HC Deb 04 October 1944 vol 403 cc1039-50
Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out "replacements," and to insert: re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space. This is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wilmot

I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, at end, insert: or for providing accommodation for persons displaced or to be displaced from land acquired or to be acquired for any of the purposes aforesaid. This Clause deals with the provision of land for highway purposes, and, although later in the Bill an obligation is laid upon the authority, quite properly, to provide alternative accommodation for people displaced by the construction of these highways, there does not appear to be any power to acquire the necessary land to provide the accommodation, residential or business, for the people displaced. The purpose of the Amendment is to fill that gap and to enable the authority to acquire not only the land for the highway, but also the land for accommodating people who have been displaced.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I appreciate the object which the hon. Member has at heart in moving the Amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary or, indeed, desirable. My first reason is that the natural place for the alternative accommodation for persons displaced by highway construction would be on the frontage land of the new or widened highway, and the Clause as drafted enables the highway authority to acquire land for that purpose. The second reason is that, if we are to provide accommodation elsewhere, the right authority to apply to would seem to be the local planning authority and the natural place for that provision would be in the overspill area. I should like a matter of this sort to be done by the planning authorities. If people have to be moved off the frontage they ought to go into the overspill area, and for that reason we ought to let the Bill stand as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. Lamb

I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, at the end, to insert: or for the purpose of giving in exchange for land forming part of any common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment required for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section. The position is that under Clause 12 a highway authority may have to provide accommodation and to acquire land. If the land is part of a common or an open space or an allotment they have to acquire Parliamentary powers to enable them to get the land unless they can give land to replace that which they are taking away. We want powers so that they may purchase extra land for the purpose of making replacements where necessary. If they do not have this power, the consequence may be one which, I am sure, every member of this Committee would not like—we may be reducing the amount of open space or common land or allotments.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I think that the whole Committee, irrespective of the side on which hon. Members sit, will agree that the purpose of the Amendment is a reasonable one. We want to give the power for which my hon. Friend is asking, but it may be necessary to frame his Amendment in a little wider terms. If he will withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake to consider it further and to put down an appropriate Amendment at a later stage.

Sir J. Lamb

I appreciate the circumstances, and I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the principle of the Amendment, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Pickthorn

I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out "be authorised."

My assumption was that this matter had been settled on Clause 2. I still think that the language I endeavoured to insert would really have been more accurate, both from the literary and legal points of view.

The Attorney-General

This is a slightly different point. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view, but we really put in this phrase, which might be thought a little clumsy, in order to save adding to the Schedule. All the working is based on normal procedure by which a local authority is authorised by the Minister, but in this case it is absurd to enable the Minister to authorise himself and bring in the same procedure, and in order to avoid adding a lot of words to the Schedule we use the words to which my hon. Friend objects. As to the Minister authorising himself, again I think one can say that it is ungrammatical or badly worded, but it does, what is always desirable, slightly simplify the Bill, and grammatical purity might lead to trouble in other directions.

Mr. Pickthorn

There is something more than grammatical purity; there is the question of essential illogicality, whether the Minister is to make Orders and, in other conditions, the local authorities are to make Orders, though they have no legal power to make Orders. And yet here we say that the Minister may be authorised. Whether it is grammatical, pernickety, or academic, we have been talking about the inalienable rights of the National Trust, but surely, the most inalienable right of all is the use of words to mean what they meant previously. There has been a sort of open conspiracy to make the words mean something different from what they really mean.

The Attorney-General

I do not agree.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, to leave out "Where", and to insert: "Except in a case in which."

Mr. Wilmot

On a point of Order, Mr. Williams, I understood you to say that you would call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and that of myself—in page 6, line 29, at end, insert: or for providing accommodation for persons displaced or to be displaced from land acquired or to be acquired for any of the purposes aforesaid.

The Deputy-Chairman

No. That Amendment was practically the same as another Amendment, but if there is a point here the hon. Member can raise it on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Wilmot

I suggest, with respect, that it is a little different.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Morrison

The Amendment which I have just moved is really consequential and drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 40, leave out from "1936," to the end of line 46.

In page 7, line 2, after "Act," insert "to be published."

In line 3, leave out "by Gazette and local advertisement."

In line 9, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 16.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. Hugh Lawson

I beg to move, in page 71, line 29, leave out Sub-section (5).

My objection to Sub-section (5) is that it prevents a local authority from acquiring land for the purpose of controlling development alongside highways in cases where the owner of the land has entered, or is willing to enter, into agreements which are suitable for the purpose of controlling the development alongside the highway. What would be the effect of that? If a new highway is going to be made, the highway authority is only to be able to acquire the actual area of land on which the highway itself is to be made, and the land on either side will remain in the ownership of the previous owners. Now, though we agree that they will have to enter into restrictions in regard to development, surely that development may include buildings, either as an estate or laid out in factories. So it would seem to me that in the case of open country across which a new highway is made, while the highway authority can only buy the actual area of the highway, yet be cause the highway has been put there, the land on either side is developed and therefore increases in value, and the value which comes to that land as a result of the expenditure of public money, cannot in any way be offset against the public expenditure. Surely a highway authority should be empowered to buy land on each side of the highway?

Therefore I think that as this Subsection prevents that, it should be struck out. That is my main objection; there is another slighter one. It refers to the owner who is willing, but what is going to happen in the case of an owner who maintains that he is willing at the beginning but later on is not so willing, and, in fact, does not enter into an agreement? It means that then an order has to be made, and that would lead to quite a lot of delay. Finally, this Sub-section reveals a big difference of attitude towards the ownership of land. Some people regard the public ownership of land as a necessary evil which should only be undertaken under very extreme and special circumstances. On the other hand, I regard the public ownership of land as something desirable, a practice which should be extended, and therefore in any matter of doubt I think the doubt should be given to the public and not to private interests. This Sub-section gives the doubt to private interests, and I think it should be struck out.

Mr. Quintin Hoĥg (Oxford)

Perhaps before nay right hon. Friend replies, he would be prepared to defend this Clause against the charge of extreme illiteracy. What does it mean? Let us look at the word "he" in line 32. To which gentleman does it refer—to the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Minister of War Transport? Does it mean the one or the other as the case may be? How can a court construe a Clause which is drafted like this? Supposing it means the Minister of War Transport, how can he both propose to make an order and yet not make one? Is it to be supposed that he enters into a soliloquy with himself? The truth of the matter is that the Attorney-General has been defending illiteracy after illiteracy in this Bill, on the ground that it really is too much trouble to put it right. I think that for the sake of clarity it would be very much better if they got somebody to draw up this Bill who understood the English language. The English language is a very beautiful possession, and I do not see why we should be given a jumble of meaningless phrases simply because some other illiterate draftsman in the past has done exactly the same thing before.

Mr. Moelwyn Hug;hes

I desire to support the rejection of this Sub-section, not only on grounds of policy and unintelligibility, but because the Subsection makes nonsense of a large part of Sub-section (1) of the same Clause. Sub-section (1) deals with the condition that the construction or improvement of a road is needed. Once that condition is satisfied, the Minister then extends power to the highway authority to purchase compulsorily any land as to which he is satisfied that its acquisition by the authority is requisite for carrying out the improvement or controlling the development of frontages to the road: That is, Sub-section (1) gives directly the power, once the road plan is accepted, for the authority to purchase land for the purpose of controlling the development of frontages. That, one knows perfectly well, is ofttimes the only method by which proper planning can be achieved and by which the authority may be recouped for the money it has expended. That is the definite provision of Subsection (1). Sub-section (5) says that where there is submitted to the Minister an order under this Section authorising the compulsory purchase of any land forming a frontage to a road, and he is satisfied—whoever "he" may be—as respects the whole or any part of the land that the purchase would be requisite only for the purpose of controlling development, then he is not to approve the order. What possible purpose can there be in saying in Sub-section (1), "You shall have the power to acquire land for a number of purposes, one of which is for the purpose of controlling the development of land alongside it" and then saying in this Sub-section we are now considering that if it is only for the purpose of controlling development, the order shall not be confirmed?

5.0 p.m.

I add that to the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg) as a good reason for rejecting this Sub-section, but I would add another to which perhaps he would not be ready to agree. What is the object of this? It is a specific provision to exclude the acquisition of land acquired for the purpose of controlling development. If a road has been built, and there is a prospect, by development in accordance with the plan, of getting a profit, there will be no lack of persons to come forward and claim the right to do it.

There will be no trouble. Those who are concerned with development will be only too glad to seize the opportunity, and if that opportunity is seized the highway authority is not to have an order to acquire the land. It is tantamount to saying that any such possibility of acquisition by the authority shall only be in cases where no possibility of profit will inure. On those grounds I support the rejection of this Sub-section.

Mr. Silkin

While I shall be very interested to hear the reply of the Minister to the charge of illiteracy in this Subsection I think I can just make out what it means. As I understand it, where the highway authority can secure what it wants without buying the land, and can secure it in a satisfactory manner, then it should not be compelled to buy the land. I am in favour of the nationalisation of the land; I am not so much in favour of piecemeal acquisition. There are bits of land which are not wanted for any specific purpose and this Sub-section is inserted in order that local authorities should not be compelled to acquire land where they can achieve the purpose in some other manner. While the Minister may have to look at the wording again and translate it into correct English, nevertheless, with the sense of the Sub-section I am in perfect agreement.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

I would like shortly to defend the Subsection and to say that it is not illiterate and not difficult to understand. I do so not because I must always disagree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), because I heartily agree with him that the English language is a beautiful thing, although when used in Statutes it may not be at its best. It is suggested that nobody can ascertain what the word "he" refers to. Looking at it with a fresh mind, I conclude that "he" refers to the Minister and the Minister of War Transport if the Minister of War Transport has to bring his mind to bear on it. One or the other, as the case may be. I look at the last two lines and I see it says: … as to which the Minister or the Minister of War Transport, as the case may be, is satisfied as aforesaid, and I come to the conclusion that there is no difficulty in ascertaining what the word "he" means.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I think the Subsection would be clearer if, in line 30, after the words, "War Transport" the words, "as the case may be," were inserted, as they are inserted in the last line but one of the Sub-section. As to whether the omission of the words amounts to justifying the crime of illiteracy, that is a matter which I will leave to the good judgment of the Committee. I do not see why any section of the Committee should object to this Subsection. The effect is as has been stated by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). It is that if you can effect your purpose without purchasing land then you need not purchase it. Surely that is common sense. You can often control frontages in a proper way by means of covenants with the owner of the land. The National Trust enters into many such covenants from one year's end to another, and they are very effective. In the case of the Minister of War Transport and his peculiar responsibility for trunk roads if he can get owners of agricultural land in remote districts to agree not to develop land, and so spread ribbon development, why should he not do so instead of acquiring the agricultural land on either side of the road? I think that, on reflection, the Committee will agree that this Sub-section is entirely justified.

Mr. H. Lawson

I agree entirely with the point made by the Minister, that there is no special reason why a highway authority should be forced to acquire land but Sub-section (4) gives ample power if they so desire and can arrange to enter into covenants. Sub-section (4) makes the point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that the local authority shall be given power to enter into agreement and shall not be forced to acquire land they do not want.

Mr. Moelwyn Hug;hes

I am sorry, but the Minister's answer does not set out the exact position. Nobody is suggesting that in a case where a local authority can achieve its object without purchase it should not do so. But that is not the point. Sub-section (5) does not arise until the authority has made an order, an order desiring the acquisition of land alongside a road for the purposes of development. In other words, the position we are dealing with is not that of a local authority achieving its object without application to purchase land or control it but of a local authority which has decided that for purposes of development it requires to acquire adjacent land. Sub-section (5) says that an order made in the circumstances I have mentioned, where people will comply with the conditions of development, shall not be confirmed. We are dealing here with legislation to prevent them from acquiring land which they desire to acquire for the purposes of proper development alongside roads.

Sir J. Lamb

I have an Amendment down, Mr. Williams, dealing with the question of the purchase of land. I would like to know whether it will be called.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is no doubt referring to his Amendment in page 7, line 36, to leave out, "or is willing to enter." I am sorry, but it was my fault that in putting the Amendment to leave out the Sub-section I did not protect the hon. Member's Amendment as I should have done. He can raise the matter on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and, if his proposal is accepted by the Government, an Amendment can be put in in another place.

Major Thorneycroft (Stafford)

I would ask my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the wording of the Sub-section. He suggested that the words, "as the case may be," should be inserted after the words, "War Transport," in line 30, but if that was done the reading of the first part of the Sub-section would be this: Where there is submitted to the Minister, or the Minister of War Transport, as the case may be, proposes to make, an Order under this Section … The words originally meant practically nothing, but if the words, "as the case may be," are inserted the Sub-section will be absolutely meaningless.

Mr. Pickthorn

While my right hon. Friend is looking at this, I hope he will look at the word "abutting." The argument used before by the Attorney-General was that it was most important that where you mean the same thing, you should use the words you used on a previous occasion. Unfortunately he said the draftsmen said "may" when they did not mean "may," so we must now say "may" although we do not mean "may." Now, instead of adjacent or contiguous we have abutting or adjacent. I should like to know whether abutting here means the same as contiguous in Clause 1. It seems to me that the same words ought to be used here as in Clause I.

Sir J. Lamb

On a previous occasion my right hon. Friend undertook to see whether words that I proposed would not be more suitable than those that he was adopting. Perhaps he would do the same on this occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. John Wilmot

The Clause provides that the Minister of War Transport may in certain circumstances acquire land to improve or re-site a main trunk road. Here again it seems to me there is an omission of power to acquire land to accommodate persons displaced by putting a trunk road in another place. Residence and business premises may be displaced, and it would be inappropriate that the Minister of War Transport should be without powers to acquire the necessary land to reinstate those people. He will not necessarily want to reinstate them on new frontages. The main trunk road would possibly be better without them being reinstated on those frontages. Perhaps the Minister would consider between this and the next stage whether it would not be desirable to extend the powers of the Ministry of War Transport so that they can acquire not only the land to make the road but land to re-accommodate those who have been displaced.

Sir J. Lamb

The Clause contains the words "or is willing to enter." My proposal was to delete those words. An application for an Order to purchase land is subject to conditions (a) and (b), but there may be great delay as it stands at present because one of the conditions is that the owner may express a willingness to purchase. Supposing he withdraws that willingness—he has not given an undertaking—the local authority will be in great difficulty because the condition has not been complied with under which the Order was applied for. If the words "or willing to enter" were taken out, it would mean that there would have to be an agreement. If an agreement Was given and subsequently withdrawn, the authority might find great difficulty as to what the procedure would be.

5.15 p.m.

Captain Prescott

I was rather shocked when my right hon. Friend said that persons displaced as a result of the acquisition of land would be re-accommodated along the frontages of the highways. These highways are not going to be constructed necessarily in the area of extensive war damage, but in other parts of the borough.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

indicated dissent.

Captain Prescott

I was definitely under the impression that that was the observation my right hon. Friend made. If it is not his intention that these people should be accommodated on the frontages of the new highways, obviously they will have to be accommodated on some other land, and the question arises on what land he is going to make provision. I suggest that a good case can be made out in circumstances such as these for empowering a local authority to purchase land in order to erect houses for these people. I should like an assurance—it would ease my mind—that it is not his view that such people will necessarily be re-instated along the frontages of the new highways.

Mr. Morrison

My hon. and gallant Friend need have no fear that I am in favour of accommodating persons along main roads. Two types of highway authorities are in question. There are the highways in built-up areas, and on the other hand there are our great trunk roads and classified roads in open country and different considerations arise as between the two cases. In answer to the hon. Member opposite who raised the point of the accommodation of persons who had been displaced, Sub-section (2) deals with Ministry of War Transport roads and, if persons are displaced by that sort of operation, they should be accommodated by the planning authority, who have ample powers to put them in their proper place. I will consider again what he has said but I think there is no defect in the Bill. I will look at the words my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has suggested.

Mr. Silkin

There is an obligation cast on a local authority to provide accommodation for persons who have been displaced but, unless they can have the land to do it, the right hon. Gentleman is putting an obligation on them which they are not in a position to discharge. It may well be that they will have the land, in which case they will not come along and ask for an order compulsorily to acquire additional land. It is only in the case where they satisfy him that they cannot carry out this obligation without acquiring the additional land, and in such a case surely the right hon. Gentleman must give them the power. I hope he will look at it from that angle.

Captain Prescott

Is there any other provision in the Bill, apart from the Amendment, which would give my right hon. Friend that power?

Mr. Morrison

I think the general power to acquire land for what we call the overspill, especially when considered with the wider definition, would contain ample power. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member and I had better have a word about it and, if there is any doubt, we will put it right.

Mr. Douglas (Battersea, North)

The Minister has stated that the land required for replacement of persons dispossessed will be provided by the local planning authority, but the highway authority and the local planning authority are not necessarily the same authority. In a great many cases they may be different, and practical experience in handling these matters has shown that when it is desired to acquire land for purposes of street improvement, road widening and so on, it is advantageous for the acquiring authority to have the power to provide land for replacement of persons dispossessed. It is in many cases more convenient for the people who are displaced and it saves the acquiring authority additional costs of compensation. Experience has shown that it is a more economical procedure, and I would ask the Minister to look at it again.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.