HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1842-53

(1) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the plan, or the amendment of the plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated came into operation, any of that land has not been acquired by a Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers who could be authorised to acquire it compulsorily under the provisions of this Act, any owner of the land may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, serve on the local planning authority a notice requiring his interest in the land to be so acquired.

(2)Where any such notice is served as afore said, then unless within six months after the service of the notice either—

  1. (a) notice to treat in respect of the interest to which the notice relates has been served by any such Minister, authority or undertakers as aforesaid; or
  2. (b)an offer has been made to the owner of the said interest by any such Minister, local authority or undertakers to acquire it on terms that the price payable therefor shall be equal to (and shall be determined, in default of agreement, in like manner as) the compensation which would be payable in respect of that interest if it were acquired compulsorily,
the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.

(3)The power conferred by Subsection (2) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to with draw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is served as mentioned in paragraph (a)of the last fore going Subsection.

(4)Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority (not being land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development) then if planning permission is granted for any development of the land so designated, or any part thereof, and that development is carried out in accordance with the permission so granted, the development plan shall have effect as if the land to which the permission relates were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition: Provided that where any such permission as aforesaid is granted for a limited period only, the provisions of this Subsection shall cease to have effect in relation to the land at the expiration of that period

(5)In relation to land being agricultural land as defined in Subsection (4) of Section forty seven of this Act Subsection (1) of this Section shall have effect as if for the words "twelve years," there were substituted the words "eight years."—[Mr. Westwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Westwood

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In the Scottish Standing Committee we had a fairly lengthy discussion on the problems associated with designation, and this new Clause is intended to meet some of the points which were put forward by hon. Members opposite during those Debates. The Clause provides that where land is designated by a development plan for compulsory acquisition and has not been acquired at the end of 12 years, or in the case of agricultural land at the end of eight years—no doubt it will be argued that we have not gone far enough, but this is an honest endeavour to try to meet the points which were made, and the Government are fixing a limited number of years—the owner may, by notice, require the Minister, the local authority or the statutory undertaking for whose purposes the land has been designated, to buy the land. If at the end of six months thereafter, notice to treat has not been served, or an offer has not been made to acquire the land, the designation ceases to have effect. As I have already said, this is an honest endeavour on my part, having considered the arguments that were used in Committee, to meet a point which was then raised.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 2, to leave out "twelve," and to insert "seven."

I should also like to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, which is consequential: In line 39, to leave out "eight," and to insert "five." We on this side of the House are grateful for this new Clause, so far as it goes. As the Secretary of State has said, it is an attempt, which he described as an honest attempt—and I am sure none of us would think that he could contemplate doing anything dishonest—to go as far as he could to meet what we said in the Committee. Let us look at what is being done. Under this Bill, land can be designated on a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition for certain purposes. Those purposes are varied and wide. Land may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition by any Government Department for the purpose of that Department. It may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their statutory undertakings. It may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition by local authorities for any public local purpose. It may also be designated, if it is part of an area which it is intended to develop comprehensively, or to redevelop.

Also—and here is the rub—it may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition if, in the opinion of the local planning authority it ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing its use in a manner proposed by the plan. If that does not mean almost anything, I do not know what it does mean. It means, in effect, that almost any land comprised in a development order may be designated by the local planning authority as subject to compulsory acquisition. What happens to the owner of the property comprised in that area of designation? He is immediately cast under what we have described as "the blight of designation," which hangs like a cloud over his head. A man who owns a house, a farm, a shop or a factory sees from the plan that that house, that farm, that shop or that factory may be taken from him by compulsory powers within the next five years. It may even be taken from him within the next 10 years, because the Secretary of State cannot confirm the plan, in so far as it designates land subject to compulsory acquisition, unless he is satisfied that that compulsory acquisition is likely to take place within the next 10 years.

What we argued in Committee, the point of view we put forward and sought to bring to the attention of the Government, was that where a man had in that way been placed, as it were, under sentence of death, he should be allowed—if he had an opportunity of rehousing himself, or of re-accommodating himself elsewhere—to go to the local authority and to say, "I have found another house, or farm. Fulfil now the purpose of your designation and take my property from me compulsorily now; and pay me for it so that I will have the money with which to buy another place." One can conceive circumstances in which agricultural land will be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition, because, indeed, most of the development which is likely to take place under the terms of this Bill will be the development of agricultural land. Agricultural land is practically the only source of vacant land in this country.

5.30 p.m.

So a farmer owning a farm within an area which has been designated as subject to compulsory acquisition will at once do two things. First, he will stop doing anything but essential repairs. He will carry out any maintenance which is necessary, such as putting tiles on the roof to keep out the weather, but he will not go in for any schemes of improvement. He will not try to convert a mixed farm into a dairy farm. He will not go in for planning which involves capital sums. He will certainly not do that unsocial thing, as one might be led to think from the attitude of the Government, of building a new cottar house. He will spend as little as possible, because he will know that his farm is likely to be taken away from him in the next 10 years. In the second place, he will look around to find another farm in which to rehouse himself. That means going round two or three counties to find the right type, because farms cannot easily be picked up in Scotland today. There will be a newspaper advertisement to the effect that offers are to be lodged on such and such a date, that boundaries will be pointed out on application, appointment to be made, and so on. It is not a case of only one or two offers being made, but of dozens. There is no doubt that this man will be in a very difficult position, because he will not know what he can offer for any property.

We argue that such a man ought to have the power to compel the local planning authority to fulfil the purposes of designation by acquiring the farm from him if he so desires, which will provide him with the money to rehouse himself. The right hon. Gentleman has made an honest attempt to meet us. By this Amendment, we are seeking to make this honest attempt a little more honest. The Government have said that in the case of farmland the farmer will have that power if the land has been designated for a period of eight years. Goodness me, is he for eight years to sit with this sword of Damocles hanging over his head, with his property unimproved, and without being able to help himself until the period has expired? We are seeking to do a little more for him by reducing the period to five years.

In the case of the owner of a house, the Secretary of State, in his honest desire to meet us as far as he can, has said that after 12 years the owner can come along and say to the local planning authority: "Dash it all, you have had this compulsory purchase hanging over my head for 12 years; you must now come and buy the property." Only after 12 years can he make them do that. We are suggesting that the period should be reduced to seven years. I wish to justify this period of seven years, because it may seem rather an odd period. The House will recollect, that, under the terms of the Bill, planning authorities have to draw up development plans at once, and these have to be revised after five years, and thereafter in quinquennial periods. We say, if land has been designated for the first quinquennial period and has then been redesignated, and if the planning authority have not exercised their powers two years after the first revision, the owner should then be able to compel them to do so.

An owner who compels a local authority to take over his land will not be particularly well off, because he is not getting the market value, but the market price for the existing use. It will not come under the old compensation terms of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919—the market value as between a willing buyer and willing seller—but it will be the restricted value under the terms of the new Clause we accepted in Committee. Therefore, it will not be any great inducement to the owner to come along. There will be no glittering prize here. He will have to take a very modest value. In spite of that, we ought to give the owner the power to compel a local authority, at the earliest possible moment, to take over his house, or farm, his base of operations, his factory, or his shop, after this cloud of designation has been hanging over him for many years.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) referred to this honest attempt by the Government to meet us, and asked the right hon. Gentleman to make it more honest by accepting this Amendment. I should have thought that our modest attempt is too modest, because it leaves this period of uncertainty hanging over the individual who has had his land or property designated, for an extremely long time. One of the grave anxieties from which this country is suffering at the present moment is the cloud of uncertainties, some of greater magnitude than others, such as whether we are to get our coal, attain our exports and dollars, and so on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid that we shall not get through this Bill tonight if we allow such departures from this Clause. The hon. and gallant Member cannot be allowed to introduce matter not relevant.

Colonel Hutchison

I had no intention of expatiating on that, but wished merely to show that here was another uncertainty, admittedly a minor one compared with the enormities we have to face in other directions. Under this new Clause, a man will not know whether his property or land is to be taken away from him at the end of the day—in one case it is 12 years, and in the other case eight years—of whether it will be handed back to him. Let us take the case of the owner of a timber yard. He finds that his timber yard is within a designated area. For 12 years he will not know whether he has to equip himself with another timber yard, or whether it will be handed back to him at the end of the day. The Joint Under-Secretary said on another Clause that the new towns corporations may take more land than they may ultimately find necessary.

So the chances are very real that individuals will find themselves in a designated area, and will not know whether they will have their asset refused or whether it will be taken. That puts people into an intolerable position. I do not know if Members opposite realise the paraphernalia which has to be gone through if a farmer wishes to turn his farm into a "T.T." farm. New buildings have to be put up and all sorts of regulations observed. Is there any chance that the farmer will take those steps when he does not know whether his farm will be taken from him or left with him? This is a modest attempt to improve the Clause. I, personally, would have liked to go much further. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government are unable to make up their minds, in five or seven years, whether they will need these assets, this land, or not? If so, that is not the streamlined Socialist legislation which the people have been looking for from this Government.

Mr. Westwood

I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been submitted in favour of the Amendment and which admitted, in principle, that there must be a number of years of uncertainty. I admit that designation might lead to some uncertainty. The only issue between us is as to the number of years. Designation has an advantage, but I am prepared to admit that it has certain disadvantages. We are now dealing with long-term planning for Scotland, and in that planning there must some uncertainty for some people. Designation has an advantage in that it limits the uncertainty by making it clear that the land is to be compulsorily acquired within a certain time, although some people might suffer disadvantages through the designation of their land. It has been proposed that instead of 12 years and eight years there should be substituted seven years and five years respectively. Designation is intended to cover a programme of development for 10 years ahead, and it is known to Members who took part in the Standing Committee proceedings that at the five-year point the plan has to be reviewed, a process which will take several months to complete. So the 12-year period will correspond roughly with the completion of the second review of the plan.

If the 12-year period is reduced to seven years, and the eight years is reduced to five, local authorities will be most reluctant to designate land and the whole purpose of designation will be defeated. There is no lack of initiative or inability on the part of the Government to make up their minds in this matter. The local authorities will be designating the land, not the Secretary of State for Scotland. They must have some time in which to carry through their work. I thought I had gone a reasonable distance to meet the points which were discussed in Committee, and I trust that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. If it is, I must ask the House to reject it.

5.45 P.m.

Commander Galbraith

The right hon. Gentleman told us that he has accepted the principle, but the principle can be so watered down that it is not worth anything at all, which is about, the position we have come to here now. To suggest that local authorities, having made their plans, require two periods of five years to think out modifications, seems to be stretching things a little too far. If they consider the plans carefully to start with —as they will—then have another consideration of it after five years, and then be allowed a further two years, and the land is not then required for any purpose, surely they have had sufficient time. Agricultural land will be nearer the outside than the other land, and five years should be sufficient to enable local authorities to decide whether they want the land. Local authorities are quite capable of working within a reasonable time, and I could not follow the right hon. Gentleman when he said that if they were to get only seven years they would not be willing to designate. Why not? They have a right and duty to do that. The term of uncertainty should be as short as possible, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is willing to think again I must advise my hon. Friends behind me to divide the House.

Mr. C. Williams

So that we can have some guidance on this matter, I think we should be told by the Government whether they put in the English Bill the seven and five years, or eight years?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the English Bill, but with the Scottish Bill.

Mr. Williams

I would not dream of dealing with the English Bill now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but when there is a Scottish Bill which covers the same point as an English Bill I think we are entitled to know whether the balance is the same. Am I right?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is out of Order. The Secretary of State for Scotland is not concerned with the English Bill.

Mr. Williams

Perhaps we might get some guidance from the Government. It would seem to me as well to have the shorter period, because that would tend to make local authorities hasten in making up their minds.

Question put, "That twelve stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes. 214. Noes, 96.

Division No. 297.] AYES. [5.51 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Chetwynd, G. R Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Cluse, W. S. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Cobb, F. A. Gilzean, A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Cocks, F. S. Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Allighan, Garry Collindridge, F Gooch, E. G.
Alpass, J. H. Collins, V. J. Goodrich, H. E.
Attewell, H. C Comyns, Dr. L Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Austin, H. Lewis Cove, W. G Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Ayles, W. H. Crossman, R. H. S Grenfell, D. R.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Daggar, G. Grierson, E.
Balfour, A. Daines, P. Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J Davies, Edward (Burslem) Gunter, R. J.
Barstow, P. G. Davies, Harold (Leek) Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Barton, G. Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Hale, Leslie
Battley, J. R Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hall, W. G.
Bechervaise, A. E Deer, G. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Berry, H. Diamond, J Hardy, E. A.
Beswick, F. Dodds, N. N. Harrison, J.
Bing, G H C. Driberg, T. E. N. Herbison, Miss M
Blyton, W. R. Dumpleton, C. W Hicks, G
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Durbin, E. F. M. Hobson, C. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p Exch'ge) Dye, S. Holman, P
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Edelman, M. Hoy, J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Hubbard, T.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Evans, John (Ogmore) Hudson, J. H.(Ealing, W.)
Buchanan, G. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Burke, W. A. Farthing, W J. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)
Callaghan, James Follick, M. Irving, W. J
Champion, A. J Foot, M. M. Janner, B.
Chater, D Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Jay, D.P.T
Jeger, G (Winchester) Parker, J. Swingler, S.
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.) Parkin, B. T. Sylvester, G. O.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Paton, J. (Norwich) Symonds, A. L.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Pearson, A. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Keenan, W. Peart, T. F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Key, C. W Piratin, P. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Kinley, J. Popplewell, E. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Kirby, B. V Porter, G. (Leeds) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Lang, G. Randall, H. E Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Lee, F. (Hulme) Ranger, J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Leslie, J. R. Rankin, J Thurtle, Ernest
Levy, B. W. Rees-Williams, D. R Tiffany, S.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Reeves, J, Ungoed-Thomas, L
Lipton, Lt.-Col M Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Vernon, Maj. W. F
McAdam, W. Robens, A. Viant, S. P.
McAllister, G. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wadsworth, G
McEntee, V La T Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Walkden, E.
McGhee, H. G Rogers, G. H. R. Walker, G. H.
Mack, J. D. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Royle, C. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Scollan, T. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Scott-Elliot, W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mainwaring, W. H. Shackleton, E. A. A Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Sharp, Granville White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Shurmer, P. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Mathers, G. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wigg, Col. G E
Mellish, R. J. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Wilkins, W. A.
Messer, F. Simmons, C. J. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Middleton, Mrs. L. Skeffington, A. M. Willey, O G.(Cleveland)
Mikardo, Ian Skeffington-Lodge, T. C Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R Skinnard, F. W. Williams, W. R.(Heston)
Mitchison, G. R. Smith, C. (Colchester) Willis, E.
Monslow, W. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Wills, Mrs. E. A
Moody, A. S. Snow, Capt. J. W. Wyatt, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B Solley, L. J. Yates, V. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Sorensen, R. W. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Mort, D. L Sparks, J. A. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Moyle, A. Stamford, W.
Nally, W. Stephen, C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Nicholls, H R (Stratford) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby) Stubbs, A. E Mr Hannan.
Orbach, M. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr P. G. Hinchingbrooke, Viscoun. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Amory, D. Heathcoat Mollis, M. C. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J (Scot. Univ.) Hope, Lord J. Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Assheton, Rt. Hon R. Howard, Hon. A. Pickthorn, K.
Astor, Hon. M. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Baldwin, A. E. Hurd, A. Rayner, Brig. R
Baxter, A. B Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Beamish, Maj T. V. M Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Birch, Nigel Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W. Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Boothby, R. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Ropner, Col. L.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Lambert, Hon. G. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Smithers, Sir W.
Challen, C. Low, Brig. A. R. W. Spearman, A. C. M.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lucas, Major Sir J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Strauss, H. G (English Universities)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Macdonald, Sir P.(I of Wight) Studholme, H. G.
Crowder, Capt. John E McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Sutcliffe, H.
Darling, Sir W. Y MacLeod, J. Taylor, C. S.(Eastbourne)
Drewe, C. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond) Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Eccles, D. M. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Eden, Rt. Hon A. Manningham-Butler, R. E. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Marples, A. E. Turton, R. H.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Marsden, Capt. A Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Martin, J. H White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Mathers, G Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Mellor, Sir J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Grant, Lady Molson, A. H. E. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gridley, Sir A. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Neven-Spence, Sir B Major Conant and Major Ramsay.
Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C Nicholson, G

Clause added to the Bill.

6.0 p.m.