HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1987-92

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchanan

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

This is the Schedule we have already referred to. As the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are aware, a White Paper was presented to Parliament shortly after the Bill was introduced setting out the provisions of the 1945 Act which we are incorporating in the Schedule. It is now considered convenient to reproduce those provisions in the new Schedule to the Bill, and we think that this will be of great advantage to local authorities and others who have to administer the Bill.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I am in some doubt as to the proper course to pursue here. This Schedule incorporates a number of Amendments which have not yet been reached on the Eighth Schedule, and it might be convenient if I discussed them here. Then when the Eighth Schedule comes up for consideration it could perhaps pass without discussion. There are three in particular to which I think attention ought to be drawn.

1.15 a.m.

Section 21 of the Act, as reprinted in the Schedule, provides that work done on land acquired by the Central Land Board and then transferred by them to some person who is to develop, may proceed notwithstanding that it interferes with the servitudes of other people and in particular notwithstanding that it withdraws some other person's natural right of support. It does seem to me to be going a very long way, and I wonder what the justification for it is. The Central Land Board can come and buy my neighbour's land in order to sell it to some private developer and that private developer can go and take away my right of support without my being entitled to object. Unless I misunderstand the new provision—not the one as it was in the White Paper but as it will be after tonight—there is no doubt that will be the effect. That was not the effect it had up till now. That will become the effect. Is it really intended that the Central Land Board should have power to put a private person in possession, who can then destroy his neighbour's right of support without any possibility of question other than payment of compensation? I cannot help feeling that is an unintended consequence of this Bill. There are so many loose ends knocking about as a result of the Bill that it seems to be both theoretically and practically indefensible, and I cannot understand how it ever got through.

I pass to the amended Section 22 in the Schedule, and here I take up the point which I put at an earlier stage. Section 22 (5) entitles the Minister to conduct as concurrent proceedings, the authorisation of certain developments and the acquisition of land necessary to carry it out. Again I say to the right hon. Gentleman, are the whole of these proceedings to be a pure farce? Is the whole thing to be prejudged? Is it to be judged, is it to be taken as decided, before you have gone through an investigation? Is it to be said, "Of course, we shall brush aside objectors. We are the masters now. They are only allowed to blow off steam." Is that the attitude of this provision? It is the only attitude that can justify this concurrent procedure and, therefore, I suggest that this is a bad provision.

I pass finally to Section 29, and I hope that the country will take note of what is being done in the name of planning. Under the Rural Housing Act there was an obligation to provide housing accommodation under Section 79 of the Act of 1925. Section 29 as now amended provides that that salutary provision shall not have effect in relation to an acquisition by a local planning authority under this Bill, and it goes on to provide that where possession of any building on land which has been acquired by a local planning authority, which has been acquired by the Central Land Board is required by them, then at any time, if the tenancy of the occupier has expired, the authority may serve notice on the occupier of the building requiring him to move within 21 clays. Then the Central Land Board may pay a reasonable allowance for disturbance, but a reasonable allowance for disturbance is very different from security of tenure or the certainty of getting a new house.

The right hon. Gentleman is priding himself that he has made good provision for displaced persons being attended to. If he looks at this, I do not think he will be quite so pleased. It seems to me to be rather bad. He is doing away with perfectly clear rights of reinstatement and he is allowing the Board to dispossess the dispossessor on a mere 21 days' notice. I take it that includes a person under the Rent Restriction Act. I am not clear about that, and I would like to know, because the contractual tenancy can be determined, but a statutory tenancy cannot under the Act. I think it is very doubtful if the Rent Restriction Act is saved. J would be glad to have an answer on that point.

These are all technical matters, but I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has the answers. It is very unfortunate that these complicated matters should have been held up and only thrust on us at the Report Stage. I cannot understand why these matters were not brought before us on the Committee stage when they could have been examined at leisure and not at this time of the morning. But such are our methods of procedure in legislation that the Government cannot keep pace with their own programme. They produce a Bill which requires extensive amendment on the Committee stage, and still they forget the most important points and only bring them here on the Report stage. We are told the time of the House is very valuable and that we cannot have time for essential debates on one thing or another, yet the Government waste time by failing to produce these things at the right time and bringing them up at the last moment. How does it happen? There arc a whole string of amendments to Schedule 8 on the Order Paper. Why were they not put down sooner and why not on the Committee stage? I do not want to take up the time of the House at this late hour, but I want to make a protest against the way in which these detailed and complicated matters are dealt with and legislation is held up and thrust on us at the last minute. It seems to me that the purchasers from the Central Land Board are being given wholly improper powers over their neighbours That the acquisition of land is necessary to do it is a confession by the Government that their boasted safeguards amount to saying: let us get on with the purchase of land before we know whether the order is going to be made. I would not like to ask the House to divide on this, but I do want to register my protest.

Mr. Speaker

Before putting the Question, may I say that, while I appreciate that this new Schedule is put down for the convenience of Members, it is unfortunate that it includes Amendments which cannot be dealt with adequately. My taking it in this way must not be taken as a precedent for future occasions. I mention it because the right hon. Gentleman has indicated we are going to deal with them now, but I trust this procedure will be altered in future.

The Lord Advocate

This is the sort of thing that happens when we try to be accommodating. We were invited to produce this Schedule, and when we produce it, it seems to give rise to a considerable amount of criticism. May I say quite generally what this Bill tried to do with the 1945 Act. It incorporated, subject to modifications, the provisions of Sections 18 to 29. These Sections lay down a code dealing with the disposal or appropriation of land acquired under the 1945 Act by local planning authorities for planning purposes. They contain other powers to enable development to proceed; for example, they provide for the setting aside of restrictive conditions affecting land, the stopping of highways and the extinguishment of private rights of way and rights as to apparatus of statutory undertakers, and the extension and modification of powers and duties of statutory undertakers. There is really nothing new. All that has happened is that the setting out of the provisions of the 1945 Act in this Schedule has brought to the right hon. Gentleman a number of points which he had not brought forward in committee.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

May I be allowed to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Not one of the points to which I referred appeared in the Committee stage or in the Bill or in anything until we got the Order Paper now before us.

The Lord Advocate

The Amendments already contained in the Eighth Schedule to the Bill and additional Amendments now being made are largely for the purpose of tidying and clarifying the application of these Sections of the 1945 Act. I concede to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this also widens the scope of the application of these Sections to include, in addition to local authorities, Government Departments, the Central Land Board and statutory undertakers. So far as Section 21 is concerned, the modifications affected by the present Amendment is to limit the application of the Section to land acquired for general development and where the acquiring authorities do not themselves develop, the benefit is limited to persons deriving satisfaction from the land. The scope of Section 18 is limited to land acquired by local planning authorities under Clauses 34 and 36 of the Bill. The Amendment substitutes the words: to obtain thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements for the words: to obtain accommodation thereon and the Amendment brings the provisions of Section 18 (5) of the 1945 Act into line with Section 29 of that Act under Clause 22 (7) of the Bill as amended in Committee.

1.30 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I would ask for some clarification before we leave this Schedule. The amended Section 24 says: Where a Minister and the appropriate Minister or the Central Land Board and the appropriate Minister propose to name an order under this subsection … A little further up it refers to the: Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister … That seems to be reasonable in a Scottish Measure, but what does it mean when it refers to the Minister and the appropriate Minister doing certain things. I understand that the appropriate Minister in some cases might be the Minister of Transport, but what other Minister would have a right to issue an Order under this Scottish Measure? It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that perhaps it might be more convenient if this procedure, which I think is a good one, were adopted again, but that the Bill should be re-committed in respect of the new Schedule at the end of the Report stage. In that event we could discuss these Amendments separately. As it is, it is rather awkward to discuss them now.

Mr. Buchanan

I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I might say that this was a genuine effort to help all sides. We broadly agreed that this would serve the purpose, but we learn from experience and possibly the experience we have gained here will guide us when we come to consider further Scottish Measures.

Mr. Speaker

I quite agree, and I realise that this was meant to help. I appreciate the difficulty, but there might have been Amendments on which hon. Members would have wished to divide. That would have been simpler.