HC Deb 28 February 1949 vol 462 cc41-62

Order for Second Reading read.

3.39 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

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

This is another of those modest but useful little Bills which the Law Officers are accustomed to introduce. It contains nothing of a spectacular nature. I venture to think that it involves no element of political controversy whatever. Its object is to strengthen and codify the statutory arrangements for settling disputes in connection with the valuation of land and to ensure that in all cases where some form of valuation under statute is required—for instance, on the compulsory acquisition of land, on the assessment of the development or existing use value of land, or in regard to the valuation of land for the purposes of Estate Duty—there should be a single and consistent jurisdiction combining legal and technical valuation experience, with an appeal to the High Court and thence up, through the Court of Appeal, to the House of Lords, if necessary, on any matters of legal importance.

The first point about the Bill which I wish to make absolutely clear is that it in no way affects the code or codes of compensation or valuation which have to be followed in particular cases. It is not at all concerned with that matter. Consequently, in discussing the principles of the Bill, there is no need to concern ourselves with the question of whether the valuation should be on the basis, for example, of 1939 value or existing use value, or to what factors regard ought to be paid in making the valuation itself. These are all questions which are settled by the various codes under different statutes, and the question with which this Bill is concerned is not that of the principles upon which the valuation should be made, but who should make it.

The question with which this Bill is concerned is purely that of machinery in regard to the application of the existing codes. Hitherto most questions of this character, but not by any means all, have been referred to the official arbitrators, who are appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, by the Reference Committee. Hon. Members will recollect that the Reference Committee consists of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and that it is that committee which in its turn appoints the gentlemen who act as official arbitrators under the Act of 1919. There are at present two official arbitrators. They hold whole-time appointments, and they are, as they have always been, qualified surveyors of high standing.

I wish to say quite clearly that on the whole this system of arbitration has served the country very well during the 30 years or so in which it has been in existence, and in happier and more prosperous times I have, no doubt like the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, appeared on occasions before one or other of the official arbitrators. If I may say so with respect, I have always found them most careful and conscientious in the discharge of the duties assigned to them. I would certainly wish now, on behalf of the Government, and I feel sure on behalf of both sides of the House, to place on record our appreciation of the way in which these gentlemen, a succession of able and public-spirited people, have discharged the difficult and responsible duties which the 1919 Act imposed on them.

Indeed, the Committee presided over by Lord Uthwatt, which inquired into the question of compensation and betterment, reported in 1942 most favourably about the work which the official arbitrators had done hitherto. They went further and said that, in their view at that time, they thought that the system was one which could not readily be improved upon, and they did not propose any amendment to it. The Government would not wish at all to dissent from the conclusion of Lord Uthwatt's Committee in the circumstances which existed at that time, and if those circumstances had not changed they would not have contemplated the introduction of this Bill. We only propose an amendment of the existing system now because the circumstances have considerably changed, and later experience of the work both of the official arbitrators and of other tribunals has led us to believe that the machinery which is now proposed in this Bill would deal even more efficiently with the various classes of case which now arise.

The main defect under the existing machinery is that the official arbitrators, being themselves qualified only as surveyors and valuers, have no means of providing themselves with legal advice or assistance in regard to matters of law, or indeed of securing close co-ordination and consistency of decision with each other. As hon. Members will know, in matters of this kind difficult questions of law very often arise. I have appeared on a number of occasions before the official arbitrators armed with all sorts of legal text books and authorities in order to support legal principles, some of which I hardly understood myself, and some of which must have been very difficult of appreciation by arbitrators who did not pretend to have any legal qualifications. None the less, although the official arbitrators possessed no legal qualifications and had the benefit of no legal advice, they were called upon to give decisions involving quite difficult questions of law. Although it is true that there was provision for appeal to the High Court, but no further, by way of case stated, that was a restricted and in some respects not an altogether satisfactory form of appeal.

But not inconsiderable as the legal difficulties confronting the official arbitrators often were at the time Lord Uthwatt reported about the matter in 1942, legal difficulties and implications arising in connection with questions of valuation are now substantially greater. The whole basis of the code which the official arbitrators have to administer has been radically changed by the Town and Country Planning Acts passed in 1947. I would not seek to pretend that difficult and complex questions of law do not arise in connection with the administration of those Acts. The conception of existing use value, for instance, while simple enough as a conception, gives rise to questions of real difficulty in its application to particular cases. We have felt it to be of great importance in cases of that kind, in which real legal difficulties may arise, that the tribunal of first instance, which hears the witnesses and has in the first place to give the decision, should be one capable of giving an authoritative legal decision, a decision moreover which should be capable of appeal not only to the High Court, but if it involved a really important problem which was thought worthy of further appeal, should be one which could, if necessary, go right up to the House of Lords.

It is, I think, unsatisfactory from all points of view that a surveyor sitting alone, without either legal qualifications himself or the benefit of legal advice, should be asked to decide a case after hearing legal arguments on both sides, and should have to decide that case on the basis of one view or another of the legal position. Where that is the position, and the decision in the first instance has to be given by somebody without legal experience although it involves legal points, the parties to the arbitration are often forced to the unnecessary expense of having a case stated and going to the High Court in order to get a decision based more firmly on legal grounds. That situation would not arise so often if the tribunal of first instance were one which possessed legal qualifications.

The present procedure is also objectionable in that it tends perhaps to produce a compromise decision before the tribunal of first instance. The official arbitrator sitting as a surveyor—I give this as a hypothetical case—hears an argument on one side suggesting that the valuation which is in dispute ought to be £1,000 on one particular view of the law. On the other side somebody says, "Not at all, that is the wrong view of the law; the proper view of the law is this"—and on that alternative view the valuation ought to be £2,000. There is perhaps the temptation on the part of a lay arbitrator in circumstances of that kind to give a decision that the valuation is £1,500. When that valuation is given nobody knows on which view of the law, if indeed upon either, it purports to be based.

That is unsatisfactory to the parties in the particular arbitration, and it is especially unsatisfactory since it provides no kind of guidance at all in future cases in which other persons may wish to raise the same point, and are unaware which basis has been accepted by the official arbitrator. It was considerations of that kind which led to the establishment of the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal. The experience—I think the very satisfactory experience—of the working of the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal led us to suggest to the House the desirability of establishing similar machinery by this Bill to cover the whole range of statutory valuation.

The first two Clauses of the Bill constitute the Tribunal and provide that the Lord Chancellor may appoint the members of it. The president is to be a barrister of standing and the other members are to be in part lawyers and in part surveyors appointed after consultation with the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. But though these Clauses will provide a Tribunal capable of assessing legal arguments and of giving authoritative decisions on the legal aspect of the particular matters which are under examination before it, we have thought it of the utmost importance to maintain the informal and inexpensive and non-litigous procedure which has been customary before the official arbitrators for those cases which do not involve matters of legal difficulty.

In Clause 3 of the Bill complete elasticity is provided in regard to the composition of the tribunal which is to deal with particular cases. Where the case involves no difficulty at all of a legal nature, where perhaps the valuation problems themselves are not of especial complication, it will be open to the president of the tribunal to appoint a single surveyor to hear the case, very much in the same way as the official arbitrator does today. Where, on the other hand, the case involves a more complicated valuation, although no question of law, it will be open to the president to appoint two or more surveyors to deal with the matter. Where, finally, the case involves questions of law the president of the tribunal can appoint a legal member to sit with one or more surveyors in order that both the valuation and the legal aspects can be adequately dealt with.

Under the Bill as at present framed, the whole jurisdiction of the official arbitrators which arises under a number of statutes—I have a list of them here, but it is probably unnecessary to set them out—will be transferred to the new tribunal, as also will be the jurisdiction of the official referees under the Finance (1909–10) Act, in connection with valuation for estate duty purposes. Those will go automatically to the new Tribunal, and that will cover the great majority of cases with which the Tribunal will have to deal. But under Clause 4 there is power, by means of an Order in Council—which will have to be laid, and which would be subject to negative prayer—to transfer to the new Tribunal any jurisdiction of the same nature vested in other bodies.

There are one or two other bodies. I have mentioned one, the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal. That is a case which it may possibly be convenient to transfer to this new body. There is the General Claims Tribunal, which dealt with claims arising out of the war and which is largely coming to the end of its work. There are one or two other special cases of that kind to which we desire to give consideration, and in connection with which we want to have the power, if necessary, to transfer them to the new body in order to establish a single and consistent code of procedure in regard to them all.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Is it contemplated that the Central Land Board shall be regarded as a statutory tribunal, and that matters before it should be referred to the Lands Tribunal?

The Attorney-General

No, Sir. That is not in mind.

It only remains for me now to add—and having the qualities of an angel I fear to tread upon this ground—that the Bill extends to Scotland. In Scotland the intention is that a separate Tribunal may be established and in Scotland the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Secretary of State will assume the functions which are vested in the Lord Chancellor so far as concerns England and Wales. The Bill makes provision for the Act to be brought into operation on different dates in regard to England and Scotland. The Secretary of State will decide, according to the number of cases which appear likely to arise in Scotland, if and when it is necessary to set up a new Tribunal to deal with those matters in Scotland.

We have thought that it is desirable, at any rate in the case of England and Wales, to set up a Tribunal as soon as may be in order that it may be able to deal, for instance, with the claims to compensation out of the £300 million fund in respect of the loss of development value. When the Tribunal has been established we think it will provide a compact, consistent and tidy system which will be able to deal authoritatively with all the questions coming before it and which, by reason of the fact that it will be a single tribunal, will produce consistency of decision throughout this field of valuation; and by reason of that consistency may perhaps reduce the number of disputed cases. At all events, we think this is a piece of machinery which will be useful in facilitating a just decision on those claims which are the subject of dispute.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

As the Attorney-General said, this is a noncontroversial Measure. We are indebted to him for a very clear exposition of its provisions. It is something more to us than a non-controversial Measure, because it is a very welcome Measure. We recall with what tenacity during the Debates on the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the Government resisted the Amendments moved from this side of the House with the object of giving a reference to an official arbitrator in the case of disputes affecting the question of loss of development value. It was not until such Amendments were inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act in another place that the Government gave way and finally accepted that there should be a reference to an official arbitrator so far as loss of development rights was concerned. The official arbitrator takes the place for that purpose of the Central Land Board in whom jurisdiction was vested by the Town and Country Planning Bill as it originally appeared before this House.

I am inclined to agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said regarding the Report of the Uthwatt Committee. Had things remained as they were in 1942, I have very little doubt but that the system which has gone on for a great many years—of an official arbitrator appointed by the panel consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors—would have continued to prove satisfactory. But I take it that the main reason for the introduction of this Bill and for the establishment of a tribunal, not only with professional qualifications but with judicial qualifications as well, is to be found in the inclusion in the matters which will go before this Tribunal of the disputes referred to in Clause 1 (3, d) of the Bill. That is to say: any disputes arising in relation to the determination of the development values of interests in land by the Central Land Board or other authority prescribed under Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That, as I understand it, relates to claims against the £300 million fund for loss of development value.

We think that it is perfectly right and proper that there should be established a tribunal with judicial as well as professional qualifications for the reasons which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so clearly stated to the House. What we are not so clear about, however, is why when we get to a stage further in the Town and Country Planning Act and when it comes not to assessing the less of development value but to the assessment of development charges under the Act, apparently reference is not to be permitted to this tribunal of a dispute relating to development charge. We are a little puzzled about, that. Apparently, the final and ultimate assessment of development charge is to remain in the hands of the Central Land Board. I should have thought that there certainly was a case for putting in a provision during the Committee stage of this Bill that disputes with reference to the levying of development charges might also be referred to the Tribunal.

We think that this is an admirable type of tribunal for dealing with questions of this kind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not, I think, in the House during the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) took part in the discussions. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether he would bring to the notice of the Minister of Health the provisions of this Bill. This Bill provides that there shall be a tribunal with judicial qualifications for dealing with disputes regarding loss of development value and for assessing compensation upon the compulsory acquisition of land. But it is only a fortnight ago that the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill was before us and tribunals had to be found for deciding questions, for example, of what is the reasonable rent of controlled premises or whether all or part of the premium paid for the possession of premises at any time since 1939 should be recoverable. It would seem to us that questions of that character also need a tribunal with some judicial qualifications. But when that view was pressed from these benches last week the Minister of Health said: The county court is no better than a lay tribunal of this sort in assessing the facts. Later he said: Once we allow appeals against the tribunals on points of law, Members in all parts of the House know that a forest of litigation would start at once and the tribunals would be lost on it. It is intended that these tribunals should be simple tribunals, arbitrating about matters of immediate and particular fact in the relations between families in a variety of different circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1304–5.] It does not seem to me that the argument for the purely lay tribunal is any stronger in the case of comparatively poor persons who may or may not have paid exorbitant premiums to obtain possession of premises during the last 10 years.

It does not seem to me that there is very much difference in principle between that and the assessment of compensation for the loss of development rights or for the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes. I would, therefore, commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when we get to the Report stage of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill the Minister of Health might be informed of the proceedings on this Bill with a view to the establishment of a somewhat similar tribunal, a tribunal with both judicial and professional qualifications for dealing with the equally complex questions which, in my view, are bound to arise under the Minister of Health's Bill. This Measure is welcomed to us for the reasons I have stated and, subject to a few small points we may wish to discuss in Committee, we shall assist in getting it on to the Statute Book.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

There can be no doubt that the determination of development value under the Town and Country Planning Act involves by itself sufficiently complicated considerations to justify the creation of land tribunals to deal with them. I feel a certain sympathy with the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) in his view that the determination of disputes as to development charge could appropriately and reasonably be referred to the Lands Tribunal, at least in certain cases. Reading the provisions of this Bill, it at first appeared to me that the explicit references to disputes in regard to development value being referred to the Lands Tribunal meant that it was intended to exclude disputes arising as to the determination of the development charge. But I formed the view, and indeed the hope, that it might be possible, under Clause 4, for the Central Land Board to refer, to the Lands Tribunal difficult questions arising in regard to the assessment of the development charge.

It seems to me that the Central Land Board may be a statutory tribunal under the definition of such a tribunal given in the Bill, and the matter of determining the proper development charge is one which I should have thought could sometimes be very usefully referred to the Lands Tribunal. After all, the greater part of the work which the Central Land Board is to perform in determining the appropriate development charge is the determination of the value of planning permission. The value of planning permission, which is the main factor under the Town and Country Planning Act to which the Central Land Board must have regard in assessing the development charge, is a matter very appropriate for the Lands Tribunal contemplated under this Bill. I would ask the Government to bear in mind whether it might not be well when the time comes to consider the extension of the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal by Order in Council, to reflect upon the desirability of asking and even encouraging the Central Land Board in certain cases to refer to the Lands Tribunal difficult questions arising out of the assessment of the value of planning permission and the assessment of the development charge.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) I welcome the introduction of this Bill, which I consider to be both good and necessary. It has been clear for some time to those interested in these matters that the task imposed by Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, would require some reinforcement of the ranks of official arbitrators. There is a five-year programme for evolving the Treasury scheme for payments to persons whose interests in land are depreciated by reason of the effects of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, and three of those five years, that is to say, from June, 1949, until 1952, are to be devoted to matters of valuation and arbitrations arising thereunder. It is reasonably clear that the Tribunal here set up will be pretty busy during that three-year period in hearing arbitrations on the subject of the assessment of development values for the purposes of the computation of claims upon the scheme. That important matter is, however, a temporary one; by 1952, that work will be finished, and there will remain 12 months for the actual making of the Treasury scheme, for securing the approval of Parliament, and, if necessary, Parliamentary Amendments to it.

The other matter to which reference has been made both by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) is a continuing consideration; and I was specially glad to hear the hon. Member opposite, who has great experience of these matters, echo what we on this side of the House have always said in regard to the desirability of there being an appeal against the determination of development charges. The computation to be made under Section 70 of the Act in regard to the levying of a development charge is not precisely the same as the computation of the loss of development value, which is the foundation for a claim upon the £300 million fund. Nevertheless the determination of a development charge involves the computation of the difference in the value of land with the benefit of planning permission and without that permission, and thus, of course, involves matters on which even expert valuers may differ.

There is no precise science of valuation, and no competent valuer has ever suggested that there is. If, therefore, there is provision for arbitration between the views of two expert professional valuers in regard to the loss of development values for the purpose of a claim upon the Fund, it is extremely difficult in logic to see why there should not be a similar provision for arbitration between two different, though equally honest and expert, views taken by professional valuers in regard to the benefit of land respectively with and without planning permission.

I am afraid I cannot altogether echo the view of the hon. Member for Edge Hill about the inclusion of the Central Land Board as a statutory tribunal. I entirely agree with him that the definition in Clause 4 (7) ought to include the Central Land Board. The reason that it does not, in spite of the hon. Member's interpretation, is to be found, I assume, in the words "judicial determination." As I understand the viewpoint normally taken by the learned Attorney-General, he would not be disposed to consider that the Central Land Board, in computing valuations, is discharging a judicial function, and, for that reason, he deems it not to be included in the expression "statutory tribunal." I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman assents to that, and confirms my interpretation of his view. I personally have always taken the view that these matters should be dealt with rather more judicially, in the sense that there should be an appeal against the determination of the development charge. If there were such an appeal, and if provision is at any time to be made for such an appeal in the Town and Country Planning Act, this Bill provides the ideal machinery for it. Though the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not gone as far as we would like in this matter, he has, at any rate, by this Bill provided the means whereby Parliament may put into effect any change of mind which it might hereafter make.

May I say a word in regard to the composition of the Tribunal? I think it will be generally agreed that it is right to add a legal element to the traditional arbitration by skilled surveyors. It is of course clear that the legal complexities, not only of the computing of development values under the Town and Country Planning Act, but of the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition are considerably greater now under the relevant Sections of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act than they were under Section (2) of the 1919 Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act. As the House knows, under that Act it was primarily a question of assessing the market value on the basis of the amount which the land would realise if sold in the open market by a willing seller. Though that, of course, could and sometimes did, arouse matters of legal difficulty, such matters of legal difficulty are far greater under the modifications of Town and Country Planning Act which imposes certain rather complex rules to be followed in the assessment of compensation.

There are one or two small points which I wish to refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In Clause 3 (2) provision is made, in certain cases, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, for one member sitting alone. I take it that it is not intended that a lawyer member should ever sit by himself.

The Attorney-General

indicated assent.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because it appeared to me that under that Clause such power could he given, though it would perhaps be unreasonable in my opinion, for a lawyer to sit alone to determine valuation questions.

The Attorney-General

I nodded my agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I ought to reserve the possibility that there might be a purely legal question arising in the course of valuation. In that case, the president might nominate only a legal arbitrator. I imagine that such cases would be very few and far between. If any element of valuation arose on the monetary side, the legal member would always be assisted by one who had professional knowledge.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course, in the exceptional case to which he refers, that would, I agree, be an entirely proper proceeding.

In Clause 3, there is provision for a majority decision which, as I understand it, is intended to get away from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman described as a habit of splitting the difference; but, of course, he will agree that the habit of splitting the difference, or of adjusting the average, as I prefer to call it, on purely valuation matters is quite a proper course. With great respect to him, the course normally taken by an arbitrator in the circumstances which he had in mind—where there is a different valuation in accordance with which of two legal interpretations is correct—is to make two alternative findings of amount and to leave it to procedure by case stated to see which, in fact, is right in law. But on a purely valuation matter, there being no precise science of valuation, it is, of course, quite proper that the average should be struck between what two different valuers might think was the correct figure. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would elucidate to the House the application of line 21 of Clause 3 (4) which reads: given on a review by way of appeal of the previous decision of another person. Reference is made in Clause 4 to the other statutory tribunals, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to two which are obviously relevant in this context—the War Damage and the General Claims Tribunals. There is a third tribunal which some of us hope might, perhaps, be wound up in due course in the future and have its function transferred to this more expert body. I refer to the tribunal already mentioned by my right hon. Friend, the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunal, whose expectation of life was originally given by the Minister of Health as expiring in 1947. This Lands Tribunal, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, has a statutory requirement of legal qualifications among its members. It has more than that; it has two other things for which we pressed in regard to the rent tribunals. It has power to award costs and its decisions are subject to appeal.

All those very proper things which were urged from this side of the House in respect of the rent tribunals have, in fact, been included on his own initiative and by his own volition by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the Lands Tribunal. The hon. and learned Attorney General is, of course, an eminently reasonable person—all lawyers are—but it is difficult, even in one's most courteous and non-controversial moments, to apply exactly the same description to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Therefore, may I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to breathe some of his spirit of reasonableness upon his right hon. Friend in order that we may have the sort of improvements in those tribunals to which my right hon. Friend has already referred?

There is one other small point to which I was going to refer in the absence of any representatives of the Liberal Party who normally like to look after the interests of Wales. However, I see that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) is now here. My recollection is that under the 1919 Act, or, perhaps, under the rules made thereunder, there was a requirement that one of the official arbitrators should have a knowledge of the Welsh language. I do not know whether any provision is made for that in this Bill, but it may be that it is a point which, in the interests of the Principality, the Government may wish to look into. Having said that, may I add my tribute to what was said by the Attorney-General in regard to the great value of the work done for the last 30 years by the arbitrators appointed under the 1919 Act, and wish the new tribunals every success in the labours that lie ahead of them?

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

There is only one question which I wish to ask the Attorney-General, and that is whether, in deciding the composition of this Tribunal, it has ever been considered that the Institute of Auctioneers and Valuers should have some nomination. I see that Clause 2 (2) says that the selection shall be barristers-at-law or solicitors of the like standing and the others shall be persons who have had experience in the valuation of land appointed after consultation with the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Perhaps I ought to declare my interest. I am a Fellow of the Auctioneers Institute and have had something to do with the valuation of land. With respect to my friends the surveyors, I think there are more competent valuers in the Auctioneers Institute than in the Surveyors Institute, and I suggest that members of the Auctioneers Institute should be available for selection for the Lands Tribunal.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison (Kettering)

I am sure everyone welcomes this Bill by which, if the Central Land Board were otherwise constituted, the old Adam of the official arbitrator could be replaced by two Eves.

There are two points that I should like to raise. First, I find it hard to agree with hon. Members opposite in their suggestion that because the question of claims to compensation under the Town and Country Planning Act is appropriate for this Tribunal, so also is the question of development charges. Claims to compensation, in the nature of the case, raise more difficult questions and are likely to involve questions of law which do not occur in the same way as regards development charges. I suggest that the reason is that a claim to compensation involves not only the valuation of the land at its existing use, not only the question of its value with planning permission, but also the question of the likelihood of that particular piece of land being used for this, that or the other purpose. There is an element of probability in those cases which cannot exist as regards a development charge. A development charge only involves two questions, both of valuation, both questions of fact and proper for decision as questions of fact.

My second point is this. I hoped when I saw the title of this Bill that it would go rather further and cover more ground than it actually does. I do not know if we shall hear the Lord Advocate in reply, but I believe that the Land Court in Scotland is concerned with other matters than the Lands Tribunal in Scotland will be. By setting up this Lands Tribunal we are going one step forward, but I hope that in this, as in other cases, that one step forward will not mean that we shall neglect the possibility of further progress.

I have long had it in mind that there were questions about the tenure of land and house property in this country which call for decision by some tribunal. Whether and to what extent such a tribunal should be a legal or a lay one, it is perhaps premature to consider now. I have particularly in mind the vexed question of what are commonly called tied houses and tied cottages, where it has always seemed to me that the only excuse for retaining them could be necessity, and that the question of whether such tenure was really necessary was a question of fact that ought to be decided by some tribunal set up for the purpose.

I believe that in a limited field—and I speak only as a layman in these matters—the Land Court in Scotland exercises some functions of that sort in connection with small properties and smallholdings. Whether it does or not, I hope that at some time or another a land court or other tribunal will be set up in this country, preferably on a local basis, to deal with that very difficult question which, to the knowledge of us in this House, causes much hardship to people who are affected by it and are often in humble circumstances.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

It is often my fortune—whether good or bad I do not quite know—to follow the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I do not propose this afternoon to follow him over the interesting fields into which he entered. I could not claim to speak with any knowledge at all about the effect of this Bill in Scotland, nor do I think it would be appropriate on this occasion to make any observations on his comments on tied houses, in which I know he takes a particular interest with regard to a particular portion of his constituency where they deal with iron and steel.

Mr. Mitchison

May I remind the hon. and learned Member that I am also interested in the agricultural aspects of that matter?

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The hon. and learned Member's interests are even more widespread than I had imagined.

I wish to support the argument put forward first by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and then by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering seemed to try to answer but, in my opinion, with singularly little success; that is, that this Tribunal should be charged with the responsibility of arbitrating with regard to development charges as well as with regard to development values. In that connection, I ask the Attorney-General to hear in mind one thing which perhaps led to the difference of treatment when the Town and Country Planning Bill was before this House and before another place.

If my recollection is right, it was originally intended that the assessment of development charges should be flexible, that 100 per cent. should not be assessed in every case, and that that flexibility might be affected by considerations of policy. Of course, if that were the position it might be said to be inappropriate to have a tribunal entering upon the field. But now all that has gone. The development charge is to be 100 per cent. and not less; that is made by regulations, and it is the declared policy of the Government. Once that conclusion is arrived at, it seems to me to be just as appropriate that in case of disputes, development charges should come before this Tribunal as questions in relation to the development value.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering sought to distinguish between the two different problems which would come before the Tribunal, but in both cases surely the Tribunal will have to assess questions of fact although, as the hon. and learned Member knows, questions of fact are often intermixed with questions of law. In both cases the Tribunal will, first of all, have to determine so far as it can what is the existing use value. In the case of claiming on the £300 million fund they will have to determine what the owner of the land has lost by reason of being restricted to existing use value. In the case of a dispute as to the development charge, the existing use value will have to be determined to arrive at the value of planning permission.

I should have thought that in both cases there might be a conflict which would be between, in one instance, the Central Land Board and the person wishing to develop—in both cases a conflict which could well be decided by or brought before a tribunal—and a conflict also as to what was the value of the land with planning permission in the case of the development charge. I can conceive of no adequate argument for the exclusion of a dispute on a matter of this sort from adjudication by this Tribunal and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell us, even if the Government cannot now state that they will accept that addition to the scope of this Bill, that they will at least give the most serious consideration to it before the Committee stage.

I have one other minor point to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The appeal here from the Tribunal will be by way of case stated, and by way of case stated to the High Court. It is provided in the Bill that there will be no further appeal from the High Court without the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. Is it intended to limit the ultimate appeal to the Court of Appeal? If it is not so intended I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should add the words "With the leave of the House of Lords" because there may be a case—it has happened in the past—where the Court of Appeal has refused leave and the House of Lords has granted it. I merely draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to this point so that we may perhaps save time in the Committee stage. The wording of this Clause would seem to imply, if not to express, that the Court of Appeal should be the final Court to decide whether or not an appeal can go any further.

4.42 p.m.

The Attorney-General

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I will first take the last point of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). We shall certainly give sympathetic consideration to it. The intention unquestionably is that there should be the possibility of appeal, with leave, to the House of Lords in the more difficult cases. The hon. and learned Member recognised that the other point which he raised, in regard to the possibility of transferring from the Central Land Board to the new Tribunal the assessment of development charge, was a matter which enlarged the scope of the Bill. Of course, that is so. This Bill deals with the assessment of compensation, not of charges. Moreover, this Bill does not purport to send to appeal anything which is not appealable already either to the official arbitrators or to one of the other tribunals which may be brought within the scope of the Bill.

All this Bill purports to do is to substitute the new Tribunal as the authority for determining questions which can already be submitted by way of an appeal either to the official arbitrator or to one of the other bodies. Under the existing law, as the hon. and learned Member quite rightly pointed out, the development charge is assessed by the Central Land Board without any question of appeal at all. It is not a matter which forms a contested question before them in the sense that matters may be referred to the official arbitrators or the other bodies. The view that His Majesty's Government have taken about this matter is that the Central Land Board must be supreme in regard to the assessment of development charge, in connection with which questions of policy as to land utilisation and so forth might arise.

The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that under the regulations which are made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act the charge is at present normally assessed at 100 per cent. and the possibility of having regard to questions of policy in connection with land utilisation and so forth is largely excluded by the regulations in their present form. I do not know, and I am not attempting to suggest it is likely to happen, but under the provisions of the Act it would be possible for some other Government to take a different view about that and to alter the regulations in those respects. If that course were taken, as the hon. and learned Member agrees, it would be quite inappropriate to refer the assessment of the charge to a Tribunal such as this which, of course, would not be concerned with questions of policy in any way.

Moreover, hon. Members who have dealt with this aspect of the matter will no doubt recollect that the whole problem of appeal on the assessment of development charge was very fully discussed both in this House and in another place. In another place a different view was taken in the course of the Committee stage from that which had been adopted by this House, but when the matter came back to this House, this House thought it right to restore to the Bill the provisions which represented the view they had originally formed about this matter, that is to say the view that this matter should be dealt with by the Central Land Board without appeal to an outside tribunal. In face of that very recent decision by Parliament on this matter I venture to suggest that it would be outside the scope of this modest, and I am glad to think non-controversial, Bill to attempt to reopen that whole question.

I will pass on to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) in regard to the possibility of transferring to the new Tribunal the work which is at present undertaken by the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals. The cases dealt with by those tribunals very rarely involve any question, certainly not a difficult question, of law at all. One very rarely has to consider in those cases the kind of legal problem which often arises in connection with the valuation of land. Where, in fact, the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals do proceed upon some completely mistaken view of the law there is a legal remedy; the matter can be brought before the Divisional Court with the possibility of appeal further and the law can be ascertained and the tribunals can be given directions.

The fact that there has been a very small number of cases of that kind in the Divisional Court perhaps suggests, in regard to the enormous number of cases which are being handled by the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals, that on the whole their decisions are regarded as fair and satisfactory by all parties concerned.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the right of appeal is extremely limited in such cases, and that if there were the same power of appeal as given under this Bill there would be a great many more appeals?

The Attorney-General

I would not attempt to dispute that for a moment. The appeal in those cases is more limited than that which arises under this Bill. That is undoubtedly so. But appeals can be brought before the Divisional Court; appeals can be taken by way of certiorori or mandamus and from time to time appeals are brought—I am involved in one tomorrow—but the number of cases in which there has been an attempt to bring the matter before the Divisional Court is very small in relation to the total number of cases which have been dealt with by the tribunals.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) raised the question whether it would be possible to include in Clause 3 a reference to the Auctioneers Institute. We have referred in the Bill to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors because that is the body which is referred to in the Act of 1919 and we have sought as far as may be to follow the provisions of that Act in that respect, but of course there is nothing to prevent the Lord Chancellor appointing a member of the Auctioneers Institute if, after consultation with the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, he thought that was an appropriate course.

The hon. Member for Hertford raised another point which was, I think, a drafting and Committee point and if he will forgive me I will not take up the time of the House by dealing with the point now. I have the answer, but it is a little involved and we can, perhaps, deal with it in the Committee stage—

Mr. Walker-Smith

My intention was simply to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman notice of the point.

The Attorney-General

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I have now provided myself with the information which would enable me to give him the answer, but this point is a little involved. There remains, finally, the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in regard to the Land Court in Scotland and the question of tied cottages. The proposals which my hon. and learned Friend had in mind were, perhaps, a little outside the scope of the Bill as at present framed. Since they involve treading on Scottish ground I am going to avoid dealing with them, save just to say this, that there is no intention so far as this Bill is concerned of replacing the existing Land Court in Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Pearson.]