NEW CLAUSE.—(Acquisition of land by Development Corporations under New Towns Act, 1946.) (Hansard, 7 July 1947)

§ Mr. Buchanan
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Clause 3 of the Bill makes it clear that if an area of land is to be comprehensively developed, it does not necessarily mean that every yard of the land—every portion—is to be developed. That is what Clause 3 does. We think it desirable to include in this Bill similar powers in connection with the new towns. The new Clause also makes it clear that development corporations under the New Towns Act may dispose of land not only for the purposes of securing development of the new towns, but for any purposes connected therewith. That is the purpose of the new Clause.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
Owing to our procedure we are coming now to this question of comprehensive redevelopment in a narrow sphere, before we deal with the more general question at a later stage of our proceedings today. Therefore, I must deal with it here and not let it pass by default. I cannot understand what the reason is for one of these corporations acquiring land which it does not intend to alter or develop. If it is not going to alter or develop the land, only two motives, that occur to me, can possibly actuate the corporation; either it wants to offer the land to the existing owner at a rent which gives it a profit over the price it chooses to pay; or else it wants to turn out the existing owner—I am taking the existing owner-occupier for simplicity, and very often he will be an owner-occupier—and put in some friend of its own. I should have thought both of these highly unsocial things to do; but there is no provision against them that I am aware of, either in this new Clause or in the subsequent Amendments that are to be moved from the benches opposite in due course.
If neither of these is the object, what is the object? Why should not the landlord remain there? What harm is he doing? I cannot see why the new town corporation 1839 or any other corporation should seek to buy this land except to make a profit. If that is the motive, let us know about it. Let us, at least, have a guarantee that that would be the motive. If there is not to be any redevelopment, the person who is in occupation at the moment should have security of tenure. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Rent Restriction Acts apply against the new town corporation. I do not know the answer to that question. If the Rent Restriction Acts do apply, and there is to be no knocking down of the houses, then, to that extent, my point is met. But there are a great many people not covered by the Rent Restriction Acts, such as people who pay rent above the limit; people who have mixed residential and business premises; people who have services or furniture in addition—though it is not likely in this connection—to the premises; and then, of course, there are offices, shops, and so on.
5.15 p.m.
Will the hon. Gentleman give us a firm undertaking that if any of these new bodies acquire land which they are not going to develop, they will be compelled by the Secretary of State to afford security of tenure to the people they find in occupation when they buy? That seems to me to be a very reasonable request, and one which we cannot possibly leave unanswered if we are to accept this new Clause; one to which, I think, we are entitled to have a definite answer before we get past this new Clause. When I say security of tenure, naturally, I include the people who own the land today. If they are owners at the moment, then there must be some provision for arbitration as to the proper amount for them to pay in future as tenants. If we buy out an owner-occupier and promise him security of tenure we must refer to some independent person the amount of rent he is to pay as the tenant. He was the owner before, and now becomes a tenant. If he is to remain in occupation there must be some means of fixing his rent.
I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman can answer that question, which seems to me to require an answer before we can accept this new principle. I am not at all clear that we can accept it even with that assurance, when we come 1840 to the body of the Bill. I should not myself be inclined to divide on this new Clause if I got that assurance, and I say so for this reason: that it is quite obvious that the serious situation with regard to housing is such that no one, no Minister, could properly proceed with the building of a new town just now, because, quite obviously, it would take at least twice as much labour and material to settle 100 people in a new town as it would to settle them in, new houses in an old town. I cannot believe that any Minister with any sense of responsibility would proceed at present with the building of a new town. Therefore, I am not so urgently concerned about this matter as I am about the same provisions in the body of the Bill. But when we come to the body of the Bill we shall have to pursue this matter at some length. I should be prepared to advise my hon. Friends to accept this new Clause if, and only if, we get a firm assurance that no person will be displaced as a result of the compulsory acquisition of land which it is not intended to develop immediately.

§ Mr. Buchanan
If I may have permission to answer a number of points that have been raised, I would say, first, that it is not the intention of the Secretary of State that the new towns corporations ought to buy land for the purposes of speculation—that is, for the purpose of ensuring a high rent on favourable terms I am really surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should always look for sinister motives. This is not sinister. With the new towns starting, it is difficult to say to a yard or to an acre just exactly what is the actual ground that is required, and the corporation, the new town corporation, may take in more ground than it afterwards finds it actually needs. That is all that this Clause does, and it is not with any purpose of having a tenant or increasing the value. It is for that purpose and for that purpose alone. The Rent Restriction Act does apply under the New Towns Act and under this Bill. It does not abrogate or set aside the Rent Restriction Act.

§ Mr. Reid
This certainly does.

§ Mr. Buchanan
The New Towns Act does not set aside the Rent Restriction Act, and the Rent Restriction Act, will, therefore, apply to the new towns. As to the question of security, as the right hon. 1841 and learned Gentleman knows, another Clause of this Bill looks after the security of the person displaced from a house, and makes his position reasonably secure. That will be applied in the same way by the Secretary of State to persons displaced under the New Towns Act. For the information of the right hon and learned Member, I say that I would not be a party, even with a new town, to turning anybody out on to the street needlessly and thoughtlessly. Indeed, I have been in conflict with one or two local authorities who almost want to put out on to the street what we call "squatters," because they want the land for a park or something of that description I would not be a party to that. The House may take it that all the reasonable assurances in other Clauses of the Bill, which apply to reasonable safeguards for the purpose of securing alternative accommodation, will, in my view, be operative in regard to the new towns. With the safeguards and guarantees I have given, I trust that the right hon. and learned Member can now accept the proposed new Clause.

§ Commander Galbraith
I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary really dealt with the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, who inquired why, if the new towns corporations were not going to develop or redevelop a portion of that land—say, a street—and had no intention whatsoever of touching it, they should attempt to acquire it. I could not follow from what the hon. Gentleman said what the reason for that was, or where the necessity came in. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman would care to go further.

§ Mr. Buchanan
We cannot say to a new town corporation that they cannot interfere with this or that street. These bodies, which have great responsibilities, must be allowed some latitude in their work. It may well be that at first sight a certain street appears to be one which should be developed, but ultimately it is not developed after they have got closer to the job and found it an unnecessary or unreasonable proposition. These new bodies must be allowed that reasonable margin to which every businessman is entitled, and we propose to allow them that margin.