HC Deb 25 July 1919 vol 118 cc1718-26

(1) Where land included in any schema made under Part I. or Part II. of the principal Act (other than land included in such a scheme only for the purpose of making the scheme efficient and not on account of the sanitary condition of the premises thereon or of those premises being dangerous or prejudicial to health) is acquired compulsorily, the compensation to be paid for the land, including any premises thereon which are in an insanitary condition or are dangerous or prejudicial to health as aforesaid, shall be the value at the time when the valuation is made of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development in accordance with the building regulations for the time being in force in the district:

Provided that if the scheme requires that provision shall be made for the rehousing of persons of the working classes on the land or part thereof when cleared, the compensation payable to all persons interested in any land included in the scheme (other than us aforesaid), including any premises thereon which are in an insanitary condition or are dangerous or prejudicial to health as aforesaid, for their respective interests in such land or premises, shall be reduced by an amount ascertained in accordance with the rules set forth in the First Schedule to this Act.

(3) Where land included under any scheme made under Part III. of the principal Act is acquired compulsorily the compensation shall be the value at the time when the valuation is made of the land as a site for houses for the working classes erected in accordance with the scheme prepared by the local authority and approved by the Board under Section one of this Act.

Mr MUNRO

I bog to move, in Subsection (1),after the word ''cleared" ["when cleared"], to insert the words or that the land, or part thereof, when cleared shall be laid out as an open space. As the proviso stands, the compensation payable for slum property is to be subject to reduction if the land, or part of it, is to be used for re-housing. The effect of the Amendment is to bring about the same result if the land, or part of it, is to be used as an open space. That brings the Clause into conformity with a similar Clause in the English Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) proposed during the Committee stage to amend the Schedule to this effect. I assured him that that would not effect his purpose, but I promised that on. the He-port stage I would see that this Clause was amended, in order to give effect to his wish. This Amendment has been put down for that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JAMESON

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert in-stead thereof the words (3) Where any land is included in an area in respect of which the Board under the provisions of Section fifty-four, Sub-section (2), of the Housing, Town planning, etc., Act, 1909, have authorised the local authority to prepare a town-planning scheme, or is included in an area in respect of which the local authority under the provisions of Section thirty-three of this Act have resolved to prepare a town-planning scheme, and such land is required for the purposes of a housing scheme prepared by the local authority and approved by the Board under Section one of this Act, the restricted use to which such land can be put under the housing scheme shall be taken into account in fixing the compensation to the owner in respect of the compulsory taking of such land for the purposes of the scheme, provided that for the purposes of this Section land shall not include buildings. The object of the Clause was to preserve to the local authorities the powers they already possess under the Town Planning Act, 1909, of placing restrictions upon the use of land without those restrictions being regarded as the subject of compensation to the landowner. Since that Clause was inserted, the hon. Members concerned have consulted the leading local authorities of Scotland, and in agreement with them we have come to the conclusion that the present Amendment embodies more accurately and fully the object we have in view; besides that, it obviates a good many of the objections raised, and I earnestly recommend the Amendment as it stands to the attention of the House. In the case of the local authorities, this Amendment will profoundly affect the finance of this scheme. The object of the Amendment is, generally speaking, to reserve to the local authorities the power they have under the 1909 Act of placing building restrictions upon land without them being regarded as a subject of compensation. Under the 1909 Act it is provided that property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provision in a town-planning scheme which, with a view to securing the amenity of the scheme, prescribes or limits the number of buildings or prescribes the height or character of those buildings. Accordingly, the House will see that these important powers are already in possession of the local authority for putting restrictions upon a town-planning area.

Supposing the local authority has a town-planning area subject to those building restrictions, and that local authority has to go along with a housing scheme under the present Act, it may be contemplated by the local authorities that the area of the town-planning scheme and the housing scheme will probably be the same—that is to say that both will be upon land running along tramway and train routes with general facilities for transport. Accordingly, you may really regard a housing scheme as a sort of smaller town-planning area which will undoubtedly be embraced in what is at present or in the future will certainly be a town-planning area. The town-planning area is already subject to very important building restrictions regarding the type of the buildings, the amount of houses to be put to the acre of land, and all this sort of restriction. Along comes the housing scheme, and the land has not only to be subject to restrictions, but it has to be bought out-and-out by the local authority. Under the Bill as it stands at present the fear of the local authorities is that the arbiter who assesses the compensation in default of agreement will not have in view the building restrictions to which the ground is subject, but he will give the full unrestricted market value to the owner of the ground. That will, so to speak, nullify the power that the local authority has had under the 1909 Act of imposing building restrictions without those restrictions being regarded as a subject for compensation. This Amendment meets that objection, and obviates the local authorities' fear of that danger.

The House will note that this Amendment only relates to land which is already the subject of a town-planning scheme under the Act of 1909. It is only then that the arbiter has to have regard to the restrictions of the housing scheme. The housing scheme, of course, then takes the place of the town-planning scheme, because it is a concrete scheme, the actual scheme that is to be put into force, and naturally then it is the restrictions of the housing scheme to which the arbiter's mind will have to be directed. Accordingly, I recommend this very strongly to the House. Its intention is not, and I do not think its effect would be, to extend further the right of the local authority to put restrictions upon land without paying for them, or to take over land without paying the lull value. Its real object is to preserve what one may call the legislative status quo under the 1909 Act, and allow a local authority to place building restrictions upon land, and then have the land, so to speak, fettered and bound by those restrictions which it considers to meet the general needs of the people—their building needs and sanitary needs. The land would be taken over under these conditions, which would be regarded as the general conditions under which the land is to be bought and sold. It must not be bought and sold at less than the market value, namely, the tenement value or the factory value. If that is the case, the local authorities are at once faced with the situation that they would be buying at an unrestricted general market value, and when they take over their asset, the land in question, it at once shrinks to a restricted value, and perhaps they may lose 50 per cent. or even 75 per cent. of their money. This Amendment preserves to them the right which they have under the principal Act of placing building restrictions on the land without their being a subject for compensation. I accordingly recommend the Amendment to the House as meeting the justice of the case.

Mr. G. MURRAY

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to say a few words on this matter, as my name stood at the head of those who moved the original Amendment in the Scottish Grand Committee. On that occasion particular exception was taken to the original Sub- section. If I remember rightly it was urged that there was a great deal of land on the outskirts of cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh which was available or could be made available for industrial development. It was urged that if that Sub-section were passed the whole of this land could be treated for the purposes of building only, and could be valued for the purposes of building only, so that there would be a detrimental effect on industrial development; and that, whilst it was important to promote housing on the outskirts of cities, it was just as important to promote industrial development. In moving that Amendment we had in our minds that there was a considerable amount of land on the outskirt of these cities which could be utilised for housing purposes, without interfering with industrial purposes at all, and it was with that object that the original Sub-section was placed in the Bill. A further exception taken to it was that "land" might include buildings. In the amending Sub-section which is now moved that point is provided for and it is definitely stated that "land" shall not include buildings. Therefore, it would not be possible, as some hon. Members suggested, to go into Princes Street or Buchanan Street and say that the land, including buildings, should be valued at a price which it was worth purely for building purposes. If this Amendment as it stood precluded any liberty to the owner of land on the outskirts of a city or in a, city to raise the point on arbitration that the land was valuable and could be made available for industrial development, I should be the last to be associated with it. But that is not precluded; it can be done; and it is important, in increasing the number of houses for the people of these cities, that land should be made available on the outskirts at a fair and reasonable rate, and at a rate which makes it possible to let the houses at fair rentals. I believe that under the Amendment all the rights of the landowners on the outskirts of the cities are fairly safeguarded and preserved. I think it is very important, from the point of view of Glasgow and Edinburgh and other such cities, where there are large congested populations, to assure the people of those cities that this House does realise the necessity of obtaining land at reasonable rates, and that the House will insist that land shall be procured at reasonable rates. I therefore, in seconding this Amendment, desire to impress upon the House the importance of not allowing this subject to go by the board, or only to remain in the position in which it at present stands in the Bill.

Sir D. MACLEAN

One might judge from the speeches of my hon. Friends in support of this Amendment, or from a great part of them, that it was an effort on their part to see that less compensation was paid to the owners of the land. Their real purpose, however, is to give a legislative direction to those who are going to assess the value for compulsory taking of the land that they shall pay more. That is the real object. A net of that kind which is spread in so obvious a manner in the sight of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is not at all likely to attract him. What are the powers which will shortly be in existence for dealing with this matter in a Bill which, I suppose, will soon get on the Statute Book, and which applies specifically to the very operation towards which this Amendment is directed? These new valuers are to pay the full market value. We know the struggle that we had over that question. The English Bill has gone through both Houses of Parliament and will shortly be on the Statute Book. No suggestion of this kind appears in that measure, and that my hon. Friends should introduce this Amendment in face of what has happened in regard to the English Bill, and the Debates on this Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, seems to me a very grave thing to do. That they should have the audacity or bravery to put forward this proposal at this time of day certainly gives me a great deal of reason to think that my capacity for understanding reasons and arguments must be strangely limited on a Friday afternoon.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison)

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment, because I think he was wrong in saying that it profoundly affected the foundations of the scheme. This Amendment deals only with the amount of the compensation which is to be paid for land used in connection with the housing scheme, and it applies, as its words show, to a very limited class of case. The operative part of the Amendment is in the concluding words in which it is directed that restricting the use to which land can be put under the housing scheme shall be taken into account in fixing the compensation to the owners. My hon. and learned Friend was quite right in saying that under the Housing and Town Planning Act a more limited scale of compensation is provided in certain cases where a proprietor's property is taken for the purposes of the town-planning scheme, but under the Town Planning Act that compensation is directed to be paid only in certain cases and under safeguards. The hon. Member for Glasgow, I think, mentioned that safeguards were required. Under the Housing and Town Planning Act safeguards are provided. The proprietor has the right to object, first of all, to his land being included in the scheme at all, and he has a further right of saying that his land ought to be applied to a different purpose from that which the local authority proposes. The effect of this Amendment is really to abolish these safeguards altogether. The proprietor will not be heard, if this Amendment is carried, and he will have no opportunity, so far as I can see, of laying his case before the Local Government Board. I think that is a very serious objection to this Amendment. A further proposal which is involved in this Amendment is to give that proprietor only the scale of compensation which is provided under this Statute to the owners of slum property. I quite agree with the policy of this Bill in so far as it says that those who have allowed their property to get into an insanitary condition should not get the same scale of compensation as those whose property has been kept up, and the Bill very properly proposes to penalise that particular class of proprietor; but the effect of this Amendment is to put the owner of property which a local authority takes for town planning under exactly that same scale of compensation. That, it seems to me, is a quite indefensible proposal. The proprietor of property included in a town-planning scheme is entitled to get the same rate of reasonable compensation as his neighbour has got whose property is not included in a town-planning scheme but may be useful for the housing scheme. In short, this particular Amendment introduces a class of compensation for a particular species of proprietor which I venture to submit this House should not countenance at all. If the schemes really are to be successful they ought to provide fair compensation to all proprietors, and they should treat all proprietors alike where the conditions are the same. Why should a proprietor's compensation depend upon whether a particular authority's resolution for a town-planning scheme is carried or not? The moment you introduce considerations of that kind into the assessment of compensation, and leave what is the real question in compensation, namely, to pay fair value for such value as is taken, the supporters of this Bill would, it seems to me, get into a difficulty. With these considerations in mind, I respectfully suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. MACKINDER

As I was one of those who voted for this Sub-section, which it is now proposed to displace by the new Sub-section proposed, I would like just to say that I think we went a bit too far on that occasion, and I am inclined to think that the objections to this Clause put by the Solicitor-General have considerable substance. But it does appear to me that there is a real case which my Friends are aiming at, both in regard to the Amendment which was inserted in the Bill in Committee, and which the Government now propose to omit, and also in regard to this new Sub-section which my hon. Friends are moving. We have got to sec to it that in the building of houses on the outskirts of our great cities we do not put up buildings which will allow such a density of population as to become potential slums. Whatever may be their condition now, on the edge of the country, as they are absorbed into the inhabited area in the future, they will on account of their density of population tend to degenerate into slums. I know that under this Bill, and under the previous Act, the planning scheme will not permit of more than a certain density of population, and therefore the town councils feel that they ought not to have to pay for land at a price which postulates that you are going to put the maximum population possible on that land. That is the grievance of these town councils. The real remedy would be that we should have a general building regulation providing for not lore than a certain density of population in housing, except under the special circumstances provided. If you could have some such general regulation as that, the position would be that just as at the present time the value of land is limited by building regulations so the value of all land, and not merely the particular land scheduled, would be limited by this new regulation, and, I venture to say, would be rightly limited, inasmuch as it would be contrary to public policy that the land should be utilised in this way. What would be the effect of that? It would be that you would not then touch the land which would be utilised for industrial purposes. You would simply be dealing with land which was suitable land for building under purposes contempated by this Bill. I do really wish to urge that, because I know the matter is exercising the minds of many men in the town councils both of Edinburgh and Glasgow, it is a real point, which is not met by this Bill. I think that in attempting to meet it we went too far in the Amendment we moved in Committee, and I am inclined to think that the objections to the Amendment now before the House which have been urged by the Solicitor-General are good, but they still leave the original position untouched, and until it is somehow met there will be a grievance on the part of the authorities.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived."