§ 38. Sir J. Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Defence why Mr. Bradley, 3½ acres of whose land were taken by compulsory purchase for the extension of Spilsby Airfield but who has by arrangement continued to farm it, has now been given notice to quit unless he pays an additional £300 for this land which is necessary to make his farm viable.
§ Mr. MulleyThis airfield was let on a number of licences, including one to Mr. Bradley, which were not renewed when they expired in September, 1964, because negotiations had then begun for the sale of the land. I understand that Mr. Bradley has now agreed to purchase the 3½ acres back at the district valuer's valuation.
§ Sir J. MaitlandDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that Mr. Bradley had to purchase the land because his farm would not have been viable without it and he was told that it would be sold to somebody else if he did not buy it? In fact, the land was compulsorily purchased and then not used, and Mr. Bradley has had to pay a very much larger sum to get it back. Because there has been a mistake in that the land was compulsorily purchased and not used, surely the Government should allow him to get it back at the same price as he gave for it.
§ Mr. MulleyThe land was acquired from Mr. Bradley by the previous Government in, I think, 1953 for the extension of an airfield. Subsequent change of plans meant that it was no longer required. Looking back, there was, it seems a great delay in this decision, but we followed the usual practice of offering the land back to the owner, from whom it was acquired, at the district valuer's price. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to take responsibility for the fact that the price today is more than twice what it was in 1953, because we have no responsibility for the enormous increase in land values which has occurred over the last 12 years.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamWill this be included in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's capital gains Tax?