HC Deb 26 October 1966 vol 734 cc1215-21
Mr. Farr

I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 16, line 42, after "Act", to insert: and except when selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of any land to the person from whom that land was acquired". This also is a fairly simple little Amendment. Once again, perhaps falsely, I am encouraged by the success of two or three of the recent Amendments which have been put from this side of the House. Briefly, our concern is with what will happen when the Land Commission has compulsorily acquired land from someone, perhaps someone with only an acre or two, who has for years resisted pressure to sell his land. The Commission, being rather uncertain in itself, may find after the land has been compulsorily acquired that due to a change of plan, the development envisaged has been altered and the Commission intends to dispose of the land in question.

In that case, we maintain that it is only fair that if the original owner from whom the land was acquired compulsorily in the first place wishes to have the land back, special considerations should apply. We do not consider it good enough to leave in the Bill, in lines 44 and 45 of page 16, the criteria which place an obligation on the Commission to get the best price available.

Our reason for regarding that as inadequate—indeed, grossly unjust—is that if Mrs. So-and-so, for example, had an acre or two which has been taken by the Commission and which later is found to be not wanted, Mrs. So-and-so's neighbour may well be prepared to pay an exceptionally high price, well over the odds, to acquire the acre or two, which he or she may have coveted for years. We suggest, therefore, that in a situation of that nature, special considerations should apply. I challenge the Minister to deny that an injustice would be avoided unless an Amendment such as we suggest is incorporated in the Bill.

Why we on this side find the Bill so inhuman and strongly object to it is that the personal, human problems, which matter not to the great landowners but to the people with an acre or two, appear to be of no importance or interest to the Minister. To avoid gross injustice in the case of which I have given details, the Minister must give a satisfactory answer to the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington

This is an interesting but rather curious Amendment, particularly in the terms in which the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has moved it, very sincerely I have no doubt. The legal import of the words of the Amendment carries an implication that the Commission should be prepared to dispose of land, to the person from whom it has been bought, at less than the best price.

The hon. Member spoke feelingly about the justice of so doing in certain cases, disposing of land back to the person from whom it was bought, but, as the Amendment is worded, it would not impose any duty on the Commission to do so. It merely suggests that this would be a good thing. It is a pious intention. If that is the significance of the words—and, as I say, that is the legal import of the words—then I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are sufficient powers in the Bill for the Commission to do that already. In fact, that is the result of an Amendment which we discussed earlier, whereby my right hon. Friend could give directions in suitable cases.

I want to make it absolutely clear that while this power does exist it is very unlikely that, in the normal course of events, the Commission would do this, for the simple reason that where the Commission purchases land it will do so in one or another of the cases which we have already discussed, and where there is a planning decision. It will be motivated to acquire land for public development or for a private person to develop it; but the normal purpose of the Commission is to get land for development at the right place in order that regional and national plans can be brought to fruition. So that although the permissive power which the Amendment seeks is already given, I say frankly to the House that it would be in the most extraordinary circumstances that the land would be given back to the original or the last owner at a price less than the best the Commission could obtain. That is the purpose of the Commission. What the Amendment seeks is not ruled out, and therefore the Amendment is redundant, in that, under the Bill as now drafted, there is this power, although it is very unlikely that the Minister would ever so direct.

Mr. Graham Page

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the power is already in the Bill, but, as I understood his explanation of that, it is that the Minister could give directions for the use of this power and that the property should be sold at a lower figure. Could the hon. Gentleman assist the House, or could the Minister assist the House, by saying in what circumstances those directions would be given?

I believe that there are some rules for the resale of property by a Government Department to the person from whom it had been compulsorily acquired. We do not need to go through all the Crichel Down case, but this point did arise in a dramatic way in that case, and there have been statements by Ministers, I think—I cannot recall more than the gist of the statements now—to the effect that in certain instances offers from the previous owners would be considered and sale could be made to them at under market value.

I think that is important in this case, because we have already been told by the Minister on more than one occasion today that the Commission will be buying land in advance. An Amendment to ensure it would see there was planning permission before it bought was rejected. Therefore, it will be buying blind—as it were, gambling on land, as to whether it will be used or not. It could well be that circumstances would change in five or 10 years' time; that while the Commission would be holding the land it might decide it would not need it for development after all. In those circumstances I would hope that, acting as a responsible body, the Land Commission would say, "We have got this land on compulsory purchase from Mr. X. He is still next door; he is still farming the farm next door. We wonder if he wants the property back. Let us ask him." Then if Mr. X were to offer a reasonable figure, which might not be the best figure, any reasonable and responsible landowner would sell back in that way, and I would hope the Commission would do so.

Unless, however, that is expressed in the Bill the Commission would be in difficulty. It would have to go to the Minister for special directions. As it stands, we are not certain on what basis the Minister would give those directions.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington

If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, the administrative rules to which the hon. Gentleman referred normally relate to surplus agricultural land purchased by Departments in accordance with their duty, and I do not think they would apply in this case. The Minister could in certain circumstances give a direction to the Commission, but I certainly cannot indicate in what circumstances. As I envisage the operations of the Commission, it is very unlikely in practice that it would buy land if it was to be returned to the vendor. There would be no point in buying it. But if there was a particular reason, directions could be given by the Minister. Normally, I do not think this would occur.

Mr. Rippon

I do not know that I quite understood what the Parliamentary Secretary was saying. I am a little surprised at his suggestion that the administrative procedures adopted for the Crichel Down type of case will not apply here. I should have thought that there would be a number of occasions on which the Commission in buying land in advance of requirements would be taking agricultural land.

Mr. Skeffington

Normally, the Commission will be operating in circumstances quite different from those in which land is taken by a Department. It will be either in accordance with Clause 6(4) or when there is a planning decision. In those circumstances, the land is hardly likely to be sold as agricultural land like the case of the Air Ministry. In that sense there is no parallel.

Mr. Rippon

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He said that it will not normally be agricultural land; it will be land on which there is planning permission. But one of the difficulties is that the Commission can acquire land before planning permission is granted, and if it does not get planning permission after having bought in advance there may well be circumstances in which it finds that it has land that it does not require for the purpose it originally had in mind. Surely in those circumstances it is not unreasonable to have an administrative undertaking comparable to that given in Crichel Down cases, that the land would be offered back by the Commission to the previous owners on reasonable terms.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 16, line 45, to leave out "in their opinion".

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could discuss with this Amendment No. 31, in Clause 18, page 18, line 38, leave out from "which" to "could" in line 39, and Amendment No. 117, in Schedule 1, page 91, line 28, at end insert "direction".

Mr. Speaker

I have no objection if the Opposition have no objection.

Mr. Willey

I am much obliged. This is adopting an Amendment moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Standing Committee. It was withdrawn because I wished to assure myself that it would not affect title. By Amendment No. 117 we ensure that title is not prejudiced. So I am delighted to be able to accept an Amendment moved by the Opposition in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Clegg

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 27, to leave out subsection (5).

When we debated Amendments to the subsection in Standing Committee I was told that my Amendment was meaningless. This time I have avoided that by moving an Amendment to delete the entire subsection. Such surgery seemed to be preferable to fencing about with the ligatures which we had last time.

When we come to consider this subsection which we want to get out of the Bill, we see that the Commission may by compulsory purchase buy land for one purpose and sell it for another. As the Minister said during the Committee, that is very much in line with Government thinking on the matter in the eventual outcome after the second appointed day, because then the only test is whether the land is suitable for material development in the opinion of the Commission. I wish that he had cut out those words, as he did in the last subsection. But we still think that this can be wrong and may cause hardship.

The Commission will go along and say, "We want to buy this land for a particular purpose." Presumably it will have one in mind when it purchases the land by compulsion, and presumably compensation in respect of severance and injurious affection will be settled and paid on that basis, whereas if the use of the land is changed, the landowner who has land left round there may not have got his proper compensation. That is one point with which we are concerned. It seems to me that it would be possible for one local authority which had compulsory powers to say to the Commission, "We would like to have that particular plot of land", and, at a later stage, before it was transferred to that authority, for one of the regional electricity boards to come along and say, "We would like it", and for the Commission to sell the land to the electricity board. I appreciate that before the second appointed day it would have to go to the Minister, but afterwards it would not.

The Clause gives us concern because, in all the circumstances, there can be injustice both to the person from whom the land is bought and to the person for whom it is bought.

Mr. Allason

I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has said.

Clause 16(5) is one which sounds all right when accepted by itself, but it must be read in conjunction with two other clauses. Under Clause 16(5), the Commission is empowered to buy land for one purpose and to make use of it for an entirely different one. If it is read in conjunction with Clause 81, it will be found that the compensation need not be changed on the change of use. Therefore, there must be a great temptation to the Commission to allege that it is going to buy the land for the cheapest possible reason that it can see, and use it subsequently for the most expensive purpose, thereby saving itself a great deal of money and being grossly unfair to the landowner.

Another temptation arises under the operation of Clause 6(4, d), where, before the second appointed day, the Commission is entitled to acquire land for the purpose of providing Crownhold land. That gives it a wide open chance to take any land it likes simply because it sees a bit of land and thinks that it would be a good idea to have it for crownhold. Then, as soon as its compulsory purchase order is confirmed, it can come back to Clause 16(5) and turn it over to some other use. It drives a coach straight through the evidently good intentions of the Minister, namely that he is trying to circumscribe the actions of the Commission before the second appointed day. The Commission has absolute power to take any land it likes, and it is virtually encouraged to do so by a method of cheating. I regret having to use that word about a body which will no doubt be composed of most eminent people, but the Commission will be encouraged to behave in a thoroughly irresponsible manner, and it is a great pity that this subsection is still in the Bill. I hope that it will be deleted tonight.

Mr. Willey

Occasionally both the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) get too flam-buoyant. I think that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead will regret suggesting that the Commission will cheat. It will be a responsible public body, accountable for its actions, and I do not think that there is any risk of it behaving in the way suggested.

The hon. Member for North Flyde said that his previous effort to deal with this subsection had been brushed off as meaningless. This time he has gone much too far. If we accept the Amendment, the result will be not meaningless, but meaningful. The effect of accepting it will be that the Commission will not be able to dispose of land in some cases. It might, for instance, buy land for a new town, but for some reason or other the new town might not be proceeded with. If the Amendment were accepted, the Commission would have to hold the land and would not be able to dispose of it.

Amendment negatived.