HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1958-65
Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I beg to move, in page 60, line 9, to leave out from "interests" to "of," in line 10.

In this Clause we now pass to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with payments in respect of depreciation, and the particular Subsection with which we are concerned on page 60 is to the effect that the Treasury shall make a scheme providing for the distribution between the interests, or such of them as may be prescribed by the scheme, of the sum apportioned to land in Scotland, that is, a portion of the global sum. Now, the phraseology of this Subsection and the words which we seek to leave out suggest that there may be interests which are found, after investigation, to have a substantial bearing, but which nevertheless are to receive no part of the global sum—in other words, are to be entirely confiscated.

I do not know whether this got in by some oversight, or whether it is really the Government's intention that some of these interests shall simply be confiscated without any compensation at all, because undoubtedly the Clause, as it stands, entitles the Treasury to make a scheme under which certain classes of interests are simply to disappear without compensation. I know that there has been controversy among hon. Members opposite as to whether any compensation should be paid for interests that are confiscated by the State, but we had understood that for the time being that controversy had been resolved in favour of some compensation. It would be inadequate in many cases, but at least the principle of compensation has hitherto been recognised. I know that there has been an attempt in this connection to say that the £300 million is not compensation, but is something to meet hardship, but it is a very serious criticism of the Government's actions, if they are going to admit that they have created hardship to the tune of £300 million.

I can understand the Government operating a large-sized scheme of nationalisation and saying that the cost to the country will be £300 million or even £3,000 million, for what they get, but to say that nobody is entitled to a penny, although they agree they are creating hardship to the tune of £300 million by what they do, is a pretty good criticism of their actions and is creating hardship without any legal right at all. Is it supposed that there is no hardship involved in taking away certain rights without compensation? Why none at all? Is this a means test? Is it the idea that the poor man suffers hardship, but that if a man is above a certain level he does not suffer any hardship, and is it the proposal that everybody, in claiming compensation, must declare the whole of his assets so that the Government may determine on a means test whether or not he is to suffer hardship?

Let the people of the country understand if that is what is proposed. It will be difficult for some hon. Gentlemen opposite to propose a means test. It that is so, let us understand what it is, and that the proposal is that everyone who makes a claim under the Bill shall undergo a means test and that if they have means over a certain amount, they are not deemed to suffer any hardship. No doubt as the means fall so does the hardship rise—or are there some other circumstances to be taken into account? I do not know. Let us understand what we are doing, and let us be told the basis on which this strange compensation is to take place. I do not think the country as a whole realises that the rights of a number of people are to be consficated without compensation. Nor do they realise that there is to be a sliding scale of compensation which apparently is to be envisaged, if I interpret the right hon. Gentleman's nod aright. I think it is time the country did understand just what is happening. I need hardly say that we on this side of the House take the view, as did the Uthwatt Committee, that the rights being taken away here are legal rights which ought to be compensated.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am sure he has read the Uthwatt Committee's report sufficiently well to realise that it said nothing of the kind. The Committee made it perfectly clear that in common law they have no rights at all.

Mr. Reid

They made it plain that where you are sterilising land, when you are telling someone he must not use land in a certain way, there is no room for compensation at common law; but they did not say that when you are taking valuable rights which you, the taker, propose to sell, there is no right of compensation. They never said that. That is what the Bill is taking. The Bill is taking from the landowner valuable rights and vesting them in the Central Land Board and proposing that the Board shall sell them for the benefit of the Government. Therefore, you are taking property from people which you are proposing to sell for a considerable amount, and yet you are saying that that property is not to be compensated. The Uthwatt Committee never suggested that was either legal or moral, and I suggest that it is neither legal nor moral.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the country has a right to know. To that we do not demur. The country has a right to know, and in Committee when it was discussed, we made no attempt to hide the facts. On Second Reading, when the matter was raised, it was fully discussed. The same thing applied on the English Bill, when the principle was fully debated at every stage. So far as we are concerned, we admit the right of the country to know, and indeed, we are prepared and anxious for the country to know the facts. The nation is taking over development values.

It is said by some Members on this side—and I do not deny it—that we are rather mild in only taking over development value. They say we ought to take over the land itself, but being a very moderate Government—[Interruption]— yes, a very moderate Government, considered on Socialist standards, particularly following a war in which people fought for land—we do not take an extreme view. We take the moderate view that the value of the land should be taken by the community because that value was created by the community. The protagonists on both Front Benches, leaving out my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State all represent Divisions on the banks of the Clyde. Where would the value of the land on Clydeside be without the industry, capacity and work of the shipbuilding workers? The value of the land was not created by the particular owners at the time, but by the capacity and intelligence of the common people.

The money payment of £300 million which we propose is regarded by some Members on this side as being value, if we are taking over the land. The Government have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely essential that the development of land should belong to the nation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have looked on broad lines at what the nation can justly afford and have decided on the sum of £300 million. We propose to allocate this sum to those who own development values so that if there is any hardship or suffering, it will be modified and the taking-over will bear less hardly on those who can afford it least. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says there is some kind of means test, I say frankly, "Yes, there is." I do not deny it. This is an ex gratia payment which is not derived out of any real right. It is a community right But recognising that hardship may be caused, this Government, with a generosity and kindness well becoming to it, have granted the owners of development values this payment. On a broad view, I think it is a very generous payment and one which the hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of opposing, should welcome, coming from this Government.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

The honeyed words which have come from the Joint Under-Secretary will deceive nobody. Now that the other side of the House have openly admitted that they approve of the means test, which will come somewhat of a surprise to many of their supporters, we have come to the stage where it is perfectly obvious that the Socialist Government are floundering worse than they did before. The hon. Gentleman suggests that perhaps many of his friends would prefer that they should take over land completely. He also knows that they would be quite incompetent to run the land if they did take it over.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know that that has nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

With very great respect, I was replying to the hon. Gentleman who has already spoken, and I did not think that he was out of Order at the time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is not for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to decide whether a Member is out of Order or not. That is a matter for the Chair

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

That is why I was apologising for making the mistake. I was not doubting your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was apologising for making a mistake. My right hon. and learned Friend put the case very clearly when he showed that there was discrimination in compensating people. To give compensation where the Government think there is an advantage is preposterous to ordinary thinking people with an idea of justice, and it makes a lamentable record for the Government, certainly much worse than it was before. When one listens to the Government spokesmen, who pose as pioneers of justice, saying that justice will only be done in certain cases ?if we like the people," I think it is a most disgraceful state of affairs. To say that justice shall be done in certain cases or not, which is worse because the Government might have to do it in a few more cases, is a travesty of everything connected with fair Government in this country, and I cannot help thinking that this is the most regrettable thing to which we have listened so far.

Sir W. Darling

I should like to clarify my own mind in this matter. If I understood the contention of the Government, it is that the sum of £300 million was provided for making payment in respect of interest in land in Scotland, England and Wales. Having made this provision quite clearly under Clause 3, it seems as if an effort is to be made to whittle down that sum and to find some excuse or justification for not paying it.

Mr. Buchanan

No. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not provoke me. There is no whittling down of the £300 million by a penny. It will remain unaltered.

Sir W. Darling

The allocation of the £300 million will unquestionably be whittled down, if the claim to eliminate certain classes because they are ineligible for any advantage is carried. The scheme, to which the Treasury agreed, provided for distribution as between those interests in development values in land or—and this is where the whittling down can take place—such of them as may be prescribed by the scheme. The Joint Under-Secretary said with heat and eloquence that this was not a just scheme, but he certainly claimed for it that it was one of generosity and kindness. I venture to say that it would be more commendable to those concerned—and, after all, we are dealing with persons who are feeling their rights, no matter what the feelings of the Government may be—if he had added justice to that. Kindness and generosity are suitable relations, especially between one person and another, but one looks for something more elevating, something above emotion, in a case such as this. I suggest that justice would be the proper way of deciding between those various interests on the one hand or such as them as may be prescribed by the scheme.' That prescription, during the French Revolution, was the prelude to execution; I feel the prescription in this Clause is the prelude to something nearly like it. I put it to the Secretary of State and his colleagues that the use of his provision, if it is retained, will mean less of that global sum for some people in Scotland. I am sure the Government agree that we want to make the distribution of this global sum fair to all parties who feel they are deserving of compensation in these circumstances. I think the elimination of

these words would make the matter less kind, less generous, but certainly, in my opinion, more just.

Mr. N. Macpherson

A suggestion has already been made from all quarters of this House that there is no kind of right to compensation or hardship payment of any kind for the loss of unrestricted or development rights. That is the claim that has been made. The Uthwatt Report was referred to, and it is true that there is no common law right arising out of the loss of these rights. What the Uthwatt Report says is quite clear. It says: But the point may be reached when restriction imposes an expenditure beyond obligation. At this stage restriction becomes equivalent to the expropriation of proprietary right or interest, and, therefore, it will be claimed should carry a right to compensation as such. That is the point. There is no doubt at all that the rights now being taken away are, in fact, far beyond the rights merely of not creating a nuisance between neighbours. The whole right of the use of property is being taken away, except the existing use. In exchange for that, it is said that those losing rights have no right in turn to receive any compensation. That is not the opinion of the Uthwatt Report. The second contention of those on this side of the House is that if these rights are being taken away, compensation should be even, in the same way, indeed, as those who are losing rights in industries which are being nationalised are compensated evenly. We deny to Members on the other side, or any body of men, the right to pick and choose whom they should compensate. The compensation must be done evenly, fairly, and with justice.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 47.

Division No. 303] AYES. [11.58 p.m
Adams, Richard (Batham) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Corlett, Dr. J.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Braddock, T (Mitcham) Crawley, A.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Brock, D (Halifax) Crossman, R H S
Attewell, H. C. Bruce, Maj. D W T Daines, P.
Awbery, S. S. Buchanan, G Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Baird, J. Burden, T. W Davies, Harold (Leek)
Balfour, A Burke, W. A. Deer, G.
Barton, C. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Diamond, J.
Bechervaise, A. E Champion, A. J. Driberg, T. E. N.
Blackburn, A. R Cocks, F. S. Dumpleton, C. W
Blenkinsop, A Collindridge, F. Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Blyton, W R Collins, V. J. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Bowden Flg.-Offr. R. W. Colman, Miss G. M. Evans, John (Ogmore)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N.W.) Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Ewart, R. Mitchison, G R Snow, Capt. J. W
Fairhurst, F Monslow, W. Sorensen, R W
Farthing, W. J. Moody, A. S. Sparks, J. A
Field, Captain W. J. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Steele, T
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Moyle, A. Stewart Michael, (Fulham E.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Nicholls, H R. (Stratford) Stubbs, A E.
Ganley, Mrs. C S Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford) Sylvester, G. O
Gilzean, A. O'Brien, T. Symonds, A. L.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Orbach, M. Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)
Gordon-Walker, P. C Palmer, A. M. F Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Greenwood, A W J (Heywood) Pargiter, G A Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Grey, C. F. Parker, J. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Guy, W. H. Paton, J (Norwich) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hale, Leslie Pearson, A. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Peart, Thomas F. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Popplewell, E. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Honderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Porter, E. (Warrington) Usborne, Henry
Herbison, Miss M Porter, G. (Leeds) Vernon, Mai W.
Holman, P. Prill, D. N. Walkden, E
House, G Proctor, W. T Wells, W. T. (Warsall)
Hoy, J. Randall, H. E Westwood, Rt. Hon J
Hubbard, Ranger, J White, H. (Derbyshire N.E.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.) Rees-Williams, D. K Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Reid, T (Swindon) Wigg, Col. G. E.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wilkins, W. A.
Keenan, W. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Kenyon, C. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Kirby, B V Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Williams, W. R (Heston)
Lavers, S. Royle, C. Willis E
Leonard, W Scollan, T Wills, Mrs E A
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Segal, Dr. S Yates, V F
Mack, J. D. Shackleton, E. A. A Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Manning, Mrs L (Epping) Sharp, Granville
Mathers, G. Shurmer, P TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mellish, R. J Silverman, J. (Erdington) Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R Skeffington, A. M.
NOES.
Baldwin, A. E. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Prescott, Stanley
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hope, Lord J. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Bossom, A. C. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Rayner, Brig. R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)
Clarke, Col R. S. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Robinson, Wing-Comdr Rolano
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Ropner, Col. L.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. C. Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight) Studholme, H. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Sutcliffe, H.
Cuthbert, W. N. Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Darling Sir W. Y Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Drewe, C. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Marsden, Capt. A. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Gage, C Mellor, Sir J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Galbraith, Cmdr T D Neven-Spence, Sir B Commander Agnew and
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Osborne. C Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.