HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc798-803

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 26, at end insert: and, so far as required for the purposes of that Part, for the purposes of the Third Schedule to the principal Act;

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Deedes

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment. The assessment of "restricted value" under Part VI of the 1947 Act involves the application of the Third Schedule to that Act. That is the Schedule concerned with rebuilding rights. It is desirable to put it beyond doubt that the substitution, for the purposes of the present provision, of the date of sale for the appointed day has effect in the Schedule. This gives the intention of the Clause effect in the Schedule.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

We shall be pleased to consider the Lords Amendment if it is, in fact, a Lords Amendment. One of our difficulties m considering these Amendments has been to discover at what stage they were considered by their Lordships. Struggling through homework over the weekend, one expected Amendments to be dealt with during the Committee stage, but one suddenly found them brought in out of the blue in another place during the Report stage and there was even one on Third Reading. However, search as I might, I cannot find that this Amendment was discussed by their Lordships at all or recommended by their Lordships. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give us the column reference for the Amendment we can satisfy ourselves that it is a Lords Amendment that we are asked to agree to.

Mr. Speaker

The Question is——

Mr. Sparks

May we have that point cleared up? The Amendment might inadvertently not have appeared on the Order Paper when going through another place.

Mr. Speaker

I am bound to put the Question.

Mr. Lindgren

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even in their Lordships' House one of the Ministers in charge of the Bill—this is not raised as a matter of complaint—apologised to a noble Lord a day or so after the Bill had been in Committee for suggesting that an Amendment was a drafting Amendment when it was, in fact, an Amendment of substance. That is understandable in a complicated Bill like this. However, we are entitled to be satisfied where an Amendment is recommended as an Amendment from another place that it is a Lords Amendment. I have tried to find reference to the Amendment in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place. One has been able to find other Amendments, some on Report and one on Third Reading, but at the moment I am fogged about this Amendment.

Mr. Deedes

The hon. Gentleman will find reference to the Amendment in column 1415 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place.

Mr. Speaker

I ought to point out with reference to the document that we have before us that the Lords Amendments must be taken as from another place in the farm in which they are printed in that document. It is the document on which we are working. Strictly speaking, it is not in order to refer to debates in another place of the same Session covering the same subject. That is a rule which one can relax for good reason, but I hope that the practice will not be indulged in too much.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 12, after "forty-eight" insert: and at the date of the sale the development specified in the certificate had not been completed.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The point of the Amendment relates to the dead-ripe certificate scheme, which is familiar to hon. Members who were busy on the Bill earlier. I apologise for the jargon "dead-ripe," but it is accepted. The Amendment is designed to deal with the case where the development has been in part completed. Hon. Members will realise that this is an Amendment dealing not with compulsory acquisitions but with private transactions only, and they will see from Clause 6 (2) that the normal standard in relation to private transactions based on a normal sale will be that the payment for depreciation is to be assessed on the basis of the restricted value of the interest at the time of the sale. If there be an excess of the sale price over the restricted value, then, by Clause 5 (4) of the Bill, that excess has to be deducted.

Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)

Clear as mud.

Mr. Sparks

Surely the learned Solicitor-General means deducted from the amount of the established claim.

The Solicitor-General

The point is that the dead ripe certificate conferred exemption from development charge. Therefore, where none of the development contemplated has been proceeded with before the sale in question, one has to assume that the exemption had a value. It was, indeed, part of what was paid for by the purchaser, who paid for the value of the exemption when he bought it. This is part of what he paid for and, therefore, it has to be added to the restricted value for the purpose of this subsection. That is what the subsection now does, and it does it in the proviso.

Obviously, where only part of the development has been completed before the sale, the position is different, and the Amendment deals with that aspect. The value of the development which had then been completed would be included in the restricted value, so that a deduction would have to be made for the value of the exemption limited to the remainder.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 12, line 20, leave out from first "of" to "if" in line 21 and insert: so much of that development as had not been completed if it had been completed and".—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 5, at end, insert: Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, the Board, or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Those hon. Members who have been busy with the Bill will remember a minus proposition where the restricted value upon computation results in a minus quantity. The kind of instance we had was that where agricultural land was, in fact, let at £40 a year, but, if restricted to agricultural use, its value would have been £5 per year. This is where we get the case of the minus quantity in the valuation. The House has already approved Clause 6 (4), the appropriate provision in relation to these minus quantities, which provides for a reduction of the value toy the amount of the minus quantity, no doubt because the result of the acquisition will be to relieve the person concerned of the obligation of having to pay further rent. That is the principle, but the difficulty arises where the liability, be it a rent charge or whatever it may be, gives rise to a minus quantity and where that ceases or is reduced in amount before the sale takes place. Obviously this adjusts the calculation, and the only purpose of the Amendment is to provide for that type of case which it does.

Mr. Lindgren

We are obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for his explanation of this technical Amendment, but he has not dealt with the reason a discretion is allowed in this Amendment. The Amendment says: … may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part … That is a discretion, but there is no indication there, nor was any given by the Solicitor-General, as to the principle that will be used in the exercise of that discretion.

The same point arises on the Amendment to line 43, where it is stated that the board or the tribunal— … may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part … Again, that gives no indication of the principle. Cannot any indication be given why the discretion is given and on what principle it is to be used in coming to the assessment?

The Solicitor-General

By leave of the House, I will reply to the point raised. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman; I admit that I should have indicated why there is this discretion, and I regret that I forget to do so.

It is estimated—and I refer here also to cases of gifts—that the number of cases arising under the Bill will be extremely small, but that the circumstances will be extremely various. If that be so, we have to legislate for a discretion in order to give the board the power to do justice, and that is my submission to the House.

I think it is common sense and wise, but, as to the standard which the board or tribunal will apply, we know that there will be a very large variation in circumstances, but only a small number of cases, and it seems best to provide power in the Amendment to enable them to do what they think will be just and proper. It is an absolute discretion, but I hope there is no reason for a lack of confidence in the bodies to which it is entrusted.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

We are obliged to the Solicitor-General for the very clear explanation which he has given, but we do not like giving this discretion, and we shall come to the point again later. We are not casting any reflection upon anybody at all in saying that. Of course, this discretion will be exercised rightly and properly and with a due sense of justice, but it really does appear to be the very negation of good legislation to give a discretion in oases wherever a difference occurs.

If we really are to preserve liberty, and are concerned about its preservation, we should see that legislation lays down the principles upon which payments in cases like this should be made, and should not be left as a matter of discretion at all. I shall return to the point at a later stage in our proceedings, but we shall not oppose the Government on this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to—[Special Entry.]