HL Deb 11 November 1954 vol 189 cc1324-403

3.45 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

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

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

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to say a very few words on this Motion in the hope that it may save a lot of time in the long run. Your Lordships will observe that in the long Marshalled List there are no Amendments from this side of the House. I should not like it to be assumed, however, that this Bill is being received with the same unanimity as its predecessor, which we have just discussed. The reason why no Amendments to this Bill have been put down from this side of the House—and indeed, there are very few from the other side—is simply that we feel that this Bill follows so closely the English Bill upon which we had considerable discussion that the only Amendments we could put down would be those which we had already put down on the English Bill. Those Amendments, I should like to say in perfect frankness, have been fully discussed, if not with the results for which we had hoped, at any rate with certain results, and we felt that there was very little we could add to the discussion we had last week. We might have put down the same Amendments again, but presumably they would have had the same results. I did not feel that we had any fresh arguments to put forward; nor, I imagine, would the noble and learned Viscount have had any either. Therefore, it being understood that our views about the Scottish Bill are the same as those that we hold about the English Bill, we have not put down any Amendments.

I should like to be assured—and I have no doubt that we shall be—that the Amendments which appear on the Marshalled List from the Government are drafted with a view to bringing the Scottish Bill into conformity with the English one, and that if there are any special Amendments which are not applicable to the English Bill the attention of the Committee will be drawn to them. Otherwise, speaking for my noble friends and myself, we shall have very little to say at this stage of the Bill, except, perhaps, occasionally to ask for an explanation of a particular Amendment. I thought it might save the time of the House if I gave this explanation at the outset.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I wonder whether I may be permitted to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Silkin has just said? We are all very sorry that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Home, was unable to be present owing to illness. We are glad to see that he is now back with us—I hope fully recovered. I think it was a fortunate accident that, in the absence of the noble Earl, and in the absence of noble Lords from Scotland, the Second Reading of this Bill was moved by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, who gave a most interesting and full account of the Bill as it applied to Scotland, no doubt drawing upon his own personal experience of the country and its laws. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Silkin for stepping into the breach, because, with his undoubted knowledge of the details of this complicated measure, I feel that Scotland, if not wholly pleased with the Bill, has lost nothing by his attention to it and by the able manner in which he commented upon it on behalf of noble Lords from Scotland.

3.51 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for what he has said. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have kindly agreed, as they took the Second Reading of the Bill, to take charge of the Bill through its Committee stage. I hope that that course will meet with the approval of your Lordships, as it certainly meets with mine. They happen to be feeling much more able than I at present to deal with town and country planning.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, in following what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I have tried, by studying what took place on a similar Bill for England, to limit our Amendments to what are necessary and to avoid repeating what has already been discussed very thoroughly. Probably we could have put down more Amendments and the discussion could have been much longer, but I apologise if, in moving our Amendments, we say too much or not enough, or do not appear fully to understand the subject, because I think it is agreed that this Bill and what has gone before, are very difficult to follow. I should like to say only another word at this stage. In apologising for being unable to be present on the Second Reading, I would express my regret that this Government and Parliament should be unable to avoid a type of legislation which seriously concerns very many persons, a large number of whom will probably never be able to appreciate or understand in advance what concerns them. I understand that that is inevitable, but it is regrettable.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, it is greatly to be hoped that the Amendments that have been put down have not been put down just for the purpose of making this Bill conform with the English Bill. Whatever may be the views of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on this matter, I think that everyone in Scotland has the opinion very firmly that our land laws are so different from the English laws that only a separate Bill can do them justice: no mere English Bill with Application Clauses could be in any way satisfactory. Therefore I hope that the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper have been put down for the purpose of endeavouring to make a decidedly complicated Bill a little more intelligible.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, the only reason I rise is to express to your Lordships my regret at the fact that, having been asked to attend a Committee of your Lordships' House of which I am not a member outside this House, I was unable to attend the second part of the Second Reading debate and listen to the noble and learned Viscount's reply to what I said then. As I have no Amendment on the point, I should like to draw the exact point to the noble and learned Viscount's attention. In a regality burgh, if a large part of the superiority is acquired by another party, that may displace the superior from his technical position as superior of the burgh. In virtue of that technical position, he is probably a trustee of ancient trusts for public lands and other public properties. In the attack on these things in the eighteenth century, the superior was a defence of the public interest, and there have been attacks on such property since the eighteenth century. When the acquisition of a blench title is all that the local authority can properly require, it would be a pity to insist on the conveyance of superiority. It is a case which affects only a few people and I put it to the Government for their consideration, as I do not propose to move an Amendment on the subject.

3.57 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for any length of time in replying to the most interesting debate we have had, but I feel that I ought to say a word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because he raised two points with regard to procedure. Broadly, as I informed your Lordships on Second Reading, it is our intention to incorporate into the Scottish Bill those concessions which are being given in the English Bill. I think that is the first point on which the noble Lord desired confirmation. On the second point, my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I will try to bring the attention of the House to any special points, as the noble Lord desired.

I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said about me. With regard to the somewhat pessimistic statement of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, I can give him this assurance: that the whole tenor of the Amendments which we are putting in the Bill is to try to clarify the matter; and any further steps we can take in that direction, to make it sufficiently clear, if not for him who runs to read, at least for him who sits up at night with a lamp and looks at the Bill constantly, to understand, we will certainly take. I have noted the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and would remind him, if he will allow me to say so, that I anticipated it in my reply to the debate on Second Reading, so I will not pursue it to-day. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, for elaborating his point. The difficulty that I felt on the matter was that it was rather a point which had been given away, if I may put it that way, in the Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845. However, I have noted it, and I assure the noble Lord that I appreciate the point he has made to-day. I think that that covers the points which have been raised in the debate and I hope your Lordships are now prepared to go into Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Payments by reference to established claims]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is only drafting. It is designed to rectify a mistake and make certain that established claims are determined in terms of the revised First Schedule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("been") to ("that") in line 24 and insert ("if those provisions had at that time had effect in relation thereto,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Claim holdings, their areas and values, and apportionment of values between parts of areas]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill as it stands are inadequate to describe the scope of the Second and Third Schedules. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 45, leave out from ("for") to end of line 47 and insert ("treating the claim holding as divided into two or more claim holdings and extinguishing any of those holdings or reducing the value thereof.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. Its object is to put beyond doubt that for the purpose of Part I of the Bill the value of a claim holding is its value after the operation of the Second and Third Schedules. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 14, at end insert— ("(5) References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding are references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Payment where development charge incurred by claim-holder or his predecessor in title (Case A)]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is designed to remove a slight anomaly in regard to the merging of interests that appears in one or two places which we shall come to later. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, at end insert ("or whose interest has subsequently become merged in that interest").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Payment where land compulsorily acquired or sold at price wholly or partly excluding development value (Case B)]:

(3) No payment shall be made by virtue of this section unless the transaction in question— (b) if it was a sale otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, was effected in pursuance of a contract made on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen, hundred and fifty-two, or in pursuance of an option granted on or after the said first day of July and before the said eighteenth day of November, and unless the conveyance relative to the acquisition or sale has been granted (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) before the time when an application is made to the Central Land Board for the payment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is really drafting in anticipation. The words proposed to be deleted are unnecessary, in view of the new subsection (1) proposed to be inserted in Clause 6 by the Amendment to page 11, line 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 33, leave out ("or an interest created directly out of that interest").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out "first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight," and insert "sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one to remedy what I feel is a substantial injustice. I have a letter from some agents in Glasgow who say that a client of theirs sold his land at its existing use value, and the contract was signed in May, 1948. The purchaser brought the land at the existing use value, and subsequently paid a development value which was exactly the same as the agreed development value on the land sold by their client. Under the Bill as it stands, they say that their client will be unable to get compensation unless the date in paragraph (b) is changed in the sense of my Amendment. They also say that this Amendment was admitted in the English Bill, and they therefore hope it will be admitted in this Bill. I feel that I have shown that if my Amendment is not passed a substantial injustice will be done, and I hope that the Government will admit the remedy. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 25, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight,") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The position in regard to the point raised by my noble friend is that originally both Bills prescribed the same date—namely, July 1, 1948; and on recommittal in another place Clause 5 (3) (b), of the English Bill was amended to make the starting date the date when the English Bill received the Royal Assent—that is to say, August 6, 1947. This was done to meet cases where the contract of sale adjusted the sale price downwards, because the sale would not be completed before the appointed day, and accordingly, the purchaser would have to meet development charge on any development when the Act came into full operation, while the seller would be the one entitled to claim against the £300 million. I have listened to my noble friend, and I should like to inform him that there was nothing sinister in maintaining the date in the Scottish Bill; in fact, until he spoke there was no evidence before us, and we had no reason to think, that any such contracts were made in Scotland between the passing of the Scottish 1947 Act—namely, August 13, 1947—and its coming into full operation on July 1, 1948. That was why the English Amendment was not followed. However, in view of what my noble friend has said I should like to look at this point again, most sympathetically. Perhaps we could have an informal word about the cases, and then I will certainly sympathetically consider putting down an Amendment on the Report stage. An additional reason for leaving it for the moment is that slight difference in the date of the Royal Assent of the two Bills, which would mean some alteration to the Amendment of my noble friend. I hope that that will content him, because we are anxious only to do justice and to help people who are in this position.

LORD SILKIN

So far as I am concerned. I am in great sympathy with the principle of the Amendment. I think it was fair in the English Bill, and I think it would be fair in the Scottish Bill, too. If there are no cases, nobody is hurt and no harm can come of altering the date. On the question of the coming into operation of the Bill, I agree that the Scottish Bill came into operation a few days later. But people who were carrying out transactions, who followed the process of this Bill and acted upon it, must have known that once the English Bill had received the Royal Assent it was only a matter of days before the Scottish Bill would do so. Therefore, if anyone did act in good faith in between the coming into operation of the one Bill and the other, I do not think they should be penalised. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to "go the whole hog" and have the same date incorporated in both Bills.

LORD SALTOUN

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This deals with the merging of interests that may have taken place between July 1, 1948, and the date when claims could have been made on the £300 million. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 26, at end insert— ("(7) Where an interest in land is the subject of a compulsory acquisition or sale such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section and—

  1. (a) on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, but before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, another interest had become merged with that interest; and
  2. (b) the person entitled to the interest compulsorily acquired or sold was at the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale entitled 1333 to a claim holding or claim holdings which related to either or each of the merged interests,
this section shall apply as if those interests had not merged but had been separately acquired from or sold by the person entitled to the interest acquired or sold; and the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, as the case may be, the sale price shall be treated as apportioned between those interests accordingly: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the operation of the proviso to subsection (4) of the next following section.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions relating to compulsory acquisitions and to sales]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the beginning of the clause— (1) In this Act any reference to the sale of purchase of an interest in land includes a reference to the sale or purchase of such an interest by way of feu; and in relation to any such sale or purchase—

  1. (a) the price shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to be the capital value of the feuduty, or, as the case may be, the aggregate consideration represented by the grassum and the capital value of the feuduty; and
  2. (b) the last preceding section and section eleven of this Act shall have effect as if the interest sold were identical with the seller's whole interest in the land immediately before the sale."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment serves two purposes. First, it gives effect to a promise given on the Report stage in another place to consider whether the provisions of what is now Clause 69 (8) (which provides that references to the sale of an interest are to include references to conveyance of an interest by way of feu charter) could not be brought into the body of the Bill instead of being left at the tail end, where they might be missed. Secondly, it provides that for the purposes of Clauses 5 and 11 the sale or purchase of an interest in land by way of feu is to be treated as a sale or purchase of the seller's whole interest in the land, thus enabling a sale by way of feu to qualify the seller for a Case B payment, or a residual payment in a case analogous to Case B, in like manner as a sale of the seller's whole interest in the land to which the claim holding related.

I am sure that many of your Lordships are familiar with the effect of what I have just said, but may I explain it for a moment longer. A sale of an interest in land by way of feu is, in the technical terms of Scots law, a sale of the dominium utile in the land by the owner of the dominium plenum. In other words, the sale of a feu is a sale of the right to possess and develop the land subject to the terms of the feu charter, the seller receiving an annual payment and retaining the rights to secure the observance of the terms of the feu charter, including a right to "irritate" the feu and regain possession of the land in certain circumstances if the terms of the feu charter are not observed or the annual payment of feu duty is not made. As a result of this Amendment, the words proposed to be left out of the Bill in the Amendment at page 8, line 33, and the Amendment at page 8, line 77, are no longer necessary. I hope my noble friend Lord Mansfield has observed that this is, at any rate, one instance where we have borne in mind his words with regard to Scots law. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 1, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is not much more than drafting. It deals with dead ripe land, and means that it does not apply after sale. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 16, after ("forty-eight") insert ("and at the date of the sale the development specified in the certificate had not been completed").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("of") to ("if") in line 25 and insert ("so much of that development as had not been completed if it had been completed and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment concerns a very complicated matter dealing with the minus restricted value. I am told that it is correct and I hope the Committee will accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 10, at end insert— ("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, the Board, or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Payment where land disposed of by gift (Case C)]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is another consequential Amendment. We have had this before. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 21, after ("related") insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a similar Amendment dealing with minus value: it is very complicated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 3, at end insert— ("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date on which the gift in question was made, the Board or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Payments in cases analogous to Case B]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This and the following Amendments are a series of Amendments dealing with merged interests. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 14, leave out from ("related") to ("was") in line 15 and insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 21, after ("if") insert ("the interest so affected, in this section referred to as").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The next three Amendments are really drafting and are designed to put the clause in a more logical order. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 39, after ("affected") insert (",being damage in respect of which compensation fell, or if the sale had been a compulsory acquisition would have fallen, to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the principal Act (which provides for compensation on the basis of existing use value) as applied by subsection (4) of section one hundred and thirteen of that Act;")

Page 15,line 43, at end insert (",being damage in respect of which compensation fell to be assessed in accordance with section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, as modified by section ten of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948 (which limits the compensation to an amount calculated on the basis of existing use value).")

Page 16, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert— ("(c) in the case of a compulsory acquisition falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection or in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, to the compensation paid or payable in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph; (d) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, to the sale price in so far as it represented compensation in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 38, leave out ("relevant interest") and insert ("interest in land to which the claim holding related").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to cure a bad reference. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 10, leave out ("subsections (4) to (6)") and insert ("subsection (4)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Residual payments in cases analogous to Cases A and B]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is consequential. We have had it before dealing with the merging of interests. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 21, at end, insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Payments not to exceed value of claim holdings]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is largely of a drafting character, and deals with the case where two or more payments are due in respect of one holding. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of clause and insert ("the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the different parts of the area of the claim holding in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and if the aggregate of the portions of the principal amounts of the respective payments so apportioned to any part of the area of the claim holding would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, exceed the fraction of the value of the claim holding attaching to that part of the area thereof, those portions shall be reduced rateably so that the aggregate of them is equal to the said fraction, and the said principal amounts shall be treated as reduced accordingly.

(2) Where two or more payments are (subject as aforesaid) payable in respect of the same claim holding by virtue of the last preceding section, the aggregate of the principal amounts of those payments shall not exceed the value of the claim holding or, where that value is treated as reduced in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section, that value as so reduced.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Application for payments under Part I]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved in subsection (1), to substitute "six" [months] for "three." The noble Duke said: The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the period for lodging an application for payment in respect of depreciation in land value as a result of a transaction in land between July 1, 1948, and the coming into operation of the 1953 Act. It is considered that the three months period is insufficient or may be insufficient. I cannot say whether six months is the most suitable period, or possibly twelve months, as was suggested in the similar Bill for England by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, or, I believe, an even longer period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD SILKIN

I should like to support this Amendment. The noble Duke who moved it was quite right in saying that there was an Amendment to the English Bill to increase the period to twelve months. He was not quite right, however, in saying that I took the view that it should be even longer. I said that whatever period is put in, people are bound to be late or overlook it; but I thought twelve months was better than three. Subsequently, the noble and learned Viscount drew our attention, and I think his own, to the proviso to this subsection, which gives the Board the power to extend the time in any particular case. I have considered that point, but it does not seem to me to be adequate for the purpose. It gives the Board a discretion, and while I have no doubt that the Board will exercise that discretion reasonably in general, it could give rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction if somebody put in a claim late and could give no reason except that he forgot, and the Central Land Board took the view that that was not a case where they ought to exercise discretion. Three months is not really a long time, and it seems to me that no harm will come by accepting the period the noble Duke has put down as a compromise. As a matter of fact, I have myself put down an Amendment to the English Bill with a view to discussing the matter once more, suggesting again a period of twelve months. But I would be prepared to accept six months, and if the noble and learned Viscount is prepared to "do a deal," if he accepts six months in this Bill, I would withdraw my Amendment on the English Bill asking for twelve months.

LORD SALTOUN

To anyone who has had to work the old Bill on the ground the period of six months will not seem extravagant. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment.

4.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

As your Lordships are aware, landed property very often is not in one single ownership but may be in a multiple ownership or in the hands of trustees. It is often, there- fore, a matter of great difficulty to get a decision made sufficiently soon to act within the three months which the Bill at present specifies. Furthermore, I have known cases where considerable involuntary injustice has been brought about because one or more of the interests were abroad and their consent to an application could not be timeously obtained. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted, because, although the Board is given authority in certain cases to accept applications after the prescribed period, I feel it would be much fairer to all concerned that six months should be the period rather than three months.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

If the time is too short, it could possibly result in a flood of applications being put in merely to keep the situation open. For that reason alone, if the time could possibly be extended it would save an enormous amount of confusion and clerical work.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that all of your Lordships understand that I am not stonewalling on this Amendment merely to prevent the making of another Amendment, but as my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch was not in the House when I dealt with the argument in Committee on the English Bill—

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I listened to it carefully. I apologise for not referring to it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful that my noble friend should have read the argument. But, even so, if he will allow me, I should like to put it again, because it is a matter to which I attach great importance. I hope that your Lordships may find it worth while giving another thought to the point. The reason that I advanced for this short period was that, until the Board have made some progress with their payments, it is not possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to get on with making compensation payments for planning restrictions. Your Lordships will appreciate that, on the structure of the Bill, the effect of Part I payments on the value of claim holdings has to be brought into account before payments can be made under Part V. I am sure that all your Lordships share my concern with regard to those who are waiting for such payments.

Many of these Part V payments are due to people who have been waiting for several years for their money, and it is plainly incumbent on the Government to ensure that they are made as soon as possible. That is one aspect of the matter which certainly concerns and moves me. May I consider, for a moment, the point which has obviously concerned and moved your Lordships—that is, the possibility that someone will let the time run by or for some other reason not put in the necessary form in sufficient time. I ask your Lordships to look at subsection (1) of Clause 13 with that in mind. It first of all says that: A payment under this Part of this Act shall not be payable unless an application for the payment is made to the Central Land Board in such manner, within such period (not being less than three months … The application for the payment, as I understand it, will be made by answering some half a dozen factual questions, and that will be the only thing that is necessary within the period. I am told that it will not be a difficult matter, but then I am sure your Lordships have had in mind the next part of the subsection which says: … accompanied by such particulars and verified by such evidence, as may be prescribed by regulations under this section … I was considering, when the point comes up for the English Bill, but it applies equally to both Bills, that I should give an undertaking in this regard, which would I am sure be honoured: that that further information, the particulars and evidence, would not come within the limit of three months which has worried your Lordships. Although it would accompany the application, it would not be subject to the same limit. That, I hoped, might remove some of the forebodings that your Lordships had in mind.

The next point the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has anticipated. When I was last discussing this matter I was not able to put my finger on the proviso. I therefore said that I should like to look at the question until I could find the proviso. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I have found it, and he has found it too, and that, as he says—and I entirely agree—gives an ad hoc right in any particular case to extend the time. Your Lordships may well say that I have made rather heavy weather of a short extension. Our experience of human nature is that mankind as a whole never acts until the last moment when it is compelled to. As your Lordships will see from the way in which I have tried to put it, the application would come in towards the end of the six months and then in certain cases there would probably be applications for further time; then there could be a delay (which I entirely agree and support) with regard to putting in the further particulars and the evidence, and we should probably, in most cases, under my noble friend's Amendment, be getting on to nine months or a year, with a consequent delay in the payments.

I am quite prepared to consider the matter again before Monday. I have heard what your Lordships have said, but I hope that you will consider my point of view also. I am most anxious about delaying these people who have been kept out of their money for years, and I should be sorry if even another few months' delay were added to their difficulties. Therefore I would suggest to my noble friend that he does not press the Amendment at this stage, on my undertaking to give further consideration to the point that has been raised. If it is some comfort to the noble Duke, may I say that there is not only his own persuasion but there is also the attractive offer put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that, if I accede to his Amendment, I shall escape trouble at a later stage of the English Bill. On these terms, I ask your Lordships to give me the indulgence of another chance to look at the matter.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I should like to consider further the information and advice given by the noble and learned Viscount. I ask leave to-day to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is to enable a quicker procedure to be adopted, to avoid double discussion on the same point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 1, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 14 and insert ("on determining any such application, to give notice of their determination to the applicant, and, if their determination includes an apportionment, to give particulars af the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Cause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Effect of payments on claim holdings]:

4.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 44, leave out from ("holding") to ("the") in line 45.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment, too, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 1, leave out from ("payment") to ("is") in line 2.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This, I think, is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 6, at end insert— ("Provided that if in the case of any claim holding a payment becomes payable under Case D, then, regardless of the amount of that payment, that holding shall for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act be deemed to have been extinguished immediately before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is not much more than drafting. It is designed to ensure that where a payment is made in respect of a claim holding on account of an act or event affecting only part of the holding, it shall be debited against the fraction of the holding appropriate to that part. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert— ("(3)Where one or more acts or events have occurred whereby in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act one or more payments become payable in respect of a claim holding (in this section referred to as 'the parent holding') and any such act or event did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section and for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act—

  1. (a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that, in the case of each holding, either any such act or event as aforesaid extending to the area of that 1343 holding extended to the whole thereof, or no such act or event extended to the area of that holding;
  2. (b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;
  3. (c) the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the act or event in question extended in such manner as may appear to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be a payment payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 [Scope of Part II]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment is designed to give slightly greater flexibility, without loss of compensation to the parties concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 18, at end insert— ("(3) Where, on an application for planning permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies, a planning decision is made after the commencement of this Act whereby that permission is granted (whether unconditionally or not) and the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

  1. (a) the application shall be deemed to have included, in place of those buildings or works, such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related; and
  2. (b) the permission shall be deemed to have been granted for the other development to which the application related subject to the condition aforesaid.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 30, after ("1932") insert ("or by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph 13 of the said Schedule (which relates to certain applications under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Right to compensation in respect of planning decisions]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As this Amendment looks forward to another provision, may I just say two words about it to the Committee? The object of the proviso to subsection (6) of Clause 19 is to see that there is no inconsistency between the subsection and any regulations made under the provision, which come later in the Bill, for the diversion of payments (and amongst those are payments of compensation under Part II) in certain circumstances from the debtor in a heritable security to the creditor. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 6 and insert ("be without prejudice to the operation of any regulations made under section (Provision for diversion of payments) of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a transpositional Amendment. It is thought that this is a more logical order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Transpose Clause 20 to after Clause 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21:

Compensation excluded in certain cases

(2) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the imposition, on the granting of planning permission, of any condition relating to— (a) the number or disposition of buildings on any land; or in respect of any condition subject to which planning permission is granted for the winning and working of minerals.

(6) For the purposes of this section a planning decision, whereby planning permission in respect of any land is granted subject to a condition prohibiting development of a specified part of that land, shall be treated as a decision refusing the permission as respects that part of the land.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 18, leave out from ("which") to second ("or") in line 19 and insert ("consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.36 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "condition" where that word last occurs, and to insert: reasonable conditions imposed for the purposes of amenity safety or restoration of the land". The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that a person engaged in working minerals shall not be required, without payment of compensation, to fulfil conditions which go beyond those normally required for reasons of good estate management. This Amendment has been redrafted in an endeavour to meet the Government's criticisms of a corresponding Amendment moved in Committee on the English Bill. I think it is a possibility that unreasonable conditions may, and sometimes will, be imposed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 38, leave out ("condition") and insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Perhaps I may elaborate that point slightly. If I read the Bill aright (which may not be so), in the case of a gravel pit which has a footpath traversing it, it might happen that a local authority, when the pit was worked out, would require the ground for their own development and would make it compulsory on the person working the gravel pit to put down a road fit for vehicular traffic, instead of leaving just a footpath. That is the type of condition that might not be just. It is the normal practice to leave the foundations of the machinery and plant in situ in a worked-out gravel pit; but it could be the case that, before getting permission, one might be made to remove these and to grade the site in conformation to requirements totally to the benefit only of the local authority who later acquire the site. It appears that this might all be done without compensation, and it is to clarify points of this sort that this Amendment has been put down.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry for this attempt to find a more attractive and efficient form of Amendment in order to meet the difficulties that I raised, and I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Stonehaven for the examples which he gave, and which, if he will allow me to say so, bring the matter clearly to the minds of your Lordships from the aspect which he wanted to develop. I appreciate the point (if I may summarise what I understood the point to be in Lord Stonehaven's mind) that it would be possible, at any rate in theory, for the planning authority to attach conditions so stringent as to render impracticable the working of the minerals. May I deal with the matter in two stages, first saying a word to the Committee about how the Government think that this would work out in practice and, secondly, a word about the merits?

The conditions that are normally imposed on the winning and working of minerals are, of course, designed to reduce the nuisance and inconvenience to the public which such workings cause. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of the conditions; but I have considered them, and discussed them with those who advise me in this matter—and especially on the mineral clauses, which I frankly admit are very difficult. I am told that they are not confined to conditions imposed "for the purposes of amenity, safety or restoration," though they will, of course, be included. The most common matters to be regulated by conditions include the location of the plant, the order in which the minerals are to be worked and, thirdly (a common one), disposal of waste materials. While these conditions may have an amenity aspect, that may not be the sole reason. As noble Lords will readily appreciate, the proper use of the land might well be a factor. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that payment of compensation would have to be made for the imposition of normal working conditions. Noble Lords will not expect Her Majesty's Government to contemplate that situation.

When one turns to the wider question of what conditions would be reasonable, it should be borne in mind that the conditions referred to are attached to the grant of permission to work the minerals; and conditions of such a nature that working would be rendered virtually impossible could not, therefore, be in question. It is going beyond the realm of practice into the realm of the ultra-theoretical to say that, at the end of the story, there could be attached to the grant of permission conditions of such a nature as to make the working virtually impossible. The remedy is clear. It is always open to a mineral undertaker who is dissatisfied with conditions imposed by the local planning authority on his working to appeal to the Secretary of State, and I feel that the Secretary of State may be trusted to ensure that only necessary conditions consistent with good planning and local conditions will be imposed. At present, and for a very long period to come, it is very unlikely that any Minister of the Crown, with the economic condition of the country in his mind, would dream of upholding conditions of such a nature as would make the working virtually impossible. Whilst I absolutely agree that reasonableness, from the point of view of the mineral undertaker, is a matter which must be borne in mind, it is not the whole story. For the reasons I have tried to give to your Lordships I ask that the Amendment be not pressed.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (4) In any case where compensation under this Part of this Act is not payable in respect of the refusal of planning permission for any development of any land and the reason or one of the reasons stated for such refusal is that the proposed development would be premature by reference to either or both of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of the preceding subsection and in consequence of a subsequent amendment of the development plan of the area in which the land is situated the proposed development would be contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of the said development plan as amended compensation shall be payable under this Act as if planning permission in respect of the development was refused on the date when the amended plan was approved by the Secretary of State.

The noble Duke said: The intention of this Amendment is to secure that where planning permission has been refused, on the ground that a development is premature, and subsequently such development is ruled out by reason of the amendment of a development plan for the area, compensation shall be paid. In terms of Section 4 of the 1947 Act an obligation is placed upon the local planning authority to carry out a survey of their area and to submit to the Secretary of State a report of the survey, together with the proposals and any alterations or additions to the plan which may appear necessary. In other words, the development plan is to be reviewed and brought up to date. It is understood that the clause as drafted will not preclude the making of fresh applications for planning permission after the five-yearly amendment of a development plan. If an application were again to be refused, it is understood that this would be treated as refusal of planning permission on grounds different from the refusal of the previous application, and compensation would accordingly be paid. I am not sure that the clause as drafted makes clear that this will be the position. A premature application for planning permission, though consistent with zoning proposals in the development plan, may be ruled out. It should be noted that a development plan zones various areas for development for various purposes. A change of planning policy may well result in a change of zoning of areas under the plan. This is another reason for the Amendment, so that, where development is frustrated by change of development policy, compensation should be payable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 15, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to support this Amendment. It will be noted that its wording follows almost exactly the words of the title of the clause. I do not like those words. I do not like the words "if comparable development be permitted." Any two things can be compared; a mouse can be compared with an elephant. What is really meant is, I think, roughly equivalent development; but as the word "comparable" is used in the title of the clause, we have, I feel rightly, adopted it in the Amendment proposed. One does not want a man who applies for development for, say, dwelling-houses to be offered development for a factory site in a place where no factory is likely to be required. That would not be a reasonably comparable or roughly equivalent development, and that is the kind of thing my noble friend has in mind in moving this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

With all respect to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, it would probably be more convenient if I gave the answer on the point on which he has just made these interesting observations when we come to Amendment Number 39, which deals with the question of reasonably comparable development.

LORD SALTOUN

I beg the noble and learned Viscount's pardon; I thought we were dealing with that Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

At the moment we are dealing with the rather different point which my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch has developed in Amendment Number 35. I hope that I may reassure my noble friend on the point he has raised. My noble friend had in mind a situation where planning permission has been refused and compensation is excluded under Clause 21, subsection (3), because the development applied for is premature in relation to the staging of the plan or the then existing deficiency in the provision of public services, and where a change in the development plan makes the development originally proposed not premature but entirely inconsistent with the provisions of the plan. My noble friend, being conscious of the difficulty (which he developed in the later part of his speech), proposes by this Amendment, that in such a case compensation should be paid automatically, where it is otherwise payable, by providing that the planning permission is to be deemed to have been refused absolutely as from the date when the Secretary of State approves the amended plan.

I appreciate the fear that is in my noble friend's mind, but I do not think that that fear has any foundation in fact I am sure your Lordships would take the view that where a development plan is so amended, it may be appropriate to pay compensation in respect of a refusal previously based on prematurity. There is no difference between the noble Duke and myself on that point. As I say, it may be appropriate to pay. But on the point that was worrying my noble friend, the mere amendment of the plan is not a sufficient test of the right to compensation, because the proposals in the development plan are nothing more than a background guide to the main character of the development acceptable in any zone or area. They are not conclusive evidence of whether or not any particular development in any particular location may appropriately be permitted. To determine that fact a separate planning application needs to be submitted and considered on its merits.

In the view of the Government, the contingency envisaged by my noble friend can readily and properly be met by the submission of a fresh application for planning permission. If a refusal results on grounds carrying a right to compensation, compensation will be payable. I think, as I say, from my noble friend's speech, that that was really the point that was worrying him: he was in doubt as to whether the compensation would still inure for the benefit of the person that his Amendment is designed to cover. As the Government understand the position, and as I understand the position, it would so inure, and the doubt as to the position which is expressed in the speech is one which has no foundation. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will consider this as not asking your Lordships to reject or asking my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment, but as a genuine expression of the fact that in the Government's opinion there are no grounds for the fear he expresses, and that the Amendment is unnecessary.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Arising out of the noble and learned Viscount's reply, may I put a concrete case to him which, to me at least, seems hardly covered by the reply? Suppose a landowner applies for planning permission for some ground which is at that time of a purely rural character for building houses or factories and that the local planning authority refuse to give permission on the ground that the proposed development is premature. Then suppose that, before sufficient time has elapsed to permit a second application to be made, the planning authority declare the land in question to be a green belt. In such a case it would not be possible for the owner to make a new application, because it would be quite useless, but would his interests be safeguarded?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I understand the matter, they certainly would. On these matters I always like to be absolutely certain. I have given your Lordships my own opinion, which I have no reason to doubt, but I would tell my noble friend at once that I will consider his specific case again and write to him upon it. I do not anticipate having to change my view, but I will make absolutely certain that my view is right.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for his assurance, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (6), after "land," where that word first occurs, to insert: or in respect of the winning and working of minerals thereunder.

The noble Duke said: I do not think it is necessarily clear whether subsection (6) applies to the winning and working of minerals. The Amendment proposes that specific reference should be made to the winning and working of minerals so as to make it clear that if permission is refused to work part of a mineral field, compensation can be claimed. Although "development," as defined by Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, includes mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, it would assist those who have to try to understand this Bill if minerals were specifically referred to.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 28, after ("land") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Here again, I can give my noble friend the assurance that his fears are groundless. The Amendment, as my noble friend has said, is designed to put beyond doubt the fact that subsection (6) will apply in a case where the development concerned is mineral development. If I may take the definitions by stages, "planning permission" is defined in the principal Act in Section 113 (1), as meaning the permission for development of land required by Section 10 of the principal Act. Then, as my noble friend pointed out, Section 10 itself defines "development" as including, among other things, mining operations in or under land. Mining operations in or under land include the winning and working of minerals. Consequently it follows that the planning decisions mentioned in subsection (6) will automatically include decisions relating to the winning and working of minerals. In fact, mineral working cases are one of the types which it is expected will most commonly be benefited by the provisions of Clause 21 (6). I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance and that his doubts will be allayed.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I accept the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I think a very similar Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the Committee stage of the English Bill last week and was thoroughly explained by him, and that an assurance was given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I would ask if a similar assurance can be given that the point is safeguarded. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 29,line 31, at end insert— ("(7) Nothing in this section shall derogate from the operation of any enactment whereby provision is made for the payment of compensation in respect of minerals left unworked for the purpose of affording support for the sewers water mains or other works of any local authority or statutory undertaker.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very pleased to give the assurance for which my noble friend has asked, and if I occupy too much of your Lordships' time it is only that I want the assurance to be in the clearest terms. I shall be only a moment or two in mentioning the point. The Amendment is put forward, as my noble friend explained, for the avoidance of doubt, and the other enactments which are mentioned are, I presume, those collectively referred to as the mining code, which makes provision for compensation at full market value for minerals which a mineral undertaker has full authority, including permission, to work and which are sterilised by direction of a statutory undertaker or a similar body having powers of compulsory purchase which owns the surface of the mine and considers the workings of minerals beneath will injure its undertaking.

There can be no overlapping of these provisions with the provisions of Clause 21, and no derogation of rights under these enactments. If a planning permission stipulates that a developer may not work a certain part of the area of application, he will be able to claim compensation under Clause 21 (6). No question of mining code compensation in respect of such sterilised land can arise, as the developer has no planning permission to work it. It therefore can constitute no danger to the undertaker. If, on the other hand, planning permission has been granted for an area, and the appropriate authority sterilises part of the area under the mining code provisions, then the right to compensation under the code is effective. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for occupying a little more time, but I was anxious that my noble friend should have this assurance perfectly clear; therefore I have endeavoured to cover the ground.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Again I express my thanks, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

No Compensation if other comparable development permitted

22.—(1) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of a planning decision, whereby planning permission is refused for the development of land, if, notwithstanding that refusal, there is available with respect to that land planning permission for development to which this section applies: Provided that where such permission is available with respect to part only of the land, this section shall have effect only in so far as the interest subsists in that part.

5.3 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "development to which this section applies," and to insert, "some reasonably comparable development:". The noble Duke said: This and the next two Amendments go very much together, and I would ask whether I might discuss them at the same time. Their purpose is to remove an objection for which there appears to be no justification unless it be to limit the number of successful claims for compensation. The effect of the clause appears to be to deny compensation for the refusal of planning permission for a development of the kind specified in Clause 22 (3), if the Secretary of State undertakes, before refusing, to grant permission for some other development falling within subsection (3).

Thus a man who applies to build a house may be told that he can build something else—a factory, perhaps—or vice versa, with the result that he will be denied compensation for refusal of planning permission to build a house. It may well be that the applicant has neither the desire nor the resources to embark upon the alternative development for which he is told that permission would be granted, and there may, in fact, be no demand in the neighbourhood for this alternative development. Nevertheless, under the clause, he will have lost the right to compensation. This is a provision which might give rise to hardship, and the purpose of the Amendments is to see that compensation will still be payable unless the alternative permissible development will result in a substantially equivalent beneficial use to the applicant. On the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons the Government attempted to meet the situation and to improve upon the clause as at first drafted, but we are very uncertain about this matter and we consider that it is still open to objection. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 38, leave out from ("for") to end of line 39 and insert ("some reasonably comparable development").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

An objection to this Amendment, I believe, is the possibility of a man applying for the maximum development of the land and, on refusal, obtaining development compensation when he had no intention of carrying out the development at all. I believe that that is the sort of argument which might be used against this Amendment. It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that the local authority can always get out of that difficulty by granting the man permission for comparable development. If a man, for example, asks for permission to put up a £200,000 factory, he could be told: "You cannot have permission for that, but you can put up a £200,000 multi-storey garage," or something of that sort, which he equally does not want to put up. So, as far as I can see, everyone can play the same game. I think the Amendment helps in cases of hardship that might arise. For that reason I should like to support my noble friend.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is an example of the very difficult task of applying the principle that private interest must sometimes give way to public interest, and that although an owner is entitled to make reasonable use of his land, he is not always entitled to exploit it to the maximum. The general effect of the clause is that if an owner is given permission for development within the range specified in subsection (3) of the clause, he is not to be entitled to compensation because some other development would have been more valuable. Your Lordships will appreciate that the specified range in subsection (3) is limited to those forms of development which, on a suitable site, are likely to show a reasonably high return on the land in any part of the country. It is not suggested that the values attributable to these different types of development are