Part I

HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1812-7

Development Included in Existing Use for Purposes other than Compensation under s 17."

The title of this Schedule has given rise to some misunderstanding and has led to requests to include numerous other exceptions from the development charge. The object of the Amendment is to change the title of the Schedule, which is to be divided into two parts. The main purpose of the Schedule is to settle the dividing line between the existing use values and the development values. The operations specified in Part I are exempt from development charge but no compensation is payable if planning permission to such operations is refused. In the event of a refusal and it being shown that the land is incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, it will be open to the owner to require the local planning authority to purchase the land under Clause 16. If the land is purchased under that Clause or under any other of the provisions of the Bill compensation will be assessed on the basis that there is a right to carry out the operations referred to in Part I. It may be asked why no compensation is payable under the refusal of the planning permission. The answer is that the refusal of permission in these cases does not necessarily mean any immediate loss of income to the owner.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I quite realise the position of the owner, but what would happen if the best fields were taken from a farm, leaving the tenant only with the worst? How does the tenant stand in such circumstances? Is he safeguarded in the same way as the landlord where he no longer has a commercial unit?

Mr. Buchanan

The answer is that in this matter agricultural land is exempted.

Mr. Williams

But is it exempted? What about land taken for house building? I have a case in mind. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary—I am not at all in a controversial mood—to look into this if he is not absolutely certain because it may be necessary to amend the Bill in some other place

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

I would like to support the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). During the war here were many such cases. Very often the best fields or the best land were taken and sometimes the tenant—perhaps the tenant of a very good dairy farm—was left with a mere shred of the kernel and unable to carry on the dairy production which is so essential for the nation's need. I should like the hon. Gentleman to respond to the advice of the hon. Member for Torquay and to tell the Committee just where the tenants will stand. Even the Socialist Government is concerned with the principle of fair and just compensation, and I want fair and just compensation for the landlord and the tenant too. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to assure us where the tenant stands. This is a reasonable plea which we put forward, and it is essential that we should know.

I would very much have preferred the Joint Under-Secretary—I have never before seen him do what he did today—to come to the Box and explain the Amendment without a brief. The hon. Gentleman is always much happier without a brief. I do not say this is any sense offensively, but the hon. Gentleman gave me the impression that he was endeavouring to explain this Amendment to the Committee when he was not completely master of the subject. That is why he has aroused in our breasts fear as to where the tenant may stand or may not stand.

Mr. Buchanan

I thank the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) for his courtesy and brevity and I trust that we shall get through this Bill in the same reasonable spirit. The answer is that the tenant has equal rights with the owner to make a claim.

Mr. C. Williams

I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and to say that I should not have raised this except that I believe an injustice exists. I encountered a case on Sunday which I have put before the Minister. I would like him really to see that the tenant gets adequate compensation for the fact that the farm is no longer an industrially working unit.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan

I beg to move, in page 122, line 37, to leave out "occasion may require," and to insert: the person having the right to rebuild may desire. This is the first of a series of Amendments extending the exemptions from the payment of development charges. Upstairs we were asked not only by the Opposition, but by some of my hon.. Friends, to extend the scope of this Schedule. This Amendment makes it clear that no development charge is payable in respect of rebuilding as often as the person having the right to rebuild has the desire to do so.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

We appreciate the Government's action in meeting points which were raised upstairs, but I should also say that in this very large Order Paper there are a great many Amendments which go entirely the other way, and, so far from meeting the points raised, stiffen the Bill very much against the points put forward by the Opposition. We shall have to say something on that class of Amendment. I quite agree, however, that this Amendment and the next two Amendments show the fruits of our somewhat lengthy and tedious efforts in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan

I beg to move in page 123, line 4, after "exceeded," to insert: in the case of a dwellinghouse, by more than one-tenth or fifteen hundred cubic feet, whichever is the greater, and in any other case. Upstairs we heard a great deal of criticism from both sides of the Committee on the 10 per cent. tolerance which applies to small and large houses. The point was made that in many of the small houses in Scotland 10 per cent. was nothing at all for practical purposes, though it might be all right in a large house with 20 rooms. My right hon. Friend went into the matter and thought something ought to be done to ease the position of the person with a small house who wanted to make decent lavatory or bathroom accommodation. Therefore, he suggests 1,500 cubic feet or 10 per cent. whichever is the greater. We think this concession meets the criticism made upstairs and goes some way to meeting what we think is a real need.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that this was a matter put very strongly in Committee. What we had in mind was the small house, particularly in the rural areas. The hon. Gentleman said that he considered 1,500 cubic feet would be sufficient for additional sanitary accommodation. I agree, but we were looking to the inclusion in a building attached to the cottage of a kitchenette with bathroom attached. I have been working it out, and it would seem that the 1,500 cubic feet would cover that, but it may be a little tight. As we look at things at present it might be considered to be sufficient, but times change and we do not want to add something on now which in 10 or 15 years' time we shall be told showed a complete lack of imagination. We accept willingly this gesture and we appreciate it, but we would have liked it to go a little further; even another 100 cubic feet would have made the condition more clear.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western)

Not only that, but there is a point to which the Committee addressed itself for some time upstairs, namely, that of industrial buildings and shops. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed the case of shops which have been swept away for some reason—burned out or bomb destroyed—or which were no longer there at the appointed day, and which the owners desired to rebuild with more than a 10 per cent. tolerance in view of their desire to make them conform to modern standards of accommodation and modern requirement for the display of goods, adequate lighting and so on—

The Chairman

This Amendment deals with dwelling houses.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I was regret ting, Major Milner, that the Amendment did not refer also to industrial buildings.

Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)

As one of those who raised this matter upstairs, I would express our thanks to my hon Friend for this Amendment. I am not sure that it goes quite as far as one would like. It depends upon the standards which we set ourselves. I rather think that in Scotland we have to get out of the habit of thinking that two rooms and a bathroom are sufficient for a wife, husband and children because it does not allow of sex separation. I would have liked to see this Amendment go further, particularly as the comparison with the treatment of animals in this Schedule is rather invidious. However, I and my hon. Friends are grateful for what has been done, and we shall accept this Amendment.

Mr. McKie

I join in the chorus of approval, especially with regard to what has just been said by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis). I, too, wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to go a little further in the drafting of this Amendment, in order to allow more elbow room in the rebuilding of the houses specified in the Schedule. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh was speaking as the representative of a highly organised urban constituency in the Scottish metropolis, and I can understand that his words were very restrained when he spoke of the conditions there and the uncomfortable surroundings of many unfortunate people in his Division and, indeed, in the Divisions in the Scottish provinces with the exception of land represented by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). However, while sympathising with the urban point of view, I, as the representative of a purely agricultural area, am specially concerned with the plight of those who have to depend for their living on tilling the soil, and very many people in the countryside of Scotland are living in conditions described by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh. I wish, therefore, that this Amendment had given us a little more elbow room, because the new wording will scarcely meet completely the kind of case that we have in view. I hope this will not be taken as a "law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not." The hon. Gentleman may say that in ten years we may have to make fresh provision in a new housing Bill. If that is so, well and good, but I hope that by accepting this Amendment we are not locking the door to any additional improvements in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan

I beg to move in page 123, line 4, at the end to insert: 2. The use as two or more separate dwel-linghouses of any building which on the appointed day was used as a single dwelling-house.