HC Deb 05 February 1948 vol 446 cc2000-8
Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "Whether," and to insert "Where."

I think it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the next Amendment in page 2, line 30, to leave Out "not," and insert: the land is damaged by Government war use. They both relate to Clause 2, and I hope that the result of the discussion upon them will be that the Solicitor-General will make really clear a position which was considerably confused at the end of the Debate on this Clause on the Committee stage.

Under this Clause, where the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that the effect on the land of Government war work or Government war use is such as to render necessary the permanent adjustment of the boundaries between that land and other land, he can compulsorily acquire other land which is not land on which there are Government war works, and, of course, land which has Government war works upon it. I think that is the true effect of the Clause, as it now stands. Where the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied, in accordance with (a) and (b) of this Clause, he can then authorise the compulsory acquisition of other land right outside the area affected by Government war works, because Clause 3, which is now being put in Section 6 of the 1945 Act, starts with these words: Whether there are Government war works on the land or not, in the case of land which is being used for agriculture"— I leave the next bit out— the power of acquisition shall be exercisable where the said Minister is satisfied that—. We start this complicated Clause with the fact that the Minister has to be satisfied of two things. One is that there should be an adjustment of boundaries, and that adjustment is rendered necessary by the effect on land of Government war works or Government use. Even if he is so satisfied, the power of acquisition quite clearly extends to land whether there are Government war works on it or not. That is how I read the Clause, and I think that is the only interpretation which can be given to it, as it now stands. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree. In any case, I shall be interested to hear his explanation. Otherwise the words whether there are Government war works on the land or not. do not seem to be of very much significance. In the Committee stage the question of the acquisition of land adjacent or contiguous thereto was discussed. The question was raised as to whether Subsection (a) of Section 6 of the 1945 Act applied, and we were given the clear assurance by the right hon. Gentleman that that particular Subsection was not imported into this Subsection (3). That, however, is quite a different matter from the question which does arise as to what land can be acquired under this Subsection. If it is open to the Minister to acquire land, whether there are Government war works on it or not, once he is satisfied with respect to land where there have been Government war works, and adjustment of boundaries are necessary, then, obviously, he can exercise his power of acquisition over a very wide area, and without any regard to land contiguous or adjacent to that area.

During the Committee stage the Financial Secretary referred more than once to the severance of farms, but this Clause deals with land. Supposing we find land on which there is a runway—that was the illustration which we discussed before—and an adjustment of boundaries is necessary, does the power of acquisition extend only to the fields in which the runway is built? If not—if it extends further than that—it must extend to land: Whether there are Government war works on that land or not. … I think that is the intention of the Clause, though the Solicitor-General shook his head when I put forward that interpretation earlier.

Where does the power of acquisition stop? Does it mean that when there are Government war works on part of a farm, this Clause will give power to acquire the whole of that farm, or that there will be power to acquire compulsorily not only that farm but also the adjoining farm? What is the limit of power of acquisition which is given to the Minister of Agricul- ture by this Clause? If there is no limit, once the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are satisfied in regard to the other land he can acquire, I can understand that there is no need to take power to acquire land which is either contiguous or adjacent. That power would be unnecessary. The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear where the limit should be. Before we part with this Clause, I think that we should have some explanation from the Government of the limit of the power of acquisition.

Mr. Digby

I beg to second the Amendment.

This matter is fairly complicated, and I am not sure that the position was very much clarified by the Minister's remarks on Committee stage. I was left under the impression that where a small adjustment of boundaries was necessary for the permanent use of land which it was desired to acquire, the widest powers were to be given to enable the Government to acquire not only that stretch of land, whatever its extent, but all the adjoining fields and even the entire farm. Were that to be the case, it would cause the greatest concern to farmers with farms adjacent to any of these requisitioned sites. Unless some assurance is given on that point, I feel that we must insist on this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General

I think I am in a position to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends who support the Amendment. Clause 2 must be read in conjunction with Part II of the 1945 Act. Part II of that Act contains an overriding limitation as to the sort of land in reference to which these powers can be used, and that limitation is to be found in Section 4 (1) of that Act. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would turn to that Section he would see that no powers arise under Part II except in relation to land on which Government war work has been done or which has been damaged by Government war use. That is the overriding limitation. If the land does not comply with that description and come within that definition, it cannot be compulsorily acquired under Section 6 of the 1945 Act, or, by consequence, under Clause 2 of this Bill. In other words, the powers under Clause 2 of the Bill are limited to land which comes within the meaning of that Section as being land on which Government war work has been done or which has been damaged by Government war use. In point of fact, the Amendment would simply seek to repeat those words with some slight difference. Thus, if the Amendment were accepted, the opening part of the Subsection would read: Where there are Government war works on the land or the land is damaged by Government war use. The two things will be very nearly the same. There would be some few cases which would be within the general scope of Section 4 (1) and not within the scope of the Subsection inserted by this Clause, but they are substantially the same. Therefore, I think I have answered the point, because there is a limitation to work which has been done by the Government or damage to the land by Government war use.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

May I put this question to the Solicitor-General, in view of his answer? Section 4 of the 1945 Act relates to land on which Government war work has been done or which has been damaged by Government war use, and if those words are repeated in Clause 2 (3) of this Bill, what is the significance and meaning of the words in lines 29 and 30 of the Bill— Whether there are Government war works on the land or not. What is the meaning of those words, if the point is covered by Section 4 of the 1945 Act?

The Solicitor-General

A distinction has to be drawn between works and work. Works include buildings erected by the Government in the course of its use of the land, and work simply means the carrying out of work. Therefore, whether or not there are any actual buildings erected, nevertheless, if the land comes within the definition of land on which Government war work has been done by the Government during the war, it can be taken under Subsection (3).

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end to insert: Provided that where the owners and occupiers of the land to be acquired do not assent to the proposed acquisition the Minister shall not express himself as so satisfied until a public local inquiry has been held and he has considered the report made by the person holding the inquiry: The Clause provides that the Minister shall be satisfied. It contains no condition as to what should be done to satisfy him. It may be that he will obtain the advice of the agricultural executive committees, but there is nothing in this Clause to require the Minister or his agents to make direct inquiry of the farmers who are likely to be affected by this adjustment of boundaries. I think it is right that owners and occupiers of land which is to be affected by the scheme should have the opportunity of placing their views openly and publicly on the suggestions put forward at a public inquiry.

8.45 p.m.

Presumably, at some stage, they will be informed of what is proposed to be done to their land. It may be that, without any further inquiry, or much inquiry, the Minister will come to the conclusion that he is satisfied. Assuming that the farmers concerned—and this is the case with which this Amendment is intended to deal—object to the adjustment of the boundary, it does not necessarily follow that the real grounds of their objection will percolate back to the Minister; they may get slightly covered up by going through the channels between the farmer and the Minister. I suggest that, before these compulsory powers of acquisition are exercised, it is only right that, where there are farmers objecting, they should have an opportunity of putting forward their reasons for opposing the alteration of the boundary at a public local inquiry, before the Minister can express himself as satisfied that compulsory acquisition is necessary.

In other cases—the taking of land for houses, this that and the other—there are rights for public local inquiries. I need not go through them in any detail, and I do not propose to, but it seems to me that it would give far greater satisfaction to the people likely to be affected by this power being exercised if it were known that, should they oppose the making of an order—and it may be that they will have very good grounds for so doing—they would, before an order is made, have an opportunity of putting forward those grounds publicly.

Mr. Digby

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not think there is much I need add to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. It is perfectly evident that the powers given to the Minister under this Clause are extremely wide. There is no limitation, except that he should be satisfied, presumably as the result of what the representative of a local war agricultural executive committee tells him. It might even be that the farmer affected would not even know what was in the wind until the Minister was, in fact, satisfied. I think we need certain assurances from the right hon. Gentleman on this point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman in moving this Amendment is under a misapprehension. What, I gather, he wants to do can now be done under the ordinary machinery laid down in Section 8 of the 1945 Act. What he suggests, apparently, is that certain action should be taken with regard to the occupier or owner before the Minister himself is satisfied that action should be taken. Anything more nonsensical than that would be difficult to imagine. This new Subsection which it is proposed to add to Section 6 of the 1945 Act lays down the conditions which the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall consider before he gives his certificate. It may well be that neither paragraph (a) nor (b) of this new Subsection will be satisfied, and, therefore, the Minister will not give his certificate. In that case, nothing further will be done. It would be quite unfair to approach the farmer, or whoever is concerned, and worry him with the matter before it had been decided to proceed.

Once it has been decided, and the Minister has given his certificate as laid down in this new Subsection, Part II of the 1945 Act and Section 8 of that Act will come into play. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look, he will find that the whole procedure which he out-lined, and even more, is there set forth. Publication has to be made in the Press, notice has to be given to the owner, the War Works Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body, also comes into the picture, and, in every way, those who object have a right to be heard at a public inquiry, which is, I gather, what he wants. Therefore, if I may say so, what he has in mind is already in the Bill and I hope that, that being so, he will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end to insert: Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall authorise the acquisition of land to which Subsection (2) of this Section extends. The Solicitor-General in Committee gave us an assurance that Subsection (2) was not incorporated in Subsection (3). I must confess that I feel some little doubt as to whether that is the interpretation which will necessarily be given upon these two Subsections by the courts. In order to avoid doubt and unnecessary litigation, we have put down this Amendment which makes it clear beyond a peradventure that the power of acquisition for this purpose does not go so far as to cover contiguous or adjacent land. Bearing in mind that this Amendment does nothing but express the views of the Solicitor-General, I hope he will meet us to the extent of accepting it so as to make the position absolutely plain and clear.

Mr. Digby

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General

I said at an early stage in the discussion of this Bill that I thought this was clear and I must confess I still think so. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about it. The new Clause we are putting in will be Subsection (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1945. Subsection (2) begins with the words: In any such case as aforesaid. That can only refer to Subsection (1). I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman there cannot be much reason for litigation about that. There might be considerable reason for litigation if we put in a proviso which is apparently meaningless because it simply repeated what was already in an earlier Subsection. It will only make for obscurity if we introduce this Amendment, which will have the effect of embodying in that Clause words to which it would be extremely difficult to attribute any sensible meaning. In my opinion the matter is as clear as it can be, and I would ask the hon. and learned Member, if he agrees with me, not to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end to insert: Provided that the power of acquisition shall not be exercisable under this Subsection in respect of any land where the owner of such land assents in writing to the adjustment required or recommended by the said Minister. I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to give me this assurance. In some areas it may be necessary to propose to acquire land belonging to a large number of small owners for the purpose of securing an adjustment of boundaries. This Amendment is designed to cover the case where one or two of these small owners are willing to agree to the alteration of the boundaries but the remainder object. In the Clause as it stands it might be that there could be power to acquire the land of all the owners, including those who assent to the alteration. This Amendment is put down in the hope that even if it is not accepted—we hope it will be accepted for the sake of clarification—we shall get an assurance that in a case like this, where there are two owners or even one owner assenting to the scheme out of a large number, then their land will not be compulsorily taken from them.

Mr. Digby

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is obvious that it is preferable to have agreement wherever possible; that will be quicker and will not involve so much trouble for all concerned.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I think I can answer the point equally shortly. In our view this Amendment is not necessary for the following reasons. Before land can actually be acquired, two things must happen. The first is that the requisitioning Department must satisfy the Minister of Agriculture that the adjustment of boundaries is only likely if the machinery is set in motion and the land is acquired. They have first of all to convince the Minister of Agriculture that a settlement is only likely and possible on those lines. That presupposes that other methods have been tried. Where now we can get adjacent owners to come together and make some reasonable agreement the Department is only too willing to compromise, if that is in the best interests of all concerned. It is only where it is found quite impossible for any agreement to be arrived at that the Minister steps in and gives a certificate.

It follows after that that the second hurdle has to be jumped, and that is the War Works Commission; under the procedure laid down in Section 8 of the 1945 Act. Therefore, it seems to me that an Amendment of this kind would simply muddle the procedure, because though it may be true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that one or two out of a number of owners might be willing to come to terms, if the re-arrangement desired necessitated all agreeing, it would be necessary to go for arbitration, and that would mean setting in motion all the paraphernalia, and a public inquiry.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Suppose there are ten people affected by the proposed alteration of boundaries, that eight object and two are prepared to assent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the land of the two who are prepared to assent to the proposed adjustment will not be compulsorily taken from them?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

No, because it may well be that the land owned by those two is key land; and although they assent we could not on that ground say we would not take their land. It is unfortunate, but there it is. What, I think, would weigh with the Departments and others concerned would be the fact that two or three people were willing to compromise and to try to find a settlement. That might make quite a deal of difference as to what land was or was not required. We could not give an assurance in advance, however.

Amendment negatived.