HC Deb 20 November 1953 vol 520 cc2126-36

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Allan.]

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mollis (Devizes)

As a result of my good fortune in the Ballot for Private Member's Motions I inaugurated a debate on 20th February this year in which a number of hon. Members on both sides took part and which was generally thought to be a valuable debate, on the general question of the use of agricultural land in town development schemes. Today we have a debate more limited both in scope and in time, and it is not my intention to raise those wide questions or to argue at large to what extent it is desirable that towns should expand or that projects of development should go on, with the moving of population from one part of the country to another, or other matters which come under the Town Development Act.

I want to dwell on one very limited but very important point which arose in the course of that debate, which was the apparent hardship when a person in occupation of land which is claimed by a town development scheme has to defend his own land and has to make the defence at his own expense. This point was raised in the debate on 20th February, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who was replying, said: There was one other point raised by my hon. Friend which has made me a little uneasy for some time. I do not see the answer to it at the moment. I should like to go into it fairly fully. It is the cost which the private objector incurs when he successfully protects his own land. It is something awfully difficult to deal with. I ask my hon. Friend to let me look into that matter with all the Departments concerned. Again, I should not like to promise that anything can be done, but if it is at all possible to do anything it shall be done. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) intervened and said: The hon. Gentleman said he was concerned about cases in which a man successfully protects his own land. Is he not interested in, and will he not give consideration to, the cases of people who unsuccessfully seek to protect their own land? The Parliamentary Secretary answered: I think that the whole matter ought to be given consideration. I do think a full investigation ought to be made into the costs which are incurred by the private citizen, who does seem, on the surface, to be under an injustice in this respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February. 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1672–3.] The two questions which I want to ask my hon Friend arise from the remarks he made then. He said: I ask my hon. Friend to let me look into that matter… and, later on— …a full investigation ought to be made.… Some months have elapsed since then, and I should like my hon. Friend to answer, as specifically as he can, whether he has looked into the matter, whether this full investigation has taken place, and what have been the consequences of that investigation.

The particular case which has caused me specially to interest myself in this project is that of Colonel Goddard and the Goddard Estate. Colonel Gorrard's agricultural land is being claimed, at the present moment, under the suggested Swindon expansion scheme, in connection with which a second public inquiry took place earlier this week. I appreciate that the verdict has not yet been given and, equally, that in any answer made in connection with the application for costs by Colonel Goddard's lawyer my hon. Friend will doubtless have some reservations about what he can say at the moment.

Up to the present we have had no assurance that Colonel Goddard will be able to recover any of the very considerable cost to which he has been put in the defence of his own land. In his case the cost happens to have fallen particularly hard on him. There was a previous public inquiry in which Colonel Goddard had to defend his land. The claim for his land was then rejected, but a second inquiry—the one which has just taken place—was instituted, which again claimed Colonel Goddard's land. My hon. Friend may tell me that it was open to Colonel Goddard not to give his evidence twice over, and to put in the evidence which he gave in the first inquiry when the second inquiry began, but a man who is anxious to preserve his land wishes to answer a different charge in a different way, and so that it is not a very satisfactory suggestion.

In the case of Swindon, there is a possibility that Colonel Goddard will be put to the expense of a third defence of himself next year, when the general county development plan is considered. Whether or not it is decided that it is in the public interest that his land should be sacrificed for the town development scheme, there was no great crime, misdemeanour or impropriety in his wishing to defend the land on which he and his ancestors have lived for many generations. However the inquiries turn out it is probable, whether he is successful or not, that he will be driven into something very near bankruptcy by the task which has been put upon him.

There is a second quotation I should like to put before the House. Last Tuesday I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government about what promises had been made by the Ministry under the Town Development Act to Swindon Borough Council in the event of their present application being granted. My right hon. Friend was good enough to answer me: If in the end Swindon is expanded by the efforts of the borough council on the scale and at the pace which the council at present envisage, the Government will contribute£264,000 to the estimated cost of the necessary water and sewerage schemes. The council were told this in order to enable them to determine whether to proceed with their scheme or not. I must make it clear, however, that there is as yet no decision that the council will carry out expansion. I understand that the Wiltshire County Council, as planning authority, have given permission for substantial building development within the borough; but the question whether the borough council is to undertake the building must depend on the question whether they can get the necessary land. An order for the purchase of some land is before me at the moment, but no decision has been reached. A local inquiry is being held today. If it is decided—as it may be—that this order should not be confirmed, and no other suitable land can be made available for large-scale building, the whole expansion scheme may fall through. In that event the promise of contribution will fall through too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1953; Vol. 520. c. 144.] That answer was an extremely satisfactory answer from one point of view, in so far as it fully refuted the suggestion that had been made in some quarters that by offering this£264,000 my right hon. Friend had shown that the inquiry was a farce and that he had made up his mind already before the inquiry took place to grant the application. His answer, I think, very effectively refutes that, but so far as Colonel Goddard's case goes, it is perfectly clear—and it can be proved by other evidence—that it was at the definite instigation and invitation of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that this difficult problem was solved by this method of having two separate inquiries one after the other.

I am not for a moment suggesting that that was not the best way in the general interests of solving it. There is a great deal to be said for doing it. We are more likely to get a just verdict. From that point of view, I am not criticising the policy of the Ministry in general. What I am pointing out is—and my hon. Friend must agree—that incidentally and accidentally, of course, that method of treating the problem is one which is most damaging and inconvenient to Colonel Goddard, and, therefore, I do think that that very fact, that for general public reasons the problem has been handled in this way, does greatly strengthen the case for some special consideration to be given to Colonel Goddard's case.

I venture to detain the House to call attention to this particular case only because, of course, it is the first inquiry that has taken place under the new Act, and the sort of difficulty which Colonel Goddard is facing is likely to be a difficulty which other landowners are going to be faced with in every other part of the country. Therefore, I do greatly hope that not only for the sake of Colonel Goddard but for the sake of this general national problem my hon. Friend will be able to give us some very definite news of what has been the result of his looking into the matter and of all the full investigation which he promised to the House on 20th February.

As I say, I am not in the least raising the general question about such town expansions which in certain circumstances are necessary. My hon. Friend and I are entirely at one in thinking they are necessary and that every precaution should be taken to ensure that they should take place with as little damage to agricultural interests as possible. But however large this question may be, it is not what we are debating tonight. What I am debating is this case in which my hon. Friend has already expressed his full sympathy, and the incidental hardship that falls upon people, against whose property it so happens there should be a challenge, if in no kind of way they are able to get assistance towards the cost of defending their own property. I therefore very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the House some very definite information on the way in which the inquiry into that problem which was promised on 20th February has developed over the last six months.

4.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)

I am sure the constituency of Swindon in particular and the House in general will be obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) for raising this very important matter on the Adjournment. My hon. Friend has raised the question of objectors' costs in resisting proposals by local authorities to acquire their land, and he has referred in particular to Swindon where an inquiry was held this week into a proposal by the borough council to acquire land for the purpose of town expansion. Their intention is to build houses for the overspill from London.

It might be for the convenience of my hon. Friend if I divide my reply into four parts. I must say that I am most grateful to him for giving me prior notice of the questions which he proposed to raise. He is always punctilious in doing that, and it assists me to make a reply which is comprehensive and reasonably accurate. First, I should like to deal with costs in particular relation to the Swindon case. Then I shall deal with the question of costs generally—that is, over the country as a whole and not solely confined to Swindon. Thirdly, I shall deal with the point on the proposal now before the Minister—I am glad that he agreed that the Minister was not prejudiced in the last inquiry—and fourthly I shall deal with the other point which he mentioned, the development plan in Swindon.

First, as to costs and the particular Swindon case. There is no difference in principle between the objector's costs in an inquiry into a proposal by a local authority to acquire land for town expansion, and an inquiry into a proposal by an authority to acquire land for houses for their own people. The objector is no harder hit, as it were, in the one case than in the other. But what went a little astray in Swindon was that there have been two successive inquiries within the same year affecting the same land: that has offended the sense of justice of my hon. Friend, and he has given ventilation to it today. The owner has had to defend his rights twice running under two different Acts against the same local authority.

The borough council first made an order under the Housing Act, and they alleged that they needed land for housing their own people. The Minister found that case was not proved and dismissed the Order. The council then made a fresh Order under the Town Development Act for the same land, and alleged that they wanted the land for housing people from overcrowded Greater London. That Order is at present under consideration. The inquiry has just been concluded and, therefore, it is sub judice. My hon. Friend has been very kind and he has mentioned that, in the circumstances, I can say very little about it, and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not go into the merits of the inquiry.

Apart from the inquiry, there is a question of the costs. In the first case, the objector—that is, the landowner—bore his own costs under the Housing Act, and in the second case he has also incurred costs. The Minister has power to find it right to award costs, but it was only yesterday that the objector asked for costs in both these inquiries, the first of which was held in February this year and the second of which has just been concluded. As my right hon. Friend has just received that application it has got to be considered by him. My right hon. Friend is in the position of a judge; he has got to listen to both sides. He has listened to the objector who has made the application. He has now to listen to the local authority. He must listen to both sides in all fairness. The Minister cannot say, in advance of considering the application for costs, what he will do until he has received the representations of the local authority. He may or may not find exceptional circumstances warranting the award of costs in the particular case.

I should like to quote from a letter which I sent to my hon. Friend on 5th November. It states: the Minister must consider the request; and if it appears that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the award of costs he would exercise his discretion. I can understand that to ask an owner to pay costs twice to protect his own land is repugnant to the susceptibilities of my hon. Friend. I would say that the general philosophy of my right hon. Friend is that it is placing the owner in difficult circumstances. But my right hon. Friend must listen to both sides before he makes his award; and he must also remember that the local authority has statutory powers granted by this House.

Admittedly the statutory powers were conferred on the local authority and put on the Statute Book in isolation, that is they were considered in isolation and possibly not in relation to each other, but combined together they may make matters unduly hard for my hon. Friend's constituent. All I can promise him is that this case will be probed into most carefully and assiduously so far as costs are concerned, and I give my hon. Friend my word that it will be analysed and looked into as sympathetically as possible. I hope that with that my hon. Friend will be satisfied at the moment.

I turn to the question of the general doctrine of costs, not confined to Swindon in particular, but in relation to the country as a whole. I can understand the feelings of the ordinary man in the street but, as I say, I have looked into the matter most carefully and there is a background to it. We must all remember that the inspector is under instructions to find out the facts; that he listens to both sides; for example he will listen to the local authority and he will listen to the landowner.

It is not necessary for the landowner to have verbal fluency or even dexterity. If he objects, no matter how incoherently, to his land being taken for a particular purpose, it is the duty of that inspector not only to visit the site and form his opinion but to make all the inquiries which he thinks are relevant to the particular circumstances.

It is not, therefore, strictly comparable to legal matters and certainly not strictly comparable to, let us say, a trial at the Old Bailey. I looked into this matter in February, and I am perplexed and puzzled. The reason why is that there seem to me to be three major alternatives. The first is, that if the Ministry and the Government follow the law in general it will mean that the costs will follow the verdict—generally speaking, not always. Therefore, if X succeeds in an action and Y fails it will mean that Y will pay the costs.

If the local authority, acting for and on behalf of the ratepayers in what was considered to be a proper exercise of public duty, brought a compulsory purchase order against a landowner and succeeded, it would be outrageous if the landowner were forced to pay not only his own costs in unsuccessfully protecting his land but the costs of the local authority. That is the first major alternative. I do not think it would really be fair and I think it would offend the sense of justice of the average man in the street.

The second alternative is that the local authority should pay all the costs and that the landowner should, in every case, if he wanted to object, pay nothing at all. We must look at that, because that is the second major alternative. Every landowner can object whether his objection is reasonable or not. What is even more repugnant is that he can object in the most expensive way. The whole inquiry procedure is such that it is not necessary for an aggrieved landowner to employ a legal adviser. He may wish to do so, but the whole structure which we have tried to set up is such that the average man can present his case and not be prejudiced by the fact that he does not employ a specialist in the law. Therefore the second alternative would mean that an obdurate citizen to whom an appeal to reason was hopeless as well as impossible, would be able to object, and there would be many more cases than there are now of unreasonable people objecting.

The third major alternative is what is done at the moment. It is what the Minister does, as a Minister of the Crown, and what, in fact, is done by Parliament, as I shall seek to prove. It is that each party pay their own costs. Human nature being what it is, there is a natural tendency in those circumstances to keep the costs lower than might otherwise be the case. When we have to pay for something ourselves we tend to watch the costs carefully, but when other people pay it is a natural attribute of human nature that we tend to be a little more lavish.

There is this proviso, that if the local authority or the objector is either perverse or vexacious the Minister can consider awarding costs. Having received an application in this instance my right hon. Friend will certainly go through it with a fine tooth comb. These are the alternatives. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members consider there are even other possibilities, I should like to hear from them what they think ought to be done.

Mr. Hollis

Do I understand from my hon. Friend that the third alternative was that costs could only be awarded if the local authority could be shown to be vexatious?

Mr. Marples

No, Sir. If either the local authority or the objector were, in the opinion of the Minister, perverse or vexatious, then the Minister could consider the awarding of costs.

Mr. Hollis

Yes, but with regard to the awarding of costs in this case. I do not know if it would be easy to prove that the local authority had been perverse or vexatious. They have almost been advised by the Ministry in the matter.

Mr. Marples

Even if my hon. Friend was right, and the local authority had been advised by the Ministry, it might still be vexatious, and therefore costs might have to be considered by my right hon. Friend. I can give the assurance that the circumstances—an application under two different Acts in the same year by the same local authority—are such that my right hon. Friend proposes to look into the question of costs most carefully. I cannot say more than that.

Not only does the Minister as a Minister of the Crown do this, but Parliament itself carries out the same procedure for this reason. Originally, the compulsory acquisition of land required an Act of Parliament, and compulsory powers are still obtained direct from Parliament by Private Bills. Costs in these cases are governed by the Private Bills Costs Act, 1865, and though that Act makes provision for the payment of costs by the promoters to petitioners who have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending their rights, there is no provision for payment of the costs of a landowner who defends his own bona fide.

It would therefore be out of step with what happened in Parliament, where persons are expected to defend their rights against expropriation, at their own expense, to introduce a different conception in relation to the same sort of proceedings when conducted by a Minister of the Crown under powers delegated to him by Parliament.

If a person who loses a case pays his expenses, it would be unfair. If we asked the local authority to pay all the costs in every case we might—let us face it—have frivolous applications. It may be reasonable for a local authority to take over land in the general good, and people may say, "No, I will object and, as the local authority pays, I do not mind what it costs." We must face that. It may happen. Thirdly, there is the procedure we have at present that each party pays his own costs but, if it is unreasonable, vexatious or perverse, the Minister can make an order about costs. So much for the analysis which I promised I would make in February.

The third point to which I wish to refer is the question of the Minister being prejudiced in this, case. My hon. Friend has been good enough to say that, in view of the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 17th November, he is of opinion, and so are most people, that the Minister has not finally made up his mind. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. I can say categorically that the Minister has not made up his mind on Swindon. The whole matter is sub judice. It is true that some people say that the council have been encouraged by the Minister. That is what they say, but the council have been encouraged not to say that it will be an expanded town. They have been encouraged to examine the possibilities of Swindon for expansion.

My right hon. Friend has done that in hundreds of cases. Hundreds of authorities are involved in the possibility of expansion for the relief of Greater London. My hon. Friend must remember that many places are non-starters. Some have no water. Some have no possibilities for industry. Some towns are in the green belt.

If my right hon. Friend is asked by London which parts of the country they consider to be starters under this Act he must say, "I think that so-and-so may be a starter." But merely because my right hon. Friend says that it does not mean to say that he has firmly and irrevocably made up his mind that that place shall be a finisher. Many places are mentioned as starters. Some are not named. Hundreds are named, and only a few finish.

Therefore, it is wrong for people in my hon. Friend's constituency to say that the Minister is prejudiced merely because he said that this was an area worth looking at. He has not—I repeat the word "not"—made up his mind. He will only do that on the merits of the case. He must give some indication to the authorities showing which areas are worth exploring. He is not committed to them. I stress that the Minister's mind is completely open on that issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will give great publicity to that in his constituency. It may be that if the present land—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes to Five o'Clock.