HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1975-9
The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 85, line 29, to leave out from "satisfied," to end of line 31, in to insert: on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Secretary of State may in any particular case allow. This is the first of four Amendments to Clause 75 which it might be convenient to take together. The others are to lines 33, 34 and 43 on page 85. The object of the Clause, broadly speaking, is to take out of the compensation and betterment provisions of the Bill, land which is dead ripe for development on the appointed day. This would probably commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. At present Clause 75 provides that the Secretary of State may direct that Parts IV and V of the Bill shall not apply. As a matter of machinery the Secretary of State issues a certificate to the effect that he is satisfied that the land specified in the certificate comes within the Clause. The owner can then produce this to the Board or purchasing authority. The issue of the certificate under the Clause follows automatically, so that this Amendment is just an improvement in machinery and does not involve any change in principle.

The second point is that before issuing a certificate, the Secretary of State should review the planning position and, if necessary, see that the planning permission is revoked. This may occasionally be necessary, particularly as the Clause applies to land subject to interim development permission granted since July, 1943. While the Bill proceeds on the assumption that such permission would have been based on modern planning requirements and can safely be preserved, this may not be so in all cases; for example, where permission was given before the new plan was made to erect houses. Where the Secretary of State issues a cerficate, as I have already described, under this alternative machine, no development charge will be payable to an owner in respect of the proposed development, that is, development of land dead ripe. In this respect the Amendment to line 43 makes no change. There is, however, a slight change in the position as regards Part IV. Subsection (1) as drafted completely withdraws the right to claim on the £300,000,000. The Amendment provides that the point may be made in respect of any development value over and above the value for the proposed development. This brings the Clause into line with Clause 73. It is really a complicated matter, but I do not think Members opposite need be very apprehensive about the results.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I think the Government are to be congratulated in this case on their ingenuity. The House will be aware that during the discussions upstairs Members on their own side raised a very strong attack against the whole principle of this Clause. We, on the other hand, demonstrated that if you accept the principle of the Clause the Clause did not go really far enough. It was full of logical absurdities. What the Government have done is to save face by not giving way to their back benchers, but, in effect, by opening the door to nullifying the whole effect of this Clause if they want. Let me explain. All claims must be made within a year. No reason was given for that at all. The only reason that appears on the face of it is to give the Government plenty of time to operate the procedure under the fourth Amendment for the revocation of permission. No limitation is placed on that. The Secretary of State could revoke every permission if he wanted to.

If the Secretary of State is pressed sufficiently by supporters to avoid payment, he has only to step up the rate at which he revokes permissions to take instances out of the dead ripe category and put them back into the main pool which shares the £300,000,000. How far he will go in this direction nobody can say. He could not say himself possibly at the moment. But if it is admitted in principle that there is such a thing as dead ripe land, surely those who have qualified already for that category by having permission ought to get the benefit. I cannot understand how it comes about that permission can be revoked at this time of day and the vested right to compensation be taken away. The House will remember that there must not only be building permission, but there must be either a building contract or an application for permission to build.

To come forward now and say that people who have made all their arrangements and have established that they are preparing, as soon as the shortages of labour and material allow, to carry out their development, are to be refused compensation on the basis of dead ripe land merely because the Secretary of State chooses for no reason stated to revoke the permission granted, maybe months or years ago, is introducing into our legislation for compensation an uncertainty, a dependency on the whim of the Minister for the time being, which I think is unique. It goes even beyond the suggestion of an earlier Amendment where the Treasury were to be left to make rules of any kind they chose. Here we have not even rules. The Secretary of State may deal with each individual case as he likes. He can revoke permission or not, and there is no rule, no remedy, no reason, just "go as you please." If that is the way to administer compensation, it is novel to me, and I am surprised that even this Government should reduce the award on compensation to an unprincipled morass such as will be created by the acceptance of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 85, line 33, after "as," insert "required to be."

In line 34, leave out "the said Part IV were," and insert: Part IV of this Act and without regard to the provisions of this section would be."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Amendment proposed, in page 85, line 43, leave out from beginning, to end of line 5, page 86, and insert: he shall certify accordingly: Provided that if it appears to the Secretary of State that proceedings should be taken with a view to the revocation of the permission granted or deemed to be granted as aforesaid, he may postpone the issue of a certificate pending the taking of such proceedings, and if the permission is revoked he shall not be required to issue the certificate. (2) Where a certificate is issued under this section, then—

  1. (a) in calculating for the purpose of Part IV of this Act the development value of any interest in the land to which the certificate relates, no account shall be taken of any value attributable to the prospects of the development specified in the certificate; and
  2. (b) no development charge shall be payable under Part V of this Act in respect of that development if carried out within such period, if any, as may be prescribed by the certificate."—[The Lord Advocate.]

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

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 42.

Division No. 304] AYES. [12.42 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Deer, G Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Attewell, H. C. Diamond, J. Keenan, W.
Awbery, S. S Driberg, T. E. N. Kenyon, C.
Baird, J. Dumpleton, C. W. Leonard, W
Barton, C. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Bechervaise, A. E. Evans, John (Ogmore) Mack, J. D.
Blackburn, A. R. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Mathers, G.
Blenkinsop, A. Ewart, R Mellish, R. J.
Blyton, W. R. Fairhurst, F. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Field Capt W. [...] Monslow, W.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Moyle, A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Ganley, Mrs C S Nally, W.
Brook, D (Halifax) Gilzean, A Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Bruce, Major D. W. T. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Buchanan, G. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Orbach, M.
Burden, T. W Greenwood, A W J (Heywood) Palmer, A. M. F
Burke, W. A. Hale, Leslie Pargiter, G. A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R Paton, J. (Norwich)
Champion, A. J. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Peart, Thomas F
Cocks, F. S. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Collindridge, F. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Popplewell, E
Collins, V J Herbison, Miss M Porter, E (Warrington)
Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N.W.) Holman, P Porter, G. (Leeds)
Corlett, Dr. J. House, G Pritt, D. N.
Crawley, A Hoy, J. Proctor, W T
Grossman, R. H. S. Hubbard, I Randall, H E
Ranger, J. Smith, C. (Colchester) Walkden, E.
Rankin, J Snow, Capt. J. W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Rees-Williams, [...] Sorensen, R. W Westwood, Rt. Hon. J
Ridealgh, Mrs. M Sparks, J A White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Robens, A. Steele, T. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E) Wigg, Col. G. E.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Stubbs, A. E. Wilkins, W A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Symonds, A. L Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Royle, C. Taylor, H. B (Mansfield) Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Scollan, T Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Segal, Dr. S. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Willis, E.
Shackleton, E. A. A. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wills, Mrs. E A.
Sharp, Granville Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Yates, V. F.
Shurmer, P. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Silverman, J. (Erdington) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Simmons, C. J Usborne, Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Skeffington, A. M. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Daines.
NOES
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Gage, C. Mellor, Sir J.
Baldwin, A. E. Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. Neven-Spence, Sir B
Beamish, Maj. T. V H Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Prescott, Stanley
Bossom, A. C. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T Hope, Lord J. Ropner, Col. L.
Clarke, Col R. S Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (F'b'rgh W.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Clifton-Brown Lt.-Col. G Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Cuthbert, W. N. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Willoughby de Eresby Lord
Drewe, C. Maitland, Comdr. J W.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Marsden, Capt. A TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Mr. Studholme and
Major Ramsay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan

I beg to move, in page 86, line 6, after "section," to insert ?(a)."

This Amendment and the succeeding Government Amendment bring together in one subsection the two definitions in Subsection (3) of Clause 75.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.