HC Deb 15 July 1930 vol 241 cc1123-6
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert the words: (3) In the case of any building included in a clearance order consisting wholly of dwelling-houses or other premises which are specified in the order as injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the bad arrangement of the streets, the local authority shall, if required by the owner of the building at any time within three months after the date of the order becoming operative, purchase the building and any land attached thereto, the price payable by the local authority being a sum equal to the compensation which would have been paid by the authority had the said building and land been compulsorily purchased by the authority under a compulsory purchase order under this Part of this Act and had the said building been specified in the order as injurious or dangerous to health. 4.0 p.m.

This Amendment covers a point which was adequately discussed on the Committee stage. I think it was put by the late Lord Advocate that it would be unfair if a proprietor of a dwelling-house in a slum clearance area was compelled to demolish his building, and if all that was wrong with the building was due, not to anything in the building itself, but to the bad arrangement of the streets or to the neighbouring property. This Amendment gives power to the local authority to purchase that property, and to give the proprietor site value for the property. That, I think, meets the difficulty raised by the late Lord Advocate in Committee, but since we have tabled this Amendment to ensure that the proprietor will at least get site value, I observe that the Opposition have put down an Amendment to it to provide that the value shall be market value. That is an Amendment which we could not possibly accept. To begin with, this covers a very narrow point. There are very few properties which are bad solely because of the bad arrangement of the streets. We do not deny that there may be some, but they are very few. If there be such properties, their value has been fixed by the fact that they were in this bad area, and if they were bought by the present proprietor, they would have been bought at site value and not market value, and it is obvious that it would be unfair now, at the public expense, to give market value to the proprietor who had purchased this property in a bad area; in other words, to give him a value which he himself had not put upon the property when he purchased it.

Since 1919, such property as that with which we are dealing in this Amendment, has been taken as bad property, and worth only site value, and as all the intervening Housing Acts which have dealt with this matter since 1919 have declared that only site value at best should be paid for such property, the present Government are not prepared to advise the Committee to go further, and to give the market value of the property. I repeat, there are very few such cases, but, if there be such cases, the value of the property now is determined by the circumstances in which it exists. The proprietor has bought his property on that basis, and we say it is grossly unfair that at the public expense the proprietor of such property should now have, under the terms of this Bill, an added value accruing to it. We, therefore, think that in this Amendment we have met the general sense of the Committee voiced by the late Lord Advocate. We are ensuring that such a proprietor shall have site value for his property, but we do not think that he ought to have an added value.

Mr. MacROBERT

The Government certainly have gone some way to meet us on this point. I understand that if it is merely a case of the bad arrangement of the streets, the property has to be purchased if the owner desires it. Then the question arises, Upon what basis is the compensation to be fixed? If I understand the subsequent Amendment of the Government, where premises are built after the passing of this Bill, the market value will be given, but, as regards all existing houses, they will get site value. I am bound to say that I follow the Under-Secretary's argument with regard to houses which have been purchased after 1919. They were bought in the knowledge that these houses were looked upon with disfavour by the Legislature, and certainly with regard to that class of case, I admit the force of the Under-Secretary's argument. On the other hand, you are going to do a great injustice to those people who are not buying and selling property, but who have had their own houses, probably for 20 or 30 years. After all, it is quite a different class of case where a house is unfit for human habitation by reason of the narrowness of the streets, and not by reason of any defect in the house itself. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will be able to meet us the whole way in this particular matter.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I rise to support the Government Amendment. I think that in this case they have met us very fairly. They gave a pledge in Committee to recommit the Bill in respect of this point, which was discussed at very great length, and, therefore, it will not be necessary for me to discuss it here and now. It is quite clear that the proper value to be placed upon a building of this kind is the valuation which is ordinarily given to it. Environment is one of the leading factors in determining the value, and the Under-Secretary has taken, in my judgment, the right view of the value to be given. It is quite clear that when property of that kind was purchased, certainly within the last 10 years, it was purchased with the knowledge of impending legislation, and also with a complete knowledge of the environment. Accordingly, I shall support the Government in their Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.