. Chuter Ede, speaking on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill on 11th November 1947. I believe that what he said is worth noting:
"Where the House of Lords rejects a Bill, drastically amends a Bill so that it is unacceptable to this House, or merely postpones consideration of it, we feel that, while there is a

1741
Second Chamber such as the present one, there should be a guarantee to them that, before such a Bill is passed over their heads, the House will consider either their reasons for drastic amendment or the causes, if we can discover them, which led to their dilatory action by requiring the two Sessions and the 12 months after the first Second Reading of the Bill in this House. We do not deny that the House of Lords, even as at present constituted, has certain duties and rights as a revising Chamber. We think that these are best discharged by the machinery I have just described. We think that their power of a suspensary veto is adequately met if they have 12 months instead of 24 before the Bill can be passed over their heads."—[Official Report, 11/11/47.)
It will be seen from this quotation and that read out by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that there is no constitutional impropriety and no constitutional crisis can arise if the House uses the powers which it has and which it was given by Parliament under a Labour Government. But that is not really the issue. Those who talk about a constitutional crisis are saying that they do not believe it right that a House composed as we are should delay legislation passed by the elected House. There are some of us sitting in this House—and the noble Lord is nodding—who did our very best to alter the composition of this House and the Party balances in it. Maybe what we proposed was wrong, but it would certainly have removed most of the objections which are felt about the House as it is at present constituted. In any event, those proposals were passed by an overwhelming majority of your Lordships. They failed to succeed because of the opposition of the House of Commons. Ironically enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers has said, that opposition was skilfully and notably led by Mr. Foot, the author of the Bill which we are now discussing. It is not our fault that we arc unreformed. Mr. Foot talks about the impropriety of an unelected House challenging the Commons, but he and others who feel like him must make up their mind what they want. Do they want a single Chamber Government? If they do, I, for one, would view that with the gravest possible misgivings. Nor do I think it possible that a single Chamber could adequately manage the legislation brought forward by any Government. I am quite sure that Mr. Foot and those others do not want an elected Second Chamber. Nor do I think that many other Members of
1742
another place would wish it, for an elected Second Chamber would have to be given more power and not less, and that increased power would be at the expense of the House of Commons.
What, then, are we left with? We are left with a House composed roughly as it is or entirely of appointees. Who am I, as a hereditary Peer, to make a decision as to which is better? As hereditary Peers, we are the children of our fathers. Life Peers are the children of patronage. I doubt whether either of us are much worse or much better just for those reasons but, unless the House is to be elected, there is no other way of altering our composition.
Can it then properly be argued that, because our own reform was rejected by the House of Commons, we cannot now do our constitutional duty and use those powers specifically given to us by a Labour Government in our unreformed condition? In our system we have hitherto taken the view that the will of the elected House must in the end prevail, but that there should be a second House which has the opportunity—in rare cases, perhaps—to enforce a delay in which there can be a reassessment by Government, by Parties and by the people of this country of the rights or wrongs of an issue. If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for, in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short time. We shall be using those powers for the purpose for which they were given to us—that is, as an opportunity for further consultation, for second thoughts before this legislation inevitably reaches the Statute Book and because we did not want the Second Chamber to be associated with what the Government are doing.
If one studies the record of this House, it will be seen that we have not been unsuccessful in these last years under Governments of both Parties in amending legislation for the better, most notably in the present Bill. The Government rightly take credit—and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham drew attention to this—for the fact that they have moved a long way since the introduction of the Bill into this House. As they put it, they have made a number of concessions. That is right, they have.

1743
But, if there had been no Second Chamber, no Opposition in this House, no noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, no noble Lord, Lord Goodman, no noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, there would have been no opportunity for the Government to have made these concessions or to have altered the Bill in a way which they themselves think an improvement, for the Bill would have been on the Statute Book months ago and would have been there un-amended and without even the safeguards which the Government themselves now propose.
The House has amply proved its value, but I do not believe the Government have gone far enough. As I have said, there are certain issues in our national life which, it seems to me, are of paramount importance, and high among those is the unfettered freedom of the Press. No doubt there are those who say, and who have said, and who will say, that if we are to maintain our position on this issue then we shall be abolished, or there will be a radical revision of our powers and composition. We have already heard such talk from Members in another place. My Lords, so be it. What would be the rallying cry?—"Abolish the House of Lords, it is trying to maintain the freedom of the Press". I should not have thought that a slogan which would get the ordinary people of this country to the barricades, or your Lordships to the lamp-posts. It would be a curious sight to see those two tricoteurs, Messrs. Short and Foot, needles clicking, waiting at the foot of the scaffold, for the first tumbrel to arrive, in which we should see seated side-by-side the Prime Minister's solicitor and the Chairman of the Arts Council!
My Lords, what then is the advice that I should seek to give your Lordships? I cannot pretend that of the two Amendments I do not prefer that of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone for the reasons he has given. Yet I venture to think, for two reasons, that we should perhaps support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. If one looks at the Division Lists in this House and in another place, there can be no doubt that the noble Lord's Amendment has a broader spectrum of approval (wrongly, as I think) than does that of my noble friend; and on an issue of this kind I think it important that there
1744
should be a wide cross-section of your Lordships voting. It should be made plain to the Government, and to anybody interested in this matter, that this issue has cut across Party political divisions.
Secondly, having listened to the speeches of the Government, and of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on the last occasion we debated this matter a week ago, it seems to me that they feel that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has less objection in their view than that of my noble and learned friend. Thus perhaps if we on this side, in a spirit of conciliation, were prepared not to press our Amendment we would hope that, even at this late hour, the Government would think again and would be prepared to accept the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. For the rest the only advice which I would dare to give your Lordships is that you should do what you think is right.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be that the only thing I have in common with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that we share affection for one famous pop singer, Dame Vera Lynn, in that "Now is the Hour" As to whether it is a question of saying "Goodbye", perhaps only events will provide the answer. I did not come to this debate this afternoon to talk about a constitutional crisis. Any noble Lord who looks at my speech, which I delivered at rather great length, will not see one word about constitutional crisis. I have never questioned either that your Lordships' House has not rights under the 1949 and the 1911 Parliament Acts; nor have I questioned at any time the motives of any noble Lord in taking a different view from that of the Government. I have sought throughout to make it clear that we were all united in the need to find some way in which the security and freedom of the Press could be secured.
I do not know of any other piece of legislation on which so much work has been done outside this Chamber to find an agreement. I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I deeply resent his attitude today, particularly regarding a certain meeting which took place last night. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said—that the Government had perhaps acted in an underhand, possibly, dishonourable

1745
way—I should say this. An approach was made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed immediately that a meeting should take place, and a meeting did take place. It is very much to be regretted that my noble and learned friend had to go to another place for a State occasion where his presence as Lord Chancellor is demanded and required; the noble and learned Lord knows to what I am referring. However, it was agreed in the light of the question of timing that those officials who were at that meeting should go to see the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and his friends. It was made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that those officials were not in any position whatsoever to negotiate. They went there to explore, to see whether—because at one stage it looked as if the tide had been moving and that the sand was shifting—there was a possibility of agreement; and the officials went.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is not right to suggest that he thought last night that there was a proposal made; that one could be accepted, only to be withdrawn. All I can say—and I will leave it at this—is that many negotiations which go on in relation to all forms of legislation in this House and in another place are conducted outside this House. In my view they should always be conducted on a confidential basis and what is said should not be disclosed in this House, because if one once departs from that principle, then the whole spirit and the whole purpose of negotiation (which is so valuable) is removed—
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I must intervene at this point, because there is one very relevant factor which has been left out. Is it not the case that those officials brought with them an official Government Amendment drafted by the Government for my consideration? Are they seriously suggesting that if that was not a firm offer—which they made it plain it was not—it was a very firm proposal on which hopes might well have been roused and acceptance by me would have seen agreement on the part of everyone concerned? Was that proposal not withdrawn the following morning?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, there was no proposal made to the noble Lord.
1746
There had been various discussions and we sought to see whether there were ways of meeting the point at issue. Since we have Parliamentary draftsmen, we sought to put down on paper what might be a solution. But it was never an offer, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to the best of my memory was made aware of that situation. But let us leave it at that. With regard to the constitutional position of your Lordships' House, I suggest that this is a matter which we can discuss at greater length on another occasion. I suspect that a great deal will depend on how your Lordships' House reacts when the Bill is reintroduced in the next Session.
I want to conclude on this matter. I hope that noble Lords will not look lightly—as I suspect they may, judging from some of the speeches today—on how the reactions of this House will be seen outside. I believe that this will have very serious repercussions on the general spirit which is now emerging on all sides of industry—the trade unions the employers and the Government. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite —whether it be through ignorance, prejudice or otherwise—have not been prepared to accept it, and very few have sought to meet the case. I understand the great difficulty of the noble Lords opposite in the light of the speech made last Friday. But with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I must say that I have heard many of his speeches in your Lordships' House, about the great benefit of hereditary Peers; that they bring a great detachment, that perhaps they ease the political pressures that may be placed upon the Parties in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has convinced me on occasion, but I suspect that this afternoon he will remove any doubt which I may have had. However, this has been a debate conducted in good spirit. I hope that the repercussions will not be as grave as I believe they will be, but nobody can say that your Lordships' House proceeds on a course without having been warned, and without being fully aware of the consequences.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86: Not-Contents. 186.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Arwyn, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hall, V.

Pannell, L.

Beswick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pargiter, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Peddie, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Brock way, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hoy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jacobson, L.

Serota, B.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Crook, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stedman, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Strang, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Campsie, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Energlen, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maelor, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wise, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clwyd, L.

Grantchester, L.

Airedale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Greenway, L.

Allerton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grenfell, L.

Alport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gridley, L.

Amherst, E.

Cowley, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Amory, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Amulree, L.

Croft, L.

Hankey, L.

Armstrong, L.

Cross, V.

Harcourt, V.

Arran, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Auckland, L.

de Clifford, L.

Henley, L.

Balerno, L.

Denbigh, E.

Hood, V.

Banks, L.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barber, L.

Devonshire, D.

Inglewood, L.

Barnby, L.

Drogheda, E. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, E.

Barrington, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dundonald, E.

Killearn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Belstead, L.

Eccles, V.

Kindersley, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Birdwood, L.

Elles, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bourne, L.

Elton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Braye, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Long, V.

Brecon, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Falkland, V.

Lytton, E.

Brock, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Ferrier, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Broughshane, L.

Fletcher, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mansfield, E.

Byers, L.

Gage, V.

Margadale, L.

Camoys, L.

Gibson, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carrington, L.

Goodman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chalfont, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelwood, L.

Goschen, V.

Meston, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Middleton, L.

Monck, V.

Redesdale, L.

Swansea, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Swaythling, L.

Monson, L.

Rhyl, L.

Tenby, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Terrington, L.

Moyne, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Teviot, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Rockley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Newall, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Thurlow, L.

Northchurch, B.

Rothermere, V.

Tranmire, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Trevelyan, L.

Ogmore, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

O'Hagan, L.

St. Davids, V.

Verulam, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Sandford, L.

Vickers, B.

Onslow, E,

Sandys, L.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wade, L.

Pender, L.

Sharples, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Perth, E.

Somers, L.

Ward of Whitley, V.

Piercy, L.

Stamp, L.

Wigoder, L.

Pike, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Windlesham. L.

Porritt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wolverton, I..

Radnor, E.

Strathspey, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Rankeillour, L.

Suffield, L.

Young B.

Reading, M.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 5–7]
After Clause 2, in subsection (3), in line 7, leave out from ("containing") to ("and") in line 11 and insert ("such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection")
LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
In subsection (3), in line 7, leave out from ("containing") to ("and") in line II and insert ("practical guidance on the matters specified in subsection (2) above together with such other matters as may have been agreed among the parties mentioned in subsection (1) hereof").
The Commons disagreed to the Amendment numbered6 proposed by the Lords in lieu of the Commons Amendment numbered 5, to the Lords Amendment numbered 1, but proposed the following amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment numbered 6:
In subsection (3), line 7, leave out from ("draft") to end of subsection and insert (",in accordance with subsection (3A) below, a charter containing such practical guidance as is referred to in subsection(I) above, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.
(3A) Where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement; and where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters mentioned in subsection (2) above as included in matters
1750
relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit.")
6.43 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6 in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 6. I understand that this is an Amendment which has been agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It is one of improvement and not one on which I should have thought your Lordships would wish to divide.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6 in lieu of the Commons Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, in the present state of total chaos, it appears to me to represent in rather better phraseology an Amendment which we moved and which was accepted by the Government the last time we discussed the matter. What it amounts to is that we asked for a restriction on the matters which the Secretary of State could insert in the charter to be limited to those matters referred to in the preamble in the initial clause. This was accepted and this Amendment says the same thing more elegantly.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 8–1I]
After Clause 2, after subsection (3) insert—
("( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation.")

LORDS AMENDMENT TO THE COMMONS AMENDMENT
At end insert—
(A) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3)above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—

(a) hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved by a failure on the part of any other person to observe any provision of the charter;

(b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded and if so whether the party aggrieved has suffered material or pecuniary loss by reason of such failure and in what amount, and in such case directing the party in breach to pay that amount; and

(c) securing the publication of its decision.

(B) Any decision by the said body shall be final and conclusive between the parties and any decision of the said body made under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall be enforceable in like manner as an award made in pursuance of an arbitration agreement by an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1950."
The Commons agreed_ to the Lords Amendment numbered 9 with the following amendments:
In subsection (A), paragraph(b), line 2. leave out from("well-founded") to end of the paragraph.
Leave out subsection (B).
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to the Lords Amendment No. 9 to the Commons Amendment No. 8. This is one of the Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, which we discussed in a previous debate.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to the Lords Amendment No. 9 to the Commons Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I simply confirm what the noble Lord has said. This is my Amendment which, on the advice of my noble friend Lord Carrington, we are not pushing. Therefore, I would advise the House to accept what the noble Lord says.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 12–16]
After Clause 2, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—
("(8) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings—

(a) any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and

(b) any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question.")

LORDS AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMONS AMENDMENT
At beginning insert ("Subject to the terms of paragraphs (c) and (d) hereof")
At the end of paragraph (a) to leave out ("and")
After paragraph (b) insert—
("(c) any rule, agreement, act or conduct which is contrary to the provisions of the charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy,
(d) nothing in the charter shall be taken to restrict or abridge any right existing by statute or COMM011 law.)")
The Commons disagreed to the Lords Amendments numbered 13, 14 and 15 to the Commons Amendment numbered 12 for the following Reason:
Because the amendments provide inappropriate and ill-defined sanctions for failures to observe the charter.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16, which is:
"Because the amendments provide inappropriate and ill-defined sanctions for failures to observe the charter."
This is the matter which we discussed at great length a few minutes ago. I do not think I need add to what was then said.?
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16.—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 168.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Peddie, L.

Bernstein, L.

Halsbury, E.

Phillips, B.

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Platt, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacques, L.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Jacobson, L.

Serota, B.

Chorley, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stedman, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B [Teller.]

Strang, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Campsie, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Energlyn, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gage, V.

Airedale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gibson, L.

Allerton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Alport, L.

Coleraine, L.

Goodman, L.

Amherst, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gore-Booth, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Goschen, V.

Amory, V.

Cowley, E.

Gowrie, E.

Armstrong, L.

Craigavon, V.

Grantchester, L,

Arran, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Greenway, L.

Auckland, L.

Croft, L.

Grenfell, L.

Balerno, L.

Cross, V.

Gridley, L.

Banks, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Barber, L.

Davidson, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Barnby, L.

de Clifford, L.

Barrington, V.

Denbigh, E.

Hankey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harcourt, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Drogheda, E. [Teller.]

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hood, V.

Bourne, L.

Eccles, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brecon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kemsley, V.

Brock, L.

Elton, L.

Killearn, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Kimberley, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Exeter, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Broughshane, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Burton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Byers, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carrington, L.

Fletcher, L.

Long, V.

Chalfont, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lytton, E.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Suffield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Perth, E.

Swansea, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Pike, B.

Swaythling, L.

Mansfield, E.

Porritt, L.

Tenby, V.

Margadale, L.

Radnor, E.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Reading, M.

Thorneycroft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mersey, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Tranmire, L.

Middleton, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Trevelyan, L.

Monck, V.

Rothermere, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Verulam, E.

Monson, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vickers, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sandford, L.

Wade, L.

Moyne, L.

Sandys, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Northchurch, B.

Sharples, B.

Wigoder, L.

Ogmore, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Windlesham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Somers, L.

Wolverton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stamp, L.

Young, B.

Onslow, E.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

6.54 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT TO THE COMMONS AMENDMENT
(NUMBERED 12)
[Nos. 17 and 18]
After Clause 2, at end insert"—
"( ) In this section—
"editor" includes any deputy of such editor;
"material" includes any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio."
The Commons disagreed to the Lords Amendment numbered 17 to the Commons Amendment numbered 12 for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on a Lords Amendment to which they have disagreed.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it had been my intention to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to the Commons Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. But I understand that this is consequential on a Lords Amendment to which they disagreed. My noble and learned friend is shaking his head. His brief may be different from mine. Perhaps he might give me advice on this matter.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may properly intervene, I doubt whether it is consequential. We had a discussion upon
1756
the matter at an earlier stage, where there was an objection to the fact that the Amendment introduces broadcasting into the whole compass of this affair—if that is the right word. That would not seem to be consequential upon anything which came before. It has an element of alarming originality about it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I hesitate to contradict the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I think it is the first time in two and a half Parliaments in which I have done so. But I must point out to the noble and learned Lord that in Reason numbered 18 the Commons have said:
"Because it is consequential on a Lords Amendment to which they have disagreed."
So I venture, as between the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to suggest that the Leader of the House is probably right, and the Lord Chancellor is probably wrong.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I suggest that, so as to get this discussion in order, somebody should put the Question?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18.—(Lord Shepherd.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now have the opportunity of putting the Question. The Question is that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to the Commons Amendment No. 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content" The consequence of the voices heard and not heard is that the "Not-Contents" have it.
On Question, Motion negatived.
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insistence; the Committee to meet forthwith.

PETROLEUM AND SUBMARINE PIPE-LINES BILL
6.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, I beg to move the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and the Commons Amendment in lieu of one of the Lord's Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendment in lieu of one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Balogh.)

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (301) as first printed for the Lords, Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 1 and 2]
Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the structure of the British National Oil Corporation in a manner detrimental to the performance of the Corporation's functions.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, several Amendments which were made by your Lordships' House have been accepted by another place and have considerably improved the Bill. We regret that this Amendment was not also made. Let me remind your Lordships of the matter we are considering, because there has been some confusion on this. Our Amendment did not aim to exclude serving civil servants who could be seconded to senior positions on the British National Oil Corporation. That can be done without legislation. The point is that they would then be employees working for BNOC during their period of second ment like others working for the Corporation. Nor was the proposal in any way affecting retired civil servants who could also serve on the Corporation. But the proposal which was originally in the Bill, and which is now to be restored, is something quite different and it is new to nationalised bodies. It is that at least two civil servants should be members of the Corporation, though still employed by their Departments and responsible to their Ministers.
In the other place last week, the Secretary of State for Energy spoke of gross irresponsibility in our argument in favour of this Amendment; but I suggest that he was guilty of gross misrepresentation of our argument. It is the oldest and silliest political trick in the world to pretend that your opponents have said something that they have not said, and then attack it. We have not suggested that the two civil servants to be on the Corporation would disclose confidential information about companies in competition with the Corporation. But the Government have failed so far to answer questions on how the civil servants, still employed and paid by their Departments, will contribute to the discussions of the Corporation.
This is an opportunity, again, for the Government to tell us. Do these civil servants remain silent in deliberations where their knowledge of confidential information about competitors' plans would influence their advice? If not, may not other members of the Corporation be disposed to change their minds if the civil servants are suggesting a different course from them, knowing that the civil servants are speaking from knowledge of additional information?—although, of

1759
course, I emphasise that that information would not be disclosed. Those are the questions which the noble Lord can answer today, because they have not yet been answered and the Government have had plenty of notice.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I say briefly from the Liberal Benches that we regret that the Govern-merit have still deemed it necessary expressly to legislate for two civil servants to be on the board of BNOC. We feel that the Government are giving themselves difficulties in this matter, particularly having regard to possible international misunderstandings. Also, there may be constitutional implications, although I do not propose to go into that aspect this evening. During Committee stage I put down an Amendment to the effect that the civil servants should be seconded to BNOC but, on advice, I withdrew that Amendment because I understood that civil servants could be amended without further statutory provisions.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Lord means that civil servants could be seconded.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg your pardon—could be seconded without further statutory provisions. That position still remains, of course, and it may be that the Government will think of this point once again in the future.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I hope that I can soothe the worries of the noble Lord opposite and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about this. There is no constitutional implication, and there is certainly no foreign implication, because we have had umpteen State corporations which have officials, whether or not those officials are amended! I think the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about confidentiality can he put at rest. We have given assurances over and over again, on the one hand concerning the Official Secrets Act and, on the other hand, that the ordinary rules of the Civil Service will prevent any sort of abuse of their knowledge by those people. Incidentally, I can add that one will be from the Treasury and the other from my Department. I do not quite understand the
1760
worries of the noble Lord, because BNOC will not be a competitor with companies operating in the British North Sea, because they will he partners of each and every one; so that I do not see where the difficulty arises on this point. One may, of course, disagree with the idea that there should be State participation, but we have discussed that umpteen times and it seems to me that this is not the occasion to continue that debate.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful to him because he has raised something that was not said in our previous debates. We recognise that BNOC will be a partner in some cases—for example, in some oilfields—but in other cases we could see that BNOC would be in competition, because presumably it will not be taking part in every oilfield.
Lord BALOGH: Certainly, my Lords. This is the whole idea. The whole idea is that there will be State participation in each and every commercial oilfield: it is like Norway. Therefore the question as such does not arise. After all, most of the big corporations who operate in the North Sea have partners with whom they compete but which really share their secrets in this field. For instance, there are Esso and Shell in the Brent; there is a tiny Shell-Esso participation in the Forties; the Piper field, as your Lordships will know, has a large number of people. I do not quite understand this and therefore very much hope —I have learned a new Parliamentary trick tonight—that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment.
7.8 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 3 and 4]
Clause 3, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
("(6) In any case in which the Corporation is in competition with any private company operating in the energy sector the provisions of this and the next succeeding subsection shall have effect for the purposes of securing that such competition is fair.
(7) Neither the Treasury nor the Secretary of State nor any other Minister nor local authority nor any public corporation conducted wholly or in part under national ownership or control shall, or shall counsel, procure or incite others to discriminate unfairly as between the Corporation and a petroleum company operating in the private sector in competition

1761
with each other in favour of the Corporation, whether in respect of the terms of any loan, or any contracts, the making available of land, buildings or equipment, the granting of contracts, the prices and other terms for supplies or purchases of petroleum, goods or services or otherwise howsoever. For the purposes of determining whether discrimination is unfair, regard may be had not only to the economic but also to the social consequences of any matter.
(8) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on grounds that he has committed, or aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of or conspired or attempted to commit or incited others to commit any contravention of this section. But any person who suffers or apprehends that he will suffer any loss or damage by reason of any such contravention may bring civil proceedings in respect of such contravention or an apprehended contravention whether for an injunction or interdict or for the recovery of the full amount of the loss or damage or for any other appropriate relief or for any two or more of them.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would unduly inhibit the operations of the British National Oil Corporation.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. I hope that your Lordships will acknowledge that, though moving this Amendment, we do not insist on it. I am not in any way going back on the many undertakings and assurances about the commercial behaviour of BNOC. Once more, I categorically and firmly assert that BNOC, especially if it goes downstream, will act in a perfectly honourable commercial manner, as is expected from a great oil corporation.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, briefly, may I say that naturally one is grateful to the noble Lord for giving that assurance; but can the Government guarantee that there will be no discrimination against other companies in favour of BNOC, without this Amendment being in the Bill? I note that it is stated that the objection is that the operations of BNOC would be unduly inhibited. It is difficult to think of examples where this Amendment, had it been added to the Bill, would have unduly restricted the operation of BNOC. Can the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, give
1762
us any examples and give a guarantee that there will not be discrimination?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord the guarantee that there will be no discrimination. But it seems to me that if noble Lords insisted on their Amendment this might result in extreme delays and various law suits, and interpretation of this Amendment would be extremely difficult. I therefore do not think that your Lordships should insist on it. Rather the contrary. The BNOC would be a sub-commercial enterprise if this Amendment is put through. Again, if it is asked to carry out services for the Government which another oil company could carry out, this too could be open to challenge, although we have always made it clear that it is the intention that BNOC should acton behalf of the Government. Inasmuch as the Amendment seeks to ensure that BNOC behaves commercially we have no objection to it, but it goes far further than that and therefore I hope that noble Lords will not insist on this Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I say briefly that I thank the noble Lord for the further concession he has made and for the assurance he has given to the House this evening.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 5 and 6]
After Clause 15, page 12, line 8, at end insert the following new clause:
Right of complaint against unfair practice of BNOC
.— (1) The three next following subsections shall have effect where a body corporate engaged commercially in the exploration, production, sale or supply of petroleum or any product derived from petroleum not being the Corporation nor a subsidiary of the Corporation makes to the Secretary of State written complaint about a practice employed by the Corporation or a subsidiary of the Corporation in the exploration, production, sale or supply of petroleum or any product derived from petroleum and the complaint is expressed to be made on the grounds that the practice is unfair to the complainant and specified the respects in which he considers that it is so unfair.
(2) The Secretary of State shall forthwith after receiving the complaint send a copy thereof to the Corporation and, after such period for consideration of, and comment upon, the complaint by the Corporation as the Secretary of State thinks reasonable has elapsed, shall send to the complainant a statement of the comments, if any, made by the

1763
Corporation on the complaint and shall, if he is of opinion that the complaint raises a question of substance and that the complainant has a reasonable case to make in support of the complaint afford the complainant and the Corporation an opportunity of appearing and being heard either personally or by a representative, before a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person appointed under the last foregoing subsection and may if it appears to him that the practice complained of is unfair to the complainant, give to the Corporation such directions as appear to him to be requisite to secure the removal of the grounds on which it is so unfair; and the Secretary of State shall furnish the complainant with a statement of any such directions and the Corporation shall give effect thereto.
(4) Where a complainant avails himself of the right conferred by subsection (2) above to appear and being heard before a person appointed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall furnish the complainant and the Corporation each with a copy of the report of the person so appointed and a statement of the conclusions reached by the Secretary of State on considering the report.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the aims of the amendment are adequately secured by existing legislation.
7.12 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6. I hope we can agree that it is not necessary to insist on this Amendment. There is already protection under the fair trading legislation and under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome for ensuring that BNOC does not pursue unfair practices. The BNOC will doubtless have its critics and opponents and under this clause there would only too easily be a great number of unjustifiable complaints. All of these would have to be investigated and this would needlessly distract—and that would be their object—BNOC from its proper function. I therefore hone that noble Lords will not insist.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are sorry that this complaints procedure is not to be included in the Bill because we consider that it would have helped to reassure many who are viewing with some doubts this new Corp-
1764
oration which is to grow so large. There were similar provisions in the Steel Act 1967 vis-à-vis the British Steel Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has said that existing legislation which is mentioned in Reason numbered 6 consists of the Fair Trading Act and EEC arrangements. The Fair Trading Act is of course largely directed to relations between traders and consumers rather than between two parts of an industry. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that that Act and the EEC arrangements to which he referred would apply to all cases of complaints of unfair practices as between two parts of this industry.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I should have thought that the answer is positive. It seems to me again, as with the last Amendment, that we are here tying up the Corporation in its ordinary commercial pursuits.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 7 and 8]
Clause 19, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
"(3A) Where a licence is revoked on the grounds of any act or omission occurring after the licence was altered by virtue of the preceding section which act or omission would not have provided grounds for revocation of the licence had it occurred before the date of such alteration, and it is shown that the holder of the licence

(i) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by revocation, or

(ii) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the revocation

the Secretary of State shall pay to him full and prompt compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage. If any dispute, difference or question shall arise between the Secretary of State and the holder of a licence issued before the coming into force of section 18 of this Act, either as to the entitlement of such holder to compensation under the provisions of this sub-clause or as to the amount of such compensation, the Secretary of State shall, if the holder of such licence so requests, refer such dispute, difference or question to arbitration by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. In such arbitration a licensee who is controlled by a company incorporated outside the United Kingdom shall be treated as a national of the State in which that company was incorporated and subsections (2) and (4) to (6) of section 302 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 shall apply, for the purpose of determining whether for the purposes of this section, a licensee is controlled by another company."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, there has been extensive debate both here and in another place on the subject of this Amendment. The debates were important and your Lordships' Amendment gave the other place an opportunity to reconsider their views. They had an especially full debate on this question, as was only right in view of its importance, but reaffirmed their earlier view which was, as I mentioned to your Lordships, that Part II of the Bill represents an entirely proper and legitimate exercise of Parliament's right to legislate and the Amendment would defeat the object of that legislation. I know that some noble Lords feel strongly on this matter but, as the House will have noted, a question of privilege arises and I take it that, in accordance with custom, noble Lords, whatever their views on the question, will not wish to press such an Amendment against the Commons. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 8.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has said, this is one of the most important matters discussed under the Bill. The Commons Reason given is a financial one and of course that is their business and certainly we would not wish to resist their view. But a principle is involved which hitherto British Governments have upheld, together with most of the rest of the world. Without this Amendment, this Bill is a departure from that principle. The Bill has the effect of abrogating contractual rights during the period in which it was freely agreed between the parties that those rights should run. Our Amendment would have made provision for compensation when a licence was revoked as a result of new conditions introduced by this Bill.
This was mainly to protect British interests abroad and Britain's good name. In the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company dispute in 1951 a Labour Government firmly stated,
1766
"that rights acquired by foreign nationals by virtue of concessionary contracts are property rights and that as such they are entitled to the same protection as international law grants to the property rights of foreigners".
That is a quotation from the Government's memorial at that time and that was upholding a principle of great importance to Britain. Having myself in 1951 been the member of our Security Council delegation in New York who had the task of explaining to the world Press the attitude of that Labour Government, I find singularly distasteful Ministers' accusations that we are more concerned about compensation for oil companies than about the national interest. If British concessionary rights in the Western Hemisphere or elsewhere are at any time in future unilaterally curtailed or terminated this Government will bear a very heavy responsibility.
Ministers have used what I think are specious arguments about the licensing terms. I would point out that the second and third rounds of licensing were during the time of a previous Labour Government in 1967 and 1969. A very good example was to be seen last week—the Forties field where the oil was turned on just over a week ago. It was licensed under the second round in 1967 and it is a large and prolific field. The reason of the terms of licensing, which was carried out by a Labour Government in the case of that field, cannot again be used as an argument that in some way the Conservatives were responsible for a situation which the Government are now taking these draconian measures to remedy.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on this very important matter. In view of its importance, may I remind the House of what the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said, in this House on 31st October as recorded in col. 771 of the Official Report. He said:
"The Government's aim in bringing in this legislation …was designed to restore the balance between national interest and fair treatment of the oil companies."
Lord BALOGH: Hear, hear!
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am glad, my Lords, to have that support

1767
from the noble Lord in a sedentary position. In so far as fair treatment is concerned, I regret that among the vast new powers in the Bill the Government did not go further in fairness to these oil companies which have so far invested vast sums of money and technological resources in the North Sea project. I had hoped that the Government might provide among these varied powers a procedure for claims for compensation to be made—a procedure to be introduced without, of course, admitting that compensation was payable.
Is the noble Lord in a position to say whether his Government have received claims for compensation? No doubt precise claims for compensation are premature because this Bill has not yet passed, but is the noble Lord in a position to say whether claims for compensation have been made? May I make the further suggestion that if claims for compensation are in the offing, the Government ought to reconsider setting up a procedure such as was set up after the last war in respect of very substantial claims by inventors. May I repeat the word "inventors", because frequently in this House I am misunderstood and am recorded as having said "investors" Claims by inventors were dealt with by a special commission that was set up by the War Department. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that if there are to be large claims a procedure of that kind will be set up to avoid unnecessary and lengthy litigation.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indulged in history rewriting just now. I do not wish to bring out the controversial aspects of this question, but merely to say that the Government do not believe that this Amendment is justifiable. However, the noble Lord tried to put a gloss on history and I shall now take it off. The noble Lord cannot distinguish between the situation in the third and the fourth rounds. In the third round everybody expected that no oil would be found in the Northern waters. I well remember that the first sign of oil in the Northern waters was about 10 years ago. One of the most notable experts in the Government assured me in 1966…67 that the chance of finding sizable oil reserves in the North Sea were very low. However, in 1969
1768
Ekofisk was discovered and in 1970 the Forties Field was discovered. The Government then received £137 million worth of offers from the oil companies for a few squares of submarine soil, but they went on as if nothing had happened. The Government continued to give these rather splendiferous terms as if we were a banana republic.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken about what he was told in 1967. However, in one of our earlier debates the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, said that as the Minister responsible in 1965–66 he knew that there was a great deal of oil below the North Sea.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, on his prescience, but I do not believe that it was shared by anybody else—certainly not by me. However, he was right and I was wrong, and I must apologise for my doubts regarding his prescience. This Amendment might cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year in the 1980s. The objection is the implication that the controls contained in the Bill would, without the Amendment, cost the oil companies sums of this order. By challenging Mr. Jenkin on whether a Conservative Government would pay compensation, no answer was forthcoming. While I can see a certain political case, and more especially the American analogy which I quoted in the last debate, it is quite conclusive that what we are doing is not retrospective. We arc taking remedial action in the national interest to eliminate certain weaknesses in the licensing system which was introduced in 1970 for the new round.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords. I am advised that Amendment Nos. 9 and 10 on the one hand and Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 on the other have been marked in the wrong order. Therefore, I am calling now Amendment Nos. 11 and 12.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 11 and 12]
Page 20, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("payments") in line 17 and insert ("so as to secure to the owner recovery of an

1769
equitable proportion of the relevant capital and operating costs of the pipe-line;
(d) for securing to the applicant the right to have a pipe and apparatus of his connected to the pipe-line by the applicant or the owner;
and such a notice may also authorise the owner to recover from the applicant reasonable commercial").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable for the terms on which pipe-lines are used by persons other titan the owners to take account of the different circumstances of each case.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12. We have discussed this question of charges for third party use extensively in this House, and the Under-Secretary has again explained our position in another place.
We regard the power to determine charges as a long-stop. We shall be only too pleased when the parties agree among themselves. Where it is necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene, there is a guarantee for the owner that he will at least be no worse off financially than if the third party was not admitted. Except where a field is marginal, or other sufficient arrangements have been made, the terms fixed for third party use will normally take account of the basic capital costs of the pipe-line. The third party will always pay a fair share of the running costs. Moreover, we must have regard to the owner's likely as well as present needs in deciding whether to admit a third party. Inasmuch as noble Lords opposite have been insisting, very rightly, on the need for exploiting marginal fields, it seems to me that it would be illogical if they insisted on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12.—(Lord Balogh.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 9 and 10]
Clause 19, page 16, line 1, after ("(3)") insert (" and (3A)").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential upon the Lords Amendment No. 11 with which the Commons have disagreed.
7.28 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, this is a drafting, consequential upon the Amendment to page 15, line 29, which seeks to provide for compensation upon revocation —that is, No. 11 in the numbering in which our Amendments were considered by another place—and No. 7 as it appears on the Marshalled List that we are using today. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10.—(Lord Balogh.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 13 and 14]
Clause 24, page 22, line 16, at end insert—
("Provided that if the contravention is capable of remedy by or on behalf of the holder the authorisation shall not cease to remain in force unless such contravention has not been remedied within the period specified in the notice or any extension thereof which is reasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances appertaining to the notice.").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu:
Page 22, line 16, at end insert ("; but the Secretary of State shall not serve such a notice on the holder in consequence of a contravention if the Secretary of State considers that. having regard to the nature and consequences of the contravention and to any previous contravention, it would be unreasonable to terminate the authorisation in consequence of the contravention and that the holder has taken adequate steps to prevent similar contraventions in future.").
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14 in lieu thereof. I am grateful for the opportunity for reconsideration which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, gave us on this point. We could not, for reasons explained in another place, quite accept the Amendment as drafted, but we accept the principle that a minor defaulter should have a second chance, and spurred on by the noble Lord's Amendment we set our minds to devising

1771
words to secure this. The Amendment in lieu is along much the same lines as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and we are indebted to him for an improvement to the Bill. The result commended itself to another place, and I hope it also commends itself to noble Lords.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, it would be ungracious of me not to say that I am gratified by the very kind words which were said in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and by those which have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in this House about my original Amendment to Clause 24 which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and upon which I had the honour to divide the House. The Minister was good enough to say in the other place that there was very little objection in principle to my Amendment but that it required some re-wording. It would be ungracious of me not to say that by that re-wording they have improved my original Amendment, and of course I support this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, naturally we are glad that the Government saw fit to accept the principle of this Amendment. I would point out that the occasion was such that this might not have happened had not the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, supported by us on these Benches, decided to press it to a Division. It is an example of where we were able to give the Government a chance to have second thoughts, and they have put forward another version which we are glad to see going into the Bill.
7.31 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 15 and 16]
Clause 40, page 39, line 34, leave out ("Secretary of State considers and the Treasury agree") and insert ("Treasury considers").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16. The arguments have been well ventilated. Your Lordships had a useful discussion on it, and your Amendment gave the other place an opportunity to reconsider their view. The other place have, however, after careful debate reaffirmed their earlier view. This is based largely on the considerations, which I put to your Lordships, that since the general management and control of the Account are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, it would be unfair both to him and the Treasury, for the Treasury to be responsible for just one aspect of it. The Amendment raises a question of Commons privilege. I assume, in accordance with longstanding precedent, that we shall not seek to infringe the privilege of another place.
However, I should like to give an assurance to the noble Lord that expenditure from the Oil Account as from any other public account is under overall strict control from the Treasury, and will remain so. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16.—(Lord Balogh.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 17 and 18]
Clause 48, page 45, line 13, at end insert—
("(d) permits the Secretary of State to exercise or not to exercise any power or authority or to withhold any consent, approval or authorisation or to make provisions terms or conditions pursuant to this Act or a licence for the time being in force by virtue of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 with a view to securing participation by the Government of the United Kingdom, or by the Corporation or any other body on behalf of the Government, in activities connected with petroleum beneath controlled waters.").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Secretary of State's discretion in the use of his powers under licences should not be unduly limited.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. I must recognise that noble Lords have felt strongly about this Amendment. They dislike participation, but I cannot help thinking that this Amendment was really attacking it by the back door. It is true that the Bill and the licence terms (before amendment by the Bill as well as after) bestow wide powers on the Secretary of State which, as the Secretary of State himself pointed out, could be used in an unreasonable manner. But they are not being so used, and Clause 19(6) of the Bill as first printed for this House, as well as my assurances and those of my colleagues, are evidence of our good faith in this. On the other hand, and noble Lords opposite must surely recognise this, to deny the Secretary of State the right to use any of his powers of consent to promote a policy which is in the national interest, would indeed be to send him naked to the negotiating table—if I may use a well-worn cliché.
The negotiations are voluntary (if not, they would have been completed long before now), but that does not preclude hard bargaining—on both sides. We have no objection to that nor, I believe, have the companies we are negotiating with. They, too, have strong bargaining counters. Precisely because the negotiations are voluntary, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to accept that their own position should be eroded in the way the Amendment would provide. I must ask noble Lords not to insist on it.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this was one of the Amendments which we thought the Government would accept. They have said that their policy of 51 per cent. participation is to be carried out by voluntary negotiation with the oil companies. Therefore this Amendment was proposed to the Bill as an addition which would have made clear in the Bill what the Government had stated was their intention; namely, that they would not use the sanctions which this Bill gives the Government to press companies into 51 per cent. participation.
1774
On various occasions the Government have said that the negotiation is to be voluntary, but there has been little evidence of that so far. We know that negotiations are being carried on with individual companies confidentially, but I have asked the Government before and I ask the noble Lord again—and this is the third occasion—whether there have been any instances where permission has been sought for re-arrangement of licences and where the permission has been granted and where the company has not at the same time had to agree to participation in principle.
Our reading of the Press reports is that so far in every such case the permission has only been given with the company at the same time announcing its agreement in principle to participation, and that seems to be evidence that pressure in those cases had been put upon them before they were granted their request. The policy of 51 per cent. participation more than anything else is causing a slow-down beyond the immediate programmes to which companies are already committed. While the immediate programmes are not being slowed down, the succeeding stages are.
The Prime Minister was reported in the Press as saying last night at the Lord Mayor's Banquet:
"By 1980, we expect to be producing as much oil as we shall be consuming that year."
So his statement is that we should reach self-sufficiency by 1980. That is certainly what we were expecting two years ago, but if the present situation continues I do not think that the Prime Minister can count on that happening in 1980, because we know of the postponements and the shelving of plans beyond immediate programmes. Observers are now suggesting that it will be 1981 or 1982. Certainly, the Prime Minister's assertion is open to challenge and none of us ought to be surprised if the official estimate for 1980 is revised in a few months' time.
Fifty-one per cent. participation is also causing uncertainty and second thoughts where orders for the building of platforms are concerned. The Secretary of State for Energy is rightly concerned about the lack of orders for platform building. Platforms are not to be confused with drilling rigs; platforms are the massive permanent structures in the fields, which have to be built fairly near

1775
to them. Each one can be worth £50 million to £100 million—together with the modules and equipment that go on them—to the country where it is produced. As I understand it, at the end of last week the Department of Energy made public that the Secretary of State had asked about 20 companies whether they could advance orders for platforms, and he had received negative answers. The companies had looked at the situation but found that they could not bring forward orders.
I entirely understand the concern felt by the Secretary of State for Energy, which is widely reported in the Press in Scotland where many of the fabrication yards are situated, because there is a large number of unemployed at some of them. Within two years, the Government have transformed the situation from one where yards were busy building platforms, to the present position, and yards are now being created, with a total Government commitment of about £30 million, with no order yet in sight. This situation of flagging platform building is a clear indicator of second thoughts and postponements of the plans to follow the present programmes for offshore activities. Some companies arc committed to large sums in their immediate programmes, but companies ought also to be proceeding with the plans for the next stages if. by 1980 and beyond, we are to get all the oil which the Government are expecting. Of course, they will not place orders for platforms until exploration and appraisal have shown where they are needed, and what kinds are suitable. Unless companies are encouraged to launch out again, they will not go ahead with these plans in the time which the Government have in mind.
My Lords, I know that in our last debate on this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, promised us that he would make some florid utterances at this stage, and no doubt he is saving them for what will probably be the last debate on this Bill. But I would say again to him that in less than two years his Government, through their policies, have changed the bustling competitive British platform building scene into stagnation.
7.41 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, surely, that is a little exaggerated. I have been
1776
told that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I should facilitate the passing of this Bill in the shortest possible time, because of the human needs of your Lordships after the previous gruelling treatment. The Government do not accept that uncertainty on their part about the contents of the Bill was one of the main reasons for the lower level of platform ordering. First, there is a growing experience and, as in the case of the Forties field, fortunately we have been wrong in our appraisal of the yield. This field is gushing forth far more quickly than we expected. In the Forties field, the drilling of wells has not caused an ebb in the other wells which exist, so that the amount of oil available is much higher than we thought. The same is true for Argyll.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that those fields which are underdeveloped now will be quite sufficient to carry us into independence by 1980. We do not need to think in terms beyond that. Of course, we need a continuation of drilling, but I am sure that once the uncertainty caused by the absence of a law which gives firm assurance as to what will and will not happen has passed, the growing experience and appraisal of drilling which the noble Lord mentioned, greater detailed knowledge of the field structure and of seabed technology, will combine to make oil operators aware of the danger of defining their platform requirements before they know the extent of the oil.
On the question of assignments, the embargo was lifted last February. Since then some 14 companies, involving 40 licences, have applied for various assignment projects. They have conceded participation in principle, as have BP and certain other companies about whom I will not speak at the moment, because of problems of confidentiality which I am sure the noble Lord will understand. No field has been delayed because of lack of finance. A number of financial packages are currently being negotiated. and the announcements can be expected shortly. At the end of the year, well over £1,000 million will have been spent in the North Sea, which is slightly inconsistent with the view of the Opposition that the policy of the Government has scared off platform builders.
7.45 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 19–25]
Schedule 1, page 46, line 11, leave out ("except an official member")
Schedule 1, page 46, line 15, leave out lines15 and 16.
Schedule 1, page 46, line 29, leave out subparagraph (3).
Schedule 1, page 46, line 37, leave out paragraph 5.
Page 47, line 3, leave out ("but must not be an official member")
Page 48, line 19, leave out from ("Corporation") to end of line 21.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they would alter the structure of the British National Oil Corporation in a manner detrimental to the performance of the Corporation's functions.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24, and Commons Reason No. 25 were spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 19 to 24 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 25.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 19 to 24 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 25.—(Lord Balogh.)
7.46 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 26–30]
Schedule 2, page 61, line 10, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice";)
Page 83, line 11, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;")
Schedule 3, page 110, line 42, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;")
Page 134, line 34, after ("programme") insert ("and the quantity so specified in such a further notice shall not be less than four-fifths of the proven production capacity of the field for the period specified in that further notice;")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is important to retain maximum flexibility in controlling the maximum rates of production of petroleum.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 30, because it is important to retain maximum flexibility in controlling the maximum rate of production of petroleum. It was explained in another place that, although in the majority of cases the cutbacks are likely not to exceed 20 per cent., as the statement on 6th December made clear, we cannot in the national interest bind ourselves to that figure in every case. The Amendment goes further than the statement of 6th December in that it would so bind us.
Moreover, we do not think it necessary to incorporate the terms of the statement about the operation of depletion policy in the Statute which confers the powers to operate such a policy. This could create an undesirable precedent. From time to time, we may issue further statements to supplement, but not to override, the statement of 6th December. It would be cumbersome both for the Executive and Parliament if on each occasion we faced demands, as we surely would, for precedents to be followed, and for each new statement to be enshrined in legislation. In view of the lateness of the hour and of these considerations, I hope your Lordships will not insist on these Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 30.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before we agree to the Motion, may I point out that this Amendment would have carried into the Bill what was generally understood to be the effect of the statement of the Secretary of State of 6th December in a long Written Answer in another place. What it has done, I think, is to bring out that the general understanding of that statement was different from the intention of the Government because, as the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has just said, the Government do not regard this four-fifths point as applying to every case. When the

1779
statement was made, it was thought this would apply to every case and that there would be no such exception of the kind he has just mentioned. So that from that point of view it is less satisfactory. However, I think it has clarified what the Minister meant in his statement of 6th December. We should have liked to have had this in the Bill and for this to have been our interpretation of the statement of the Minister, because we think that would have given great reassurance to the companies embarking on investment.
My Lords, the noble Lord knows we agree that the Government need to have some powers in order to control rates of production later, in the 1980s and after, but we do not think it is necessary for them to be so flexible that the companies do not know beforehand roughly the limits within which they may be asked to reduce production. Having said that, we have no intention of trying to resist this proposal.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the courtesy with which he has conducted this debate. Even so, we feel strongly about these things. I am very glad to have had a sparring partner such as the noble Lord.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lord I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for the way he has helped us by explaining the intentions of the Government. Apart from the last point, a great deal has been clarified. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who has sometimes had to answer points at short notice, but who has clearly always done his best to inform us of the situation. I should mention that my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who has taken a great deal of the burden of this Bill, is at the moment, I believe, in the middle of the Indian Ocean. He cannot be here, but I know he would wish to be associated with what I have said.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I would also like to be associated with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said. If there had been time I would have taken up the allusion by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, that
1780
to him it has seemed that the Opposition Benches were performing a Wagnerian opera with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as Siegfried and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, as Brunhilde. I was greatly interested and very happy about such allusions, because at last I thought we must have the perfect Wagnerite before us in the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. The title, as you know, is enshrined in the book by Bernard Shaw. But, as the noble Lord sank back on to his bench, Wagnerian allusions crowded upon me, and I thought that he was the God Wotan sitting there with the spear broken in the shaft, broken by Siegfried. I am sure you will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, broke many of the Government's arguments by the graceful way of presenting his case. This account of the position of Wotan is to be found in that long prologue to the opera, The Twilight of the Gods. May I say there is no sinister motif at this time of night in my having quoted the title of that Wagnerian opera. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who like Loki has sat beside Wotan and done so much work in this debate.

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) ACT 1973 CONTINUATION ORDER 1975
7.52 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS rose to move, That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 Continuation Order 1975, laid before the House on 29th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, which the Motion asks the House to continue for a further year, contains wide-ranging powers. Your Lordships will recall that the Act was introduced by the last Conservative Administration to facilitate the management of a crisis involving severe disruption of our energy supplies. Subsequently, however, the Act has been used in situations where the element of crisis has been absent, in some cases to achieve the objectives of domestic energy policy, and in others to fulfil the Government's international obligations. I shall describe further these uses of the Act in a moment.
The Order before the House extends for a period of one year, to 30th November 1976, the powers contained in Sections 1 to 8 of the Act. These powers enable control to be exercised over petroleum, substances derived from petroleum, any substances used as fuel, and electricity. Thus the controls extend not only to petroleum and electricity but also to coal and gas. I should like to reassure noble Lords that the introduction of emergency measures is not the Government's aim in laying this Order. The Government have no reason to expect that any difficulties will arise in the near future which would necessitate the introduction of such measures.
As we go into the winter coal stocks are generally at a satisfactory level, and this applies not only to those held by the Coal Board but also to those held by distributors and customers, including power stations. Oil stocks are also at a high level, particularly taking into account the reduced level of demand. There is a considerable amount of spare capacity in the electricity supply system also due to reduced demand. Even if extremely cold weather arrived unexpectedly, widespread interruptions of supply are unlikely. The position on gas is also healthy.
My Lords, I should now like to describe the uses at present made of the powers in the 1973 Act; first, those concerned with domestic policy. The House will no doubt recall that during the last year the Government have used their powers under the Act to introduce certain constraints on energy use as part of the package of energy-saving measures announced on 9th December last. In particular, we have brought into force compulsory limits on heating levels in buildings other than living accommodation and certain other categories; and restrictions on the use of electricity for external display and advertising purposes during daylight hours. In both cases the restriction takes the form of an Order under Section 2 of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act provides for the modification of existing enactments where these affect the use of fuel and electricity, and it is under this heading that my honourable friend the Minister for Transport has introduced the 50 and 60 miles per hour speed limits in the interests of
1782
fuel saving. These mandatory measures are, of course, only part of our overall programme on energy conservation. The more efficient use of fuel is also being prosecuted through the provision of information, advice and help and through the setting of appropriate economic signals, which chiefly means correct pricing supplemented where necessary by taxation. We believe that a combination of all three lines of action is the right approach, aiming for a programme of measures which complement and reinforce each other wherever possible.
The House will not expect me to anticipate the gracious Speech. But we do recognise that the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act is essentially a short-term measure, whereas energy conservation is a long-term policy which must be maintained over a period of years. In the context of statutory energy conservation measures, therefore, it is our intention to seek permanent powers. There arc two other ways in which the 1973 Act has been used to further domestic policy. First, it has been used to relieve the British Gas Corporation of a statutory obligation under the Gas Act 1972 to supply gas on request in specified circumstances. Major changes in the world energy situation in the last two years or so have created an upsurge in the demand for gas which the Corporation could not reasonably have foreseen. In order to avoid endangering the continuing security of supply to existing users, prior to the arrival of gas from the Frigg field, the British Gas Corporation has therefore been given an authority under Section 4 of the Act to disregard this statutory obligation as regards new or additional supplies exceeding 25,000 therms per annum. The authority does not affect the Corporation's obligation to continue giving a supply, of whatever size, to existing customers or to new smaller users.
The Act also contains power to regulate the prices of oil products. It is important that this power be retained in the light of the continuing uncertainty about the security of world oil supplies and the regular increases in crude oil prices imposed by the oil producers. Since their introduction during the difficult supply situation in December 1973, the price control powers have been used to control the maximum retail price of petrol, derv and paraffin. But the only

1783
current price control is that on paraffin. This has been continued because of its special importance to low income users. The Government are, of course, keeping this control under review.
My Lords, secondly, may I describe the use of the Act's powers in the fulfilment of our international obligations. The Government notified their consent to the Agreement on an International Energy Programme. This was done on 30th October. One object of this Agreement is to secure oil supplies in an emergency. To that end States participating in the Agreement undertake to build up emergency reserves sufficient to sustain consumption at the average level of the previous year for an agreed period. Participating States also undertake to prepare oil demand restraint measures to enable them in an emergency to reduce consumption by certain percentages. They also undertake in an emergency to allocate the available oil among each other in accordance with the rules of the Agreement. The Government need certatin of these powers at present contained in the 1973 Act to implement these obligations, should they be called on to do so. Finally, the Act's powers have been used during the past year to implement EEC Directives under which Member-States are obliged to maintain at all times minimum levels of stocks of crude oil and petroleum products. This obligation, of course, overlaps to some extent with the stockholding obligation under the Agreement on an International Energy Programme.
To draw together the strands of my argument, my Lords, the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 contains powers which are needed to honour our international obligations and to implement our conservation programme, and for the efficient management of our energy resources. It is for those reasons, and not because of fears of a disruption of energy supplies, that I seek your Lordships' support for the Order. It is the Government's intention to seek permanent powers in due course, but until that can be done continuation of the powers in the present Act is essential. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 Continuation Order 1975, laid before the House on 29th October, be approved.—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
8.0 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for giving us the facts on this Order. I think we might add that now that the captains and the generals have departed he and I have the Chamber, with one or two others of your Lordships, to ourselves, so we can go through this Order fairly quickly. As the noble Lord mentioned, this Order was introduced into your Lordships' House in 1973 during the fuel emergency problems on the three-day week. It was designed to give the Secretary of State vast and sweeping powers to control the production, supply, acquisition, and use of petroleum, its by-products and also other fuels and electricity. It is, of course—we are most pleased to note—not really needed at this moment.
I must confess that the noble Lord seems to have taken the wind out of my sails on one point, because I felt that this Order was nearly old-fashioned or out-of-date, but, on the other hand, he now says something about the gracious Speech, and that, "We shall now have another look at it." In other words, we are probably looking at a new Act of Parliament on energy with powers in the new Session. Perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten me on this. This may be a little unfair because it is too early and no one is allowed to know these things at the moment, but perhaps a wink or two may help me and my noble friends on these Benches. The Order we are discussing is to be for another year. I was also glad to notice that he was not hesitating in his facts about the reserve stocks of coal and oil at the moment in this country. I was slightly worried by this morning's papers when I noticed that the Secretary of State, his right honourable friend Mr. Wedgwood Benn, was a little hesitant in a reply to a Question in another place. Perhaps the noble Lord can reassure the House that all is well.
I might not have heard the noble Lord right—I might have misjudged him—but, if there is an emergency, how long would our stocks last? Would they last two or three months, or have we stocks to get through a severe winter, say, to March? It is important that we should know this so that no one, in looking at this winter, has any fear for the future. On the other hand, I leave it at this: if

1785
there is to be a new Bill in the new Session we shall from this side continue to watch over this Order until this new Pill comes into your Lordships'House—if it does. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the facts he has given us, and I am glad that we have been able for another year to dispose of this Order.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for the clarity with which he explained the facts behind this Order. I was interested in one aspect of his announcement regarding the fact that this Order is to implement certain EEC Directives. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give details of those Directives of the EEC which this Order is intended to implement? Unfortunately, I have not given notice to the noble Lord of this request, and if he is not in a position to give the numbers of those EEC Directives at the present time, perhaps he would be good enough to let me know in a letter.
8.5 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I appreciate the importance of the matters that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, emphasised. I hope that what I have said generally has set his mind at rest. In regard to future legislation, I can only restate that the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act is not a satisfactory basis for a long-term conservation policy, and therefore it is the Government's intention to have permanent powers, and preliminary details will be given in the gracious Speech. I must ask the noble Viscount to wait until next week for enlightenment.
The noble Viscount asked me about stocks. I have here a breakdown of stocks of coal, which show that they are considerably higher than they were at the same time last year. Undistributed stock, for instance, is 9.25 million tons as against 6.21 million tons at the same time last year. Power stations, which last year on the 25th October had 13.58 million tons, now have 18.36 million tons, which is about eight weeks' normal winter rate of consumption. The Iron and steel industry arc similarly well-placed, and have approximately six weeks store on hand. Electricity supply is covered in the stocks which, as I say, amount to over 18 million
1786
tons. British Gas expect to be able to cope even with very severe winter conditions; neither natural gas nor its transmission are affected by low temperatures. The situation on oil stocks is that they are at present estimated at 100 days average 1974 demand, or 94 days forward demand. In short, the overall situation, so far as stocks are concerned, is good.
I do not think that in his Written Answer to a Commons Question my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was in any way hesitant or pessimistic. It was simply that he was then setting out the possible hazards that one faced, largely concerned with transport, as they affected the supply of coal, and so on, and therefore of course the supply of electricity. He simply advised consumers to build up their stocks of fuel to ensure against these transport difficulties. I think that this was the message he was trying to get across.
I think that to some extent I have the number of the Directives about which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me. Unless I can find them quickly what I should like to do is to write to him. To save noble Lords' time, I shall drop him a line or tell him immediately after the debate.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I shall accept it if it is put in a letter.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, in thanking noble Lords opposite for their constructive approach to this Order, may I say that I am grateful to have had this opportunity of explaining why the Government consider it necessary to continue the 1973 Act in force for a further year, and also to indicate the careful attention which the Government are giving to their energy policy. I think both Parliament and public are all agreed that we must continue our efforts to save energy in order to reduce our import bill and to avoid the waste of valuable resources. The renewal of the 1973 Act is only a part of our energy saving programme, but in approaching a matter of such national importance it remains necessary to have access to statutory powers.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insistence read and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to return the Bill with Reasons.
  M4 EXTENSION FROM NEWPORT
  M4 EXTENSION FROM NEWPORT