TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL (Hansard, 26 February 1953)

§ The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

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

In moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I propose to follow the tradition of the House and not to inflict any long speech upon it, especially because it is a short Bill and it has not been necessary to have a Report stage. Perhaps we owe that to the admirable and harmonious spirit in which the work was carried out in the Standing Committee, for which I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of that Committee.

2412 Moreover, although the problems and policies underlying this Bill are large and complex, it is not really a party question in the ordinary or narrow sense of the word. In any event—and perhaps the strongest reason—according to the rules of our procedure and of order, it is only right for me to discuss what is in the Bill, and not what is not in the Bill.

The Bill does two things. It relieves the Treasury of the duty of making a scheme to pay out £300 million to purchase all the development rights, immediate or remote. It also abolishes the Development Charge. With regard to the first, I must admit that there is a natural disappointment and, to some extent, a hardship upon those who may have expected payment, especially those whose land had been compulsorily purchased or where planning permission had been refused. They have, I am afraid—as has been made necessary for technical and administrative as well as Parliamentary reasons—to wait until the second Bill which we hope to introduce in the autumn.

Sometimes there are very large sums in some cases of businesses and individuals who have been operating building development during the war, especially in the area of the Green Belt round London and other great cities. Sometimes there are very small sums of quite humble individuals. Sometimes this hardship falls on individuals and sometimes upon institutions—schools, colleges, charities and the like—and a certain amount, possibly, on church property of various kinds. I am afraid that in cases where payment is to be made they must wait another year, and I must once again express my gratitude for the spirit of good will and good sense in which they have accepted this necessary result. At any rate there is this advantage, that in the cases where payment is to be made they will receive the 100 per cent. of their claim and. of course. the interest which is due.

So far as the rest of us are concerned, not individually but as taxpayers, and as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is especially concerned, I think we shall welcome not having to pay out £300 million at this moment and, perhaps, eventually only having to pay a very small part of that sum to secure the planning 2413 needs we are anxious to protect. That is the first part of this Bill.

The second is the abolition of the Development Charge. I have not heard any strong objections to that expressed from either side of the House. I have had no deputations of protest, and that has been a fairly easy part of my task. I admit there are difficult and tangled problems, both legal and technical, with which we shall have to deal in the second part of this procedure, in the Bill which we are now preparing.

I hope that the House, which passed the Second Reading without a Division, whose Standing Committee proceedings on this Bill were short and agreeable, and—with the exception of one or two minor points—were carried on without a Division, will now be willing to give the Third Reading to this Bill. I hope we may pass these two preliminary things of great importance, and then look forward, as we must, to a long and complicated Bill which will certainly provide an agreeable holiday for all the technicians, experts and lawyers who are knowledgeable on this subject.

§ Mr. Hugh Dalton (Bishop Auckland)

It is quite true that this Bill has hitherto had a relatively quiet passage, and in the atmosphere tonight I do not sense any likelihood of a change in that state of affairs. I am sure it would be idle to attempt to count out the House, but, none the less, we are not massively present or passionately moved at this stage of our proceedings. This is an interim Measure, and as the right hon. Gentleman has explained, another Bill will come later on.

On Second Reading and in Committee we did express tentative hesitations which may later on be filled out, but clearly until the major Measure comes forward they must remain tentative. Before other legislation comes before us to which it would be out of order to refer at length at this time, it may be that a Measure will be brought before the House redressing what is admittedly a certain lack of balance in this Bill.

In the past we have always spoken of compensation and betterment as two sides of one problem, to be balanced one against the other. In this Bill, whereas compensation is merely postponed and spread out over time and perhaps 2414 diminished in its total burden, any betterment charge on disappears altogether with the abolition of the development charge. Although none of us is weeping bitterly over that, the hope has been expressed that this state of unbalance will be corrected at a later stage. though it would not be in order to discuss it now. But this Bill does leave a certain gap in equity which later on we should close.

The development charge was merely one of a series of attempts to collect part of the socially created values of land. There have been others in the past and there will be more in the future. I should be the last to claim that the development charge was the last word in technical wisdom on this matter. We may be able to do better later on.

I confess with regard to compensation that when the 1947 Bill was being prepared, I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was anxious first to get the figure down to the lowest global total which seemed reasonably arguable, and secondly, to postpone the date of payment. I remember using the phrase, "Push it away into the middle '50s." That, more or less we have achieved. I was never sure that if we succeeded in the first push, another push might not be given later on. The right hon. Gentleman has given that next push now.

There is an element of uncertainty that is introduced by having an interim Measure to be followed by another Measure later. Clause 2 (1, a) provides that: claims for such payments duly made … shall be satisfied in such manner, in such cases, to such extent, at such times and with such interest as may hereafter be determined by an Act of Parliament passed for that purpose.… I am not sure what price would be paid by an intelligent speculator for such a claim, clouded as it is by so many possibilities. This element of doubt is reminiscent of the South Sea Bubble but it is inevitable in a Measure of this sort in which the detail is deliberately postponed.

So far we have had amicable discussions on this subject. We do not propose to divide the House tonight. We shall wait with completely uncommitted minds. We shall approach the major Measure, when it comes, completely clear and uncommitted either to resist or to accept. 2415 Indications have been given in the most interesting White Paper, but they do not carry us more than into the very beginnings and general principles. I trust that between now and the autumn, when the new legislation is brought in, the Minister will succeed—as I am sure he should with the aid of his most competent advisers whom I know because they served me faithfully in devising a Measure which will be generally satisfactory in what I think we all admit to be an exceedingly 2416 important branch of legislation and of social control over the use of the land on which we live and have our being.