CLAUSE 18.—(Obligation to purchase land on refusal of permission in certain cases.) (Hansard, 1 August 1947)

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out from "to," to "that," and to insert: the purpose for which the land is to be purchased. This is an attempt to improve upon the Minister's drafting. It raises no divergence of principle between us. The Clause of the Bill to which it relates is that covering the case where the owner of land is refused planning permission and the effect is to render his land incapable of reasonably beneficial use. He may in certain cases require the local authority to purchase the land. The Lords Amendment which I am seeking to amend says that one of the things the Minister can do is to secure that a local authority, other than the one which originally served the notice on the man, shall have power to take over the land. Perhaps I had better read the exact words. It says: If it appears to the Minister to be expedient so to do, he may, if he confirms the notice, modify it by substituting any other local authority for the council on whom the notice is served, and in any such case the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall have effect. … By the Amendment the Minister is directed, when he exercises this power, to have regard: …. to the probable ultimate use of the land.… We think that the purpose for which the land is acquired is a more objective test than mere speculation as to the ultimate probable destination of the land. It is a very small point and I do not propose to push it very hard, but as the Clause now reads, the Minister's mind is directed to something which is rather too nebulous to form an accurate test: …. the probable ultimate use of the land.… "Ultimate" is a long way away. No one can forecast the ultimate use of the land. To the speculative word "ultimate" is added the still more speculative word "probable." The criterion there is of so nebulous a character that it will not enable the Minister to stand upon any firm ground of judgment. I agree that power to vary the authority is necessary, but it should be done on a firm test which can be apprehended not only by the 822 Minister but by everyone. The purpose for which the land is acquired is a thing known to everybody and the Minister can assess its value by a common standard, but if it is to be: …. the probable ultimate use of the land. … that is a matter of pure opinion and guesswork, and consequently I am moving this Amendment for the purpose of getting a more objective material test for the operation of this Clause.

§ Mr. Silkin

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment in the interests of clarity and good drafting, but that there is no difference in principle between us. I have very carefully considered the words he proposes to substitute, and I am bound to say that in my judgment he would add confusion to confusion rather than add clarity. May I remind him of the reasons leading to the acquisition of this land? First, planning consent has been refused. Secondly, by reason of the refusal, the land has been rendered capable of beneficial use. The owner can then call upon the local authority to buy the land. The purpose for which the land is to be acquired is not for any particular function of the local authority. It is a purchase which is being imposed upon them by the owner because of the refusal of planning permission. The local authority may have no particular purpose in mind. In a sense this is something they would have to do to remove hardship on the owner. Therefore, to insert, … the purpose for which the land is to be purchased.… is to make a false criterion. On the other hand, once the local authority has this land, it has to consider what should be done with it. It may be that when the Minister takes into account the possible use of the land, he may decide that the probable use will justify purchase by some other local authority than the one which has refused the planning consent. It seems to me that the right criterion is … the probable ultimate use of the land.… rather than … the purpose for which the land is to be purchased.… I recognise that the term .…the probable ultimate use of the land. … 823 is vague and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but even more so I say that … the purpose for which the land is to be purchased.… has no real meaning. While I would not necessarily stand by every word of the phrase .…the probable ultimate use of the land.… if something better can be devised, the decision to substitute another authority must be related to what is to be done with the land rather than with the reason for the original purchase. In those circumstances, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.