HC Deb 29 June 1951 vol 489 cc1807-8
Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 29, line 33, to leave out subsection (3).

The reason for this Amendment is that we have been slightly delayed in the progress of this Bill, and we now feel that we cannot bring it into law by 1st July. We do not propose an alternative date, and we think it should be operative from the date of the Royal Assent.

Mr. Molson

There is a technical matter about which I should like to ask the Minister a question. This Bill will give statutory authority to an arrangement which has, in fact, been operative during the last few years. The moratorium comes to an end on 1st July, and there has been some criticism by the Select Committee on Estimates or the Public Accounts Committee that this near ripe arrangement has, in fact, been put into operation without any statutory authority to do so. There have been discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and some of us on this side of the Committee about the time-table of this Bill, and we were anxious that it should reach the Statute Book in good time.

I had thought that, owing to the difficulties that have arisen and owing to this Bill being delayed, it would have had some retrospective operation. The Central Land Board is under an obligation at present to enforce all the provisions of the principal Act of 1947, and I had not expected to find that this matter would be dealt with merely by leaving out subsection (3) of Clause 38. I am anxious that we should keep to the constitutional proprieties, and that things should not be done by administrative action when there is no statutory authority for them, even though it was actually informally agreed that there would be no substantial opposition to this amendment of the law being carried out.

Mr. Powell

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is quite right in pointing out the undesirability of the sort of arrangement which is adumbrated in Clause 38, where arrangements are operating without statutory authority. Of course, we are here reaching at a gnat when we have already swallowed two or three camels in regard to the near ripe scheme, which has been operating for two or three years without any stautory authority whatever. I take it that there will be no practical effect from the omission of this subsection, since the Central Land Board will not, in fact, levy any development charge until the Bill begins to operate, and nor will there be any question of any payment being made.

Mr. Dalton

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The Land Board have decided to postpone the collection of the development charge. With regard to the other matters mentioned, it is understood that notice has been given to all persons concerned that they have no statutory basis, but it is the intention of the Government to give them that basis at a relatively early date.

Amendment agreed to.