HC Deb 02 May 1963 vol 676 cc1476-86

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

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of Scorton Aerodrome. In the short time that I have been a Member of the House, I have never had a constituency problem which has convinced me more than this one does that if the Government continue to pursue this case in the way they are attempting to do, great injustice will be done to my constituents who are attempting to buy back their land which has been used as an aerodrome since the beginning of the war.

The story begins in 1938. Land was bought under the compulsory purchase procedure from eight farmers in the North Riding of Yorkshire for the purpose of constructing a satellite aerodrome. All the eight previous owners wished to buy their land back. Five of them lost amounts of land ranging from 17½ acres to 1.6 acres. Five of them are having their land returned at the agricultural price, which is about double what they received in 1938, when the land was taken over. The other three—Mr. Bell, Mr. Barker and Mrs. Cail—lost 65, 81 and 67 acres respectively. These three are the ones I wish to deal with.

At the beginning of the war they received just over £50 an acre. Now they are being asked to pay between £380 and £400 an acre, because of the gravel that is under the land. I must point out that this is no new discovery. In the latter part of the 19th century gravel was excavated from this land to supply the Darlington-Richmond railway line, and before the Air Ministry ever came on the scene Mr. Bell was selling gravel and getting 6d. a ton royalties, which was a very good price in those days. Mr. Barker had also, in April, 1938, started negotiations with the Bessacarr Gravel Corn-party of Doncaster to sell gravel on his land.

I now turn to the correspondence between Mr. Bell and the Air Ministry in 1938. On 25th October that year he received a letter from the Air Ministry. This, as the House will remember, was shortly after Munich and the country was in a bit of a panic. The letter said: Sir, I am directed to inform you that the Air Ministry has under consideration a proposal for the erection of a Satellite Aerodrome as shown on the enclosed plan. … I am to request that you will kindly inform the Air Ministry whether you are prepared to negotiate the terms for the disposal of the land to them on the understanding that the Air Ministry will compensate your tenant for the surrender of his tenancy of the land in the area to be acquired. The letter went on to inquire about tithes and land taxes. Within two days Mr. Bell replied: Dear Sir, Under ordinary circumstances I should not have contemplated disposing of any part of this farm, but considering the purpose for which you propose to use the land I shall be prepared to negotiate with you. As you said the matter is of some urgency may I point out that my agent and I could meet your representative on … November 4, 5 and 9. It being a matter of great urgency, Mr. Bell received a letter on 27th July, 1939, this time from the Treasury Solicitor. It said: I am desired by the Air Ministry to inform you that in connection with the defence programme it is necessary to acquire land in the Parish of Scorton, in the North Riding of the County of York in which it is understood you have an interest. I would explain that in serving upon you the accompanying Notice … the Air Ministry is adopting statutory procedure rendered necessary by the emergency extension of the Royal Air Force. In acquiring the land for defence purposes the Air Ministry has no desire or intention to act adversely to your interests … I hope that my hon. Friend will note those words, because I shall develop my theme on the contents of that sentence to a slight extent.

Following that letter, negotiations to purchase proceeded under the threat of compulsory purchase. Mr. Bell was told to stop working his gravel, which he did, but during the negotiations he and Mr. Barker consistently pointed out to the Air Ministry that it should take into consideration the mineral deposits.

In fact, the Ministry repeatedly stated that it was a time of emergency and that the gravel had no value, and so they sold at the agricultural price of just over £54 an acre. Here it should be stated that they should never have agreed to sell, but being patriotic individuals they were more concerned about helping the nation than with looking after their own interests.

As my hon. Friend realises, this satellite aerodrome was to be situated at Scorton, almost a stone's throw from Catterick Camp, which was one of the largest military centres at this time. They expected that those buying the land would give them a fair deal. How wrong they were. In fact the Air Ministry later came back to buy some more land from Mr. Barker who then stood out against the Ministry and asked it to requisition 65 acres of his land, which it did, and which it is interesting to note he has got back without having to pay for the minerals underneath it.

I turn now to 1959 when the Minister decided to sell the land back to the farmers concerned. This is where my hon. Friend comes into it to act as agent for the Secretary of State for Air, and I commiserate with him in the unfortunate position in which he finds himself, bedevilled by those in the Treasury who are interpreting the law to the letter, which I ask him not to adhere to any longer.

It is now being said by the mineral valuer that this land should be returned not at the agricultural price of about £100 an acre—double the price that was paid, but which my constituents would be willing under these circumstances to pay—but, because of the gravel about which we have known since the 19th century, at a price of between £380 and £400 an acre.

Mr. Bell who received £3,500 in 1939 for this land is now being asked to pay £18,000, and Mr. Barker, who received £4,800, is now being asked to pay £29,500, but they were being asked to pay these prices on the gamble that planning permission would be given for the development of this gravel. This they realised, and so did the mineral valuer who, much to the amazement of us all, applied to the county council for permission to develop the gravel, and was granted it. This action was, to say the least, a bit hot, and the Country Landowners' Association with which I have been in touch is very concerned about this action, as is the National Farmers' Union.

Let us consider it in this way: If Mr. Bell were to buy at this figure and then were to die, or Mr. Barker or Mrs. Cail, then, because of the planning permission, Estate Duty would be very high. I think that it is true to say that those who are in the gravel business apply for planning permission for the amount of land that they desire to develop at the moment. No man with 65 acres of gravel would put in for planning permission for the lot and so put himself in such an intolerable position. If Mr. Barker were to buy and then to sell under three years, he would be caught under the capital gains tax. The Government have safeguarded their position in this direction. If he were to work the gravel, the Treasury would get the tax from the income which was made. The Treasury would be bound to benefit whatever the outcome of these negotiations.

What has been done goes further than the statement made by my predecessor over Crichel Down. I am convinced that it was never intended at the beginning of the war that land purchased for airfields or other Government requirements, because it was alleged it had no marketable value for gravel or other development at that time, should be assessed under difficult conditions when it was put back on the market to its previous owners. My predecessor was involved in the Crichel Down case. I am sure that he would be most disturbed if he felt that the interpretation of that statement was being treated in the way in which the Treasury appears to be treating it at present.

I say this most sincerely. The farmers in 1939 acted in the best interests of the nation. They expected fair treatment, which we can in no way pretend is being meted out to them now. I beg my hon. Friend to look at this situation in the light of the facts I have given. It must be remembered that this land was purchased by the Department of the Secretary of State for Air. The Department did the negotiations, not a mineral valuer. This is probably one of the reasons why mineral values are now being thrown as an additional burden on the farmers. This is a very considerable responsibility for the Government to take into consideration during these negotiations.

My hon. Friend must find himself in a very strange position. He is driving the farmers who wish to carry on as farmers to turn themselves into gravel merchants. I do not know if he was watching television tonight. These two fanners were interviewed in the programme "Tonight". The B.B.C. realises the importance of this case. They said that they wanted their land back to farm it. That is their genuine wish and I hope my hon. Friend will look on the matter in that light.

11.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Kitson) for having brought this case forward and expounded his side of it so clearly and for having given me the opportunity of putting the Government's case equally clearly. I am afraid that there are one or two points of important detail on which we shall not agree, but to which I must draw attention.

It is important that we should run through, as my hon. Friend did, this unfortunate case of Scorton Airfield. In June, 1940, 65 acres of land owned by Mr. Bell, my hon. Friend's constituent, were bought by the Air Ministry together with land in other ownership, making 260 acres in all, for the purpose of constructing Scorton Airfield. I understand, as my hon. Friend has said, that terms were agreed by the Air Ministry with Mr. Bell without recourse to compulsion, although of course, compulsory powers were available. The Air Ministry served a notice to treat under the Defence Acts in June, 1939, and lodged a formal claim in the following month. This claim contained the words no reservation of mines or minerals and the Air Ministry's final offer, a year later, stated: the property to be conveyed in fee simple, together with all mines and minerals". Thus, negotiations clearly proceeded throughout on the understanding that minerals were included and this was how the land was sold. I must make it clear that I do not propose to enter into any further discussions of those terms or the circumstances in which they were arrived at. An agreement of this kind is made once for all. This one was made by another Department and it was open to the vendor if he—in his full knowledge of the value of the land at the time—was dissatisfied with the terms offered, to force the acquiring Department to exercise compulsory powers and to take the claim to arbitration if he so wished under the arrangements which then existed. My hon. Friend put forward, quite sincerely, Mr. Bell's motives for not taking this course, and I appreciate that but I cannot do anything now which might expressly, or by implication, reopen, or appear to reopen, something which was freely agreed more than twenty years ago.

Mr. Kitson

But they were served with notice to treat—the first step in compulsory purchase. We were at war then, and there was no question of a mineral assessor looking into the matter in those days. An official from the Air Ministry looked into this, and Mr. Bell allowed him in, not to take more land, but to requisition it, which he did.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

At the time, the vendor, if he so wished, had the course of resorting to arbitration, and at this length of time afterwards I cannot by implication reopen what happened then.

It was incidentally agreed on at a time when the vendor had no reason whatever to expect that he would ever have an opportunity to recover the land and, with it, any part of its value he may have believed himself to have forgone on the sale. Indeed, had it not been for the decision announced in this House on 20th July, 1954, by the then Minister of Agriculture—my right hon. Friend's distinguished predecessor, Lord Crathorne, then the right hon. Member for Richmond—the very just decision to give the former owner the first offer when agricultural land is disposed of, it is more than likely that Mr. Bell would still have been whistling for a chance to get back his land.

I will now turn to more modern times. In 1946, when the land was no longer needed operationally, Scorton airfield was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture for agricultural development and management. Later, in 1956, the Ministry, as agent, was instructed by the Air Ministry to dispose of it. The Air Ministry remains the owner and will get the revenue from sale and I mention this to correct an impression which seems to have got abroad in the Press that, to serve its own ends, my Ministry has been bent on screwing the last penny out of a hapless purchaser.

In 1959, there were discussions with all the former owners about the letting of the airfield and this was finally settled in the spring of 1960. The former owners expressed themselves as very satisfied with the result. In October, 1960, in accordance with instructions from my Ministry, the district valuer offered to Mr. Bell a lot of 65 acres at Scorton, the equivalent of his 1939 property. Mr. Bell expressed his dissatisfaction with the basis of valuation adopted in accordance with policy by the district valuer and has continued to do so ever since. He has, for this reason, continually refused to discuss the question of price, and this is why no price was formally put to him until a few weeks ago.

I would remind the House that, in his statement of 20th July, 1954, the then Minister said that, when land is offered back to a former owner or his heir, and I quote his words, … this will be done at a price assessed by the district valuer as being the current market price".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1192.] This has been, and remains, the Government's policy.

Mr. Kitson

But not in respect of Scorton.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The district valuer is independent of the disposing department.

This will, I hope, again dispel any idea that my Ministry, or the Air Ministry, is behaving ruthlessly in this matter. All that has been done has been done in accordance with established policy as applied under recognised procedures by the district valuer whose impartiality, I trust, is beyond question. Had Mr. Bell chosen to accept the district valuer's figure I have no doubt that, as in the case of his fellow owners at Scorton, agreement could have been reached long since and he would now have been at the point of recovering his land.

In one case, admittedly for a smallish area, contracts have been exchanged and conveyancing is completed. That is at one end of the airfield. In four other cases heads of agreement have been signed, two before the end of last year and the other two rather more recently. The Treasury Solicitor has been instructed to proceed with the conveyancing. In the two remaining cases letters have been received by the mineral valuer of the valuation office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, confirming agreement on price.

To put the matter beyond doubt I propose to quote from two letters. This is my second point of disagreement with my hon. Friend. The first, of 8th October, 1962, on behalf of the executors of the late Mr. H. I. Cail says, We are now pleased to confirm the offer, made by us on behalf of our client, of £10,500 … The second, of 27th September, 1962, says, We write in relation to the proposed resale of land to former owners of the Scorton Airfield to indicate that our client, Mr. W. G. Barker, is willing to re-purchase Plot No. 2", one of the terms being that, the price agreed, subject to contract, is the sum of £29,500. My hon. Friend is not accurate in saying that Mr. Barker has got some of his land back at agricultural value. That is not so. I cannot therefore accept my hon. Friend's contention that Mr. Bell is not alone in his refusal to accept the district valuer's price. Mr. Bell has, however, made the point, and in this he has had my hon. Friend's support, that he ought not to be expected to pay anything for the mineral value of land which he has said was bought from him at agricultural valuation.

I can see no reason whatever why he should be treated differently from the other former owners at Scorton. Here I must emphasise that they have, as I have been given to understand, all been treated exactly alike. They have all been offered and with the one exception of Mr. Bell agreed to repurchase their land at the current market price as assessed by the district valuer. All of them—not just the three my hon. Friend mentioned—have mineral rights on the plots. The market price was assessed by the district valuer.

Mr. Kitson

Mineral valuer.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The current market price as assessed by the district valuer. In only four cases did the dis- trict valuer's figure exceed the current agricultural market value, because it was only in these cases that the district valuer regarded the presence of minerals as enhancing the value of the land. These lots were Mr. Bell's, Mr. Barker's, the late Mr. Cail's and Mr. Atkinson's. Subsequent investigation showed that in the case of the late Mr. Cail's plot the mineral value had, for various reasons including the comparative poverty of the seams, to be largely discounted. There were less mineral rights than had originally been thought.

My hon. Friend made a point about the district valuer changing the figures. I take exception to the way in which he put this point, for in taking account of all the circumstances of the various lots the district valuer has to consider the development prospects. I understand that when approached in November, 1960, the county planning officer expected planning permission for winning sand and gravel to be granted for only a small area. This naturally depressed the district valuer's price. When the county planning officer was later approached in January, 1962, he gave a further opinion that the prospects of permission being granted had improved, because of the desirability of obtaining the gravel, although any objections and especially amenity objections would have to be carefully considered.

Mr. Kitson rose——

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I have not time to give way. This is not the same as applying for permission. No planning permission has been applied for. This opinion caused the district valuer to increase his price for the gravel-bearing lots, except Mr. Cail's for the reasons which I have already given.

I have not much time and I hope my hon. Friend will bear with me if I go quickly through the remainder of my case. In deference to his representations Mr. Bell's claim was carefully examined by Ministers in June, 1961, and as a result the then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed in September, 1961, that all former owners of Scorton should be allowed a concession. This was to offer the land on two alternative bases of valuation: on the one hand, the unencumbered freehold at the current market price as assessed by the district valuer; and, on the other hand, the freehold with the mineral rights reserved to the Air Ministry, also at a price assessed by the district valuer. Unhappily this concession has failed to satisfy Mr. Bell or my hon. Friend.

The second leg would have allowed Mr. Bell the full agricultural use of the land—which was what the Ministry understood he was then seeking and what my hon. Friend seems to say—that is the full agricultural use of the land, barring mineral workings, in which case he would have been fully compensated for disturbance.

As I have said, we have now reached a point where Mr. Bell's fellow-claimants have all come to agreement with the district valuer and will shortly be getting their land back. It would not be fair to them and to other former owners who have been enabled by the Government's policy since 1954 to recover their land to make any departure from that policy in a further endeavour to try and satisfy the one outstanding claimant, Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell has offered £14,500 for the lot, which is only £3,500 under the district valuer's price. The £14,500 is well in excess of the agricultural value and suggests to me that Mr. Bell is greatly interested in the minerals but is hoping to strike a bargain below the current market value.

Mr. Kitson

Will my hon. Friend allow me to dispute that?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I have only a minute or so left.

I have waited until this debate before taking a decision but now, to avoid this matter dragging on, I am instructing the Ministry to issue the final notice to Mr. Bell, giving him the normal three weeks in which to decide whether or not to purchase the land on either basis at the district valuer's figure. Failing his acceptance, the un- restricted freehold of the land, that is with the minerals, will be offered for sale by public auction as soon as possible, where Mr. Bell, of course, will have a further opportunity to purchase. In the circumstances I see no reason for tolerating any further delay in bringing this one outstanding case to a conclusion.

I can quite understand my hon. Friend's feelings concerning this case and I know that he has fought hard and long for his constituent in what he thinks is right, but I hope that I have explained to the House that one or two of the facts which my hon. Friend put forward were not exactly accurate. I do not believe that my Ministry is or has been acting ruthlessly at all, and I should like to assure my hon. Friend that we have done all we can to see that Mr. Bell and others at Scorton Airfield have been and are being reasonably treated. The very fact of what has happened with the other former owners and that their lots have all been negotiated is proof——

Mr. Kitson

The other owners to whom my hon. Friend refers have agreed conditionally on what happens to Mr. Bell. The point is that, as they realised that the Department was about to put the lots on the market, they were almost forced into the position of making offers. Mr. Bell's offer of £14,500 was very ill-advised and he regrets having made it. It is quite a ridiculous situation.

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

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.