Clause 58.—(STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS AND NATIONAL COAL BOARD.) (Hansard, 27 October 1966)

§ Mr. Skeffington
I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 57, line 14, to leave out 'Case A or Case B' and to insert: 'any of the Cases other than Case C'. I have been refreshing my mind of the very interesting discussion we had in Committee upstairs about statutory undertakers, and I am at least glad to be reminded that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) did put on record how helpful I always try to be to him, though he was unkind enough to vote against the Clause. I notice that I was led into making all kinds of pronouncements about what was 1365 operational land, and so on. I think that, on the whole, I did not commit any great inaccuracy, but I certainly do not intend to traverse so wide a field in moving this Amendment now.
We are making an attempt by this and two subsequent Amendments to meet some of the points of doubt raised then, and to meet representations made to us from outside. The result is that we are really giving equality of treatment to all the categories of land—that is to say, putting Cases D, E and F in relation to operators covered by Clause 58 in the same category as Cases A and B.
At the moment, they are separately dealt with, and the result is that while the exemption from levy in Cases D, E and F is restricted to land which is operational at the time of the chargeable act, the exemption in cases A and B applies after the land has ceased to be operational and has since not been used for any purpose for more than five years.
In view of some of the comments made by hon. Members opposite and of other representations that we have received that there is no case for continuing this distinction, we think it better to treat the cases alike. This is secured by the Amendment. I should like also to refer to Amendment No. 83, which seeks to leave out subsection (2) and I would comment that the Bill will be to that degree shorter, which I am sure will please hon. Members opposite. These Amendments give equality of treatment to those categories of land.

§ Mr. Farr
This Amendment provides the only opportunity which the House will be given to discuss the exceptionally privileged position in which statutory undertakers, such as the National Coal Board, the British Transport Commission and other nationalised concerns, are placed by not being required to pay the levy. This is obviously a matter which many hon. Members feel should be examined, and I trust, therefore, that if I do not keep exactly to this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, I may have your indulgence. I shall, of course, follow it very closely——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. With all kindness to the hon. Member, I must tell him that what he intends to say must have some relevance to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Farr
Yes, Sir. I understand that.
Clause 58, to which the Government's Amendment relates, exempts statutory undertakers from paying a levy. For that reason alone hon. Members on this side of the House are very grateful to the Government Front Bench for, so to speak, playing scrabble with the different case letters, which has enabled us to have a short discussion on this point.
Earlier, we have seen in Clause 56 that local authorities are exempt from levy——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not discussing Clause 56. We are discussing the modification in Cases A, B, C, D, E and F only.

§ Mr. Farr
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I was referring to Clause 56 en passant to say that the House had earlier given its assent to that Clause and allowed the local authorities to be exempt from levy, which places them in a very privileged position compared to the private builder building houses for sale. Here in Clause 58, as is emphasised in the Government's Amendments, we have a number of nationalised concerns being placed in a highly privileged position compared to those in private industry.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that that is done by the Clause and not by the Amendment or by its rejection. I must point out to the hon. Member that on Report there is no Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

§ Mr. Farr
I will not try your patience any longer, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to point out the highly privileged position that nationalised concerns enjoy under this Clause, and I thought that I might be allowed to stray a little from this Amendment. However, I accept your Ruling without hesitation, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman strayed quite a lot. Mr. Graham Page.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I do not think that I can be quite as kind to the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion as I was in Committee. He has left the House in very grave doubt as to the effect of 1367 these Amendments. I should like to see if I have understood what he meant by them. As the Clause stood, under Cases D and E—the case of compensation for revocation of planning permission and the case of easements, restrictive covenants, and so on—no levy was chargeable, irrespective of what one did with the land.
Now, according to the Amendment and by the removal of subsection (2), Cases D, E and F come within the general rules relating to the land of statutory undertakers, so that if there is to be any relief the statutory undertaker or the National Coal Board must show that, whatever case we are dealing with—either Cases A, B, D or F—the interest out of which a tenancy is created was vested in the statutory undertaker immediately before the relevant date—that is, that at the time that the chargeable act occurred the statutory undertakers held the land, which should be an easy process to discover. In addition, the relevant land must have been operational immediately before that date, or if it ceases to be operational, it should not have been passed over for non-operational purposes.
It is the word "operational" which worries us on this side of the House. May I take a simple example. The Central Electricity Generating Board or its generating premises are operational. But are its shops, which sell electrical equipment, on operational land? Will they be affected by this Amendment if some easement is given over the shop or a restrictive covenant is imposed or a planning permission revoked so that compensation is paid? Are we dealing with that sort of thing as operational or non-operational?
The Electricity Board, for example, is operational in producing electricity. I do not know whether it is operational in selling refrigerators. If it is, if the shop is operational, what happens if it lets off a flat above the shop or it lets part of the shop to some other concern? Does that become operational and does one have to apply the provisions which this Amendment seeks to amend? I cannot see why statutory undertakers should be exempt. They are all commercial undertakings. Therefore, we look at this Amendment with considerable suspicion. It seems to be grouping all the Cases into one group, exempting them all from 1368 levy if it is operational land of the statutory undertakers.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, with the leave of the House, or the Minister, will explain this Amendment a little further. I should like some assurance that a statutory undertaker will be relieved of the levy only in the case of land and property which are used for the purpose of producing the service or goods for which that undertaking was formed, and not its marginal ancillary trading in competition with other traders in selling equipment, whether gas or electricity, or the Coal Board making bricks.

§ Mr. Rossi
On a point of order. Despite the tremendous importance of this oppressive Bill to the country, may I draw attention to the fact that there are only eight Members present on the benches opposite, which is a 50 per cent. increase on the number throughout the afternoon, and that there are fewer than 40 Members present in the Chamber?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is a very interesting point of order, but it cannot be raised at this moment. We have just had a Division.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I should probably be out of order if I were to answer all the questions of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Perhaps I can refer him to Section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, where he knows that "operational land" is defined. The hon. Gentleman knows this because we discussed it in Committee, and I do not suppose that he has forgotten. It is for the Minister to decide, when there is a dispute, whether the land is operational. I should not be led into giving a definition of electricity showrooms, but they would not be operational land for this purpose.
The only other point which is germane—

§ Mr. Graham Page
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point—

§ Mr. Skeffington
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not draw attention to the fact that I am probably out of order.

§ Mr. Page
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is speaking with the leave of the House.
1369 The definition in Section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act is: 'operational land', in relation to statutory undertakers, means land which is used for the purpose of the carrying on of their undertaking and land in which an interest is held for that purpose, not being land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of statutory undertakings I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not say what electricity show rooms were, but he is under an obligation to do so in proposing this Amendment.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I hesitate to continue along these lines, but, as long as I am allowed to do so, may I say that if there is any question about whether land is operational a further provision provides that this must be the function of the appropriate Minister. It is not my function. But I hazarded a guess, which is perhaps unwise, to be helpful. All these undertakers in respect of the five categories of land are put in the same position.
The only other point for me to answer is why have "operational land" in the Bill. I discussed this in Standing Committee. "Operational land" cannot be varied because there is nothing to compare it with. That is why the exception has to be made.