Schedule 1.—(CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF COMMISSION.) (Hansard, 27 October 1966)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 89, line 35, to leave out from 'as' to the end of line 36, and to insert: 'the Ministers may, after consultation with the Treasury, specify by regulations'. The Schedule relates to the constitution and proceedings of the Land Commission and paragraph 5(1) provides that— The Commission, with the approval of the Ministers, may appoint a secretary of the Commission, and such other officers and servants 1519 as the Commission may, after consultation with the Ministers and with the consent of the Treasury, determine. So the staff can be fixed by the Commission itself—true with the consent of the Treasury, but only after consultation with the Ministers.
We have been given assurances throughout the passage of the Bill—right from the Second Reading debate—that the staff of the Commission would be 2,000. My estimate of the work which the Commission will have to face by reason of some of the unnecessary complications in the Bill is such that the figure may be very much higher. I would not wish to leave the matter merely to the Commission to decide, even though it can do so only with the consent of the Treasury. With a new body of this sort the question of the number of staff should be regarded as something more than an executive act; it should be known to the House.
Under the Amendment 'the Ministers may, after consultation with the Treasury, specify by regulations' The operative word is "regulations", because those of us who are now familiar with the Bill know that regulations under it have to be made by way of a Statutory Instrument, which must be brought before the House and which is subject to annulment by Resolution, in this case, of the House of Commons alone.
We propose that the House should be told the size of the staff of this body and have a chance of discussing and debating it in the House, if a Member sees fit to put down a Prayer against the Statutory Instrument containing these regulations. We want to see how this new body will work and to ensure that it is not increasing indefinitely in size; that it is running its business economically and has no more than adequate staff.

§ Mr. Onslow
The Minister reminded me—as if I were ever likely to forget—that I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Had I realised that he was relying so heavily on my advice and assistance in Committee, I should have been glad to give him it. This revelation came late, and I am sorry that he did not make it clear sooner to the whole House, because I do not think that many of my hon. Friends were aware that the Minister was genuinely seeking assistance to make the 1520 Bill comprehensible. He has refused that which has been offered by my hon. Friends, who are much more qualified than I.
I have been following the proceedings as best I can, but I must confess that the general impression which they have made on me is as if I had been an unwilling spectator at a performance of "Mother Goose" on ice by the Mongolian State Opera—the level of incomprehensibility in the last few days has been such that I can put it no higher. However, we have been afforded occasional glimpses of the comprehensible. This Amendment and the accompanying explanation so ably given by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has been one such glimpse.
It is important that stringent control should be written into the Bill over the size of the bureaucracy which the Commission will be allowed to amass. This is not just because the Minister has given an assurance that he will see it limited to 2,000—a considerable number, but evidently essential in his terms. It is not just because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has issued exhortations that the size of the bureaucracy should be limited. Unfortunately, the Chancellor's exhortations so often have precisely the opposite effect, and the size of the bureaucracy is increasing. It is because—the Minister must agree with this—Ministerial estimates and letters in the Library of the House are no substitute for hard legislation.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will realise that this is a serious point and that he will win back at least some of the sympathy which he has lost in the country for his stubborn refusal to deploy the arguments in favour of this rush of Amendments to his Bill if he could give at least some indication to the unfortunate taxpayers that he is prepared to set a limit on the number of staff which the Commission may arrogate to itself.

§ Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)
The arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite show a curious lack of grasp of the tendencies in administration and a total failure to realise that there are technological advances all the time, as a result of which it is absurd to specify that a certain number of people are required to do a certain job, whether 1521 in administration or in almost any other sphere. Machinery, equipment and devices of all kinds are coming into use in administration almost every day and certainly every year.
To ignore this trend and pretend that one can simply lay down a number of administrators as being required for any job simply shows a total lack of understanding of the kind of level reached in administration today. I hope that this kind of attitude will disappear as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Skeffington
This is a remarkable Amendment, even for this hour of the morning. If it were accepted we would be doing something absolutely without precedent. No other body in similar circumstances—indeed, in any circumstances I can think of—would have such a limitation and qualification placed on it. Coming from hon. Gentlemen who say they are anxious to see the minimum amount of bureaucracy, this is a curious way of attempting to achieve that aim. The Commission will be staffed by public servants, civil servants, and all will be subject to the normal Treasury control over staff matters.
It would be quite wrong for Ministers to attempt to regulate the staff in detail in the way proposed and I trust that the House will reject the Amendment with contempt.

§ Mr. Allason
We welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Had he been present earlier he might have realised that we are thoroughly up to date in considering how matters should be run. Indeed, a computer will soon be in action in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and this will be of enormous value.
The Parliamentary Secretary said there was no precedent for our proposal. I draw his attention to the Services. How many admirals does he believe there would be if the Navy was given permission to engage all the men it could possibly need to do the jobs that need doing? That is exactly comparable. If there is not Ministerial control, staff numbers go leaping ahead. A certain event took place in 1951. A Tory Government were returned and they sent out a directive stating that the branches of 1522 Government in Whitehall should be reduced in size by 10 per cent. That was carried out, irrespective of whether or not it was feasible. In my case, I applied for an increase in staff for my branch, so that I did not suffer the 10 per cent. loss, but somebody else had to have the staff of his branch reduced to make up the difference.
We do not believe that a staff of 2,000—the figure mentioned by the Minister—will be anything like sufficient, even with the assistance of district valuers. We must consider what they will be doing. They will be dealing with up to 2 million notifications of chargeable acts and events a year. Even if with the most superb technological advances, an enormous staff will be needed as white heat is generated when the forms arrive for processing. Even with a computer, it is difficult to imagine how two men will be able to man the machine. Indeed, a team of technicians will be on hand to repair the computer when it burns out.
In addition to technological advances which may be of assistance, men will be tramping round serving notices on people and sticking notices on conspicuous objects on property. They will be inspecting sites—causing damage in the process—and prospecting for minerals. Others will be selecting land which the Commission will take. Some will be preparing compulsory purchase orders and others will be dealing with general vesting declarations. Some will be administering the land which the Commission intends to hold for possibly considerable periods for future development, perhaps for housing estates in areas where the Commission considers that local authorities may in future want to make clearance orders.
12.45 a.m.
This will include people who are previous owner-occupiers and those who were previously rent-protected tenants. They will all become tenants of the Crown, and lose the protection of the Rent Act, and their freehold. All of this will have to be managed and looked after, the rent collectors will have to be appointed, and so on. Then there are those who will be engaged in administering the crown-hold. They will be selecting those favoured concessionary crownhold tenants who are to be given special privileges.
There will also be those engaged in selecting the builders who are to receive 1523 concessionary terms for obtaining land for house-building at specially reduced prices. There will be many more people involved, I have only picked out some of those whom we have seen in the course of the passage of the Bill. How all of this will be done with a staff within 2,000, I do not know. I should have thought that 2,000 people would be engaged simply in clearing the wastepaper baskets of this Commission.

§ Mr. W. O. J. Robinson (Walthamstow, East)
Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he confirm that I correctly understand the Amendment? Is its purpose to remove from the Commission any decision as to numbers of staff which it might require? According to the Amendment, the only people who will come into the picture will be the appropriate Minister and the Treasury.

§ Mr. Allason
This is precisely the intention, and I thought that we had indicated that very clearly there should be Ministerial responsibility for this. I gave the example of the Forces. The hon. Gentleman surely would not think that the Forces could be given carte blanche to engage the number of people they thought necessary. There will, of course, be advice from the Commission, as to what it would like, but the Minister would be very wise not to accept that.

§ Mr. W. O. J. Robinson
With respect——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has no right to speak indefinitely. We are on the Report stage of the Bill.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
In reinforcing what my hon. Friend has said in moving this Amendment, I would like to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that the increase in numbers in the Civil Service up to March of this year—and these figures are from the OFFICIAL REPORT—was 15,000, and that between last March and 1st July there was a very considerable increase——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not discussing the rise or otherwise of the Civil Service. We are discussing the Amendment, which the hon. Gentleman might look at.

§ Mr. Cooke
I left the Chamber to get these figures, Sir. I did not intend to 1524 pursue the matter at any length, but I wanted to say that we now have 19,500 additional civil servants since October, 1964. In view of this tremendous rise, and the swiftly-rising curve, I hope that the Minister will give proper attention to what my hon. Friend has said.

§ Mr. Allason
I beg to move Amendment No. 116, in page 90, line 22, to leave out 'is the subject of' and to insert: 'may be materially affected by'. This Amendment refers to the position of members of the Commission with property interests who are dealing with cases in which they have an interest, even though that interest is remote. It would require disclosure of a direct or indirect interest in a transaction, and would debar him from discussing that transaction or voting on it.
Quite clearly, where a member's interest in a piece of land is directly affected by a transaction there is no question of his taking part in the transaction. But there is the borderline case where he has an indirect interest in the land under discussion or, alternatively, has a direct interest in land which is indirectly affected. It seems desirable to cover the case where the member has an interest, either direct or indirect in land which is affected, even though it is not the land concerned in the transaction.
A piece of land adjacent to the land being discussed may well be affected favourably or unfavourably, and it is against human nature for the member of the Commission not to have some considerable feeling on the subject. Quite clearly, in such a case he would not wish to take part in discussions if he is connected in that way. We want this to be demonstrated. To a layman it seems to be desirable that a member affected by a transaction should not be able to influence the decision in any sort of way.
In Committee, the Minister accepted the logic of this point, but said that there were great difficulties facing members of the professions. They might be partners in a large firm of estate agents with property interests all over the country, and it would be very difficult for them to comply with these terms. I appreciate that there is a real problem involved 1525 here, but justice should appear to be done as well as done. It should be beyond question that a member of the Commission should not take part in a transaction, if his interest may be affected, even though only in an indirect way. That is the overall purpose of the Amendment, and everyone will feel very much happier if the Amendment is accepted.

§ Mr. Skeffington
There are three very good reasons why my right hon. Friend cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. First, it is impracticable. Secondly, it would impose rather humiliating conditions upon professional people. Thirdly, it would have the effect of derogating very considerably from the condition which is already in the subparagraph.
I will deal with those reasons in order. First, it would be impossible to know when land would be materially affected as a result of a transaction by the Commission. This would depend upon the type of land the Commission bought. It would depend on whether it was buying it long in advance for a particular purpose, so that the person who might be connected would never know when it was his duty to make a declaration. The land might be bought many years in advance of its having any significance. Therefore, it would be impracticable to operate the proposal.
Secondly, as we said in Committee, the personnel of the Commission will be professional and honourable people whom we can expect to act in an honourable way. There is a provision in relation to any land subject to a conveyance, and this would affect them. To impose any further conditions might severely limit the number of people who would be prepared to serve the Commission, because they might not wish to serve under the kind of condition the Amendment seeks to impose upon them. Professional bodies which have been consulted think that we may have gone rather too far in the conditions we have already imposed. So, on this ground, I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.
There is a third and more serious reason. If the Amendment were made, apparently it would be possible for a person to have an interest in land which 1526 was subject to conveyance by the Commission but which would not be materially affected and consequently it would considerably derogate from the first part of the sub-paragraph.
For all these reasons, this is an impossible Amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 91, line 30, to leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The sub-paragraph provides that Without prejudice to the preceding subparagraph, the validity of a compulsory purchase order made by the Commission shall not be affected by anything contained in a direction given under section 1(3) of this Act or by reason that any such direction has not been complied with. The direction under Clause 1(3) is a direction by the Minister to the Commission to do something in the course of carrying out its functions as the Land Commission. It could be argued that this sub-paragraph provides that anything which the Commission does in disobeying the Minister, anything which it does not in accordance with the Minister's directions, whether they be general or specific directions, is apparently perfectly sound.
I cannot see the purpose of the subparagraph. I know the provision which protects a purchaser from a local authority or a statutory undertaker, or which might protect the purchaser from the Commission when the Commission is acting not in accordance with directions, but that comes in the previous sub-paragraph. I fail to see the purpose of paragraph 14(2), and that is why I seek to remove it from the Bill.

§ Mr. Skeffington
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We did have a discussion about it then, and I thought that my right hon. Friend had explained that the provision is necessary for the benefit of the citizen, as it is in other cases. It is modelled on Section 29(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. It would be wrong to put the citizen at risk because his title to land might not be good because the Commission had failed to comply with a particular direction by the Minister. The Minister will 1527 have other ways of ensuring that the Commission does so comply, but the fact that the citizen could suffer as a result of a failure would, we think, be quite intolerable. I hope that with this explanation the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I am not certain to whom the hon. Gentleman refers when he speaks of the citizen. This concerns a compulsory purchase order by the Commission, and the citizen in question is the vendor. How is he concerned with the power of the Commission?

§ Mr. Skeffington
There may be a case of a purchase from the Commission of land which is the subject of an order.