HC Deb 25 January 1967 vol 739 cc1517-53

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 43, leave out: 25 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 and insert: 34 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Will it be possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 18, in Clause 13, page 15, line 7?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

If that is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Graham Page

indicated assent.

Dr. Mabon

These two Amendments are consequential on the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966, which received Royal Assent after this Bill went to the Lords. Accordingly, we have to make this adjustment. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 1, after "subsection" insert: and subject to the next following subsection".

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It might meet the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we discuss the following four Amendments with this one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Would that be for the convenience of the House?

Mr. Graham Page

indicated assent.

Mr. Willey

There is no great difference between the sides of the House on this Amendment. The Opposition in another place made it clear that they accepted the principle of the second appointed day and accepted that the Commission should have wider powers. They have afforded us an opportunity to look again at this matter, but for reasons which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will appreciate, we are unable to agree with the Lords on these Amendments.

I do not pretend that the Opposition are wholly satisfied with Clause 6. The hon. Member and his colleagues concentrated their attention earlier on subsections (1), (2) and (3), which deal with the powers of the Commission, and I am certain that they were right to do so. Subsection (1) defines the powers of the Commission and subsection (3) defines the conditions under which those powers can be exercised.

In the provisions of the Clause we provided machinery for a first and a second appointed day, which introduces a first phase. Obviously, within the first phase the scope of the Commission's operations is necessarily limited. We therefore introduced a concept of priorities with qualifications, at that stage, upon the exercise of the powers of the Commission. We provided that in any case the Commission could buy on behalf of local authorities if they so wished, that in any case it could buy for concessionary Crownhold, and that in any case it could buy to promote early development or development as a whole. We felt it right that during that early stage the Commission should indicate the grounds on which it was exercising its powers. Subsection (4) does not otherwise circumscribe the powers or purposes of the Commission. It defines priorities. As the hon. Member for Crosby will recollect, I said in Standing Committee that I could not think of any powers which would not be contained in subsection (4). [Interruption.] I am making a distinction between powers and the qualifications which are put upon them.

The importance of subsection (4) is the emphasis which it puts upon purchasing land for development at an early date. But obviously, as the Commission extends its scope of operations, the emphasis on priorities becomes less and less important. As the Commission extends the scope of its operations, there will be less emphasis on bringing land forward for early development than on purchasing land well in advance of development—bringing it forward in an orderly fashion as and when it is required for development, and—I know that this can be contentious and provokes the Opposition— also for securing a greater share of the development value.

When we are looking forward to the work of the Commission—this was emphasised in another place—we have to think of the context within which the Commission will be working. We have to think of the fact that between now and the end of the century we have to build every year the equivalent of a city the size of Bristol. We have to recognise that every year there will be nearly 500,000 extra people to house. We provided for a second appointed day when the priorities indicated by subsection (4) would be no longer relevant and would be removed. I am sure that this is the right way to tackle this.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to priorities. There is no mention of priorities in the Bill. It is not a statutory term at all. Subsection (4) refers to the purposes and limits the powers which are granted in subsection (3). There is a clear difference between them. It is not a matter of priorities; it is a matter of the powers and purposes within which the Commission can on those two respective dates lawfully proceed. Why should he seek to gloss over the difference between two subsections?

Mr. Willey

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in error. Subsection (3) imposes conditions on the exercise of the power granted to the Commission. It is these conditions which I regard as important. In the light of what I have said, obviously the better course when one reaches the second appointed day is to remove the qualifications which we have made under subsection (4). We are no longer regarding the Commission as being limited in the scope of its operations. It will have built up its staff and extended its operations.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my point. Does he or does he not agree that to say in a Statute that a body shall not have powers to do something except for certain specified purposes is precisely the same as saying that it shall have power to do it for only those purposes? Therefore the subsection deals with powers, as does the other, but it is limiting those powers as one can see by comparing subsection (4) with subsection (3).

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to do away with the suggested constitutional safeguard which another place has suggested.

Mr. Willey

I described them as priorities. Subsection (4) imposes priorities. In fact, it makes qualifications upon the exercise of the power which is provided in the previous subsections. That power is exercised subject to the conditions in subsection (3), and it is the conditions which I regard as being all-important.

This is not contentious. It is not an issue between us—as the Opposition said in another place—that we should provide for the second appointed day. We are discussing the way in which we should provide for this. The Lords Amendment brings in the concept of additional purposes. I will listen to whatever views right hon. Gentlemen have, but I believe that the Amendment brings in an element of uncertainty which might very well make the Bill much more difficult of construction. It brings in an element of uncertainty not only one way.

I am quite satisfied that additional purposes would be construed beyond those contained in the first three subsections of the Bill. I have made it quite clear that I regard the Commission as working within planning designations and decisions. I have no wish to extend its powers beyond that, but I believe that the present Amendment is certainly open to that construction. It certainly brings in unnecessarily an element of uncertainty.

4.45 p.m.

I want to take up an issue which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has often raised—and I share his anxiety —about the position of the individual citizen and the fact, often mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that the Commission is a non-elected body. As I have emphasised repeatedly, the Commission works within the framework of planning decisions. It works within the framework of decisions by elected bodies and Ministers responsible to Parliament. Both right hon. Gentlemen have emphasised—and again, I am not quarrelling about this; I am asking them to bear this point in mind—that in recognising the difficulty in bringing land forward for development, we should pay attention to the planning procedures. I concede this. I ask them to be equally careful that in so doing they do not prejudice the rights of individual citizens, because decisions about land use do in fact affect the use of land. I hope that if we turn to the refashioning of planning procedures jointly, we will see that the individual is not unduly and unnecessarily prejudiced.

We are as sensitive to the rights of individuals as are the Opposition. Having said where we ought to direct our attention, I regard this and the consequential Amendments as misconceived, as introducing an element of uncertainty which will make the Bill much more difficult to operate.

Mr. Graham Page

The right hon. Gentleman tried to pass off this Amendment as being of no very great importance. He said that there was not much issue between the two sides of the House. He said that the Opposition were not wholly satisfied with subsection (4) of Clause 6. That was the understatement of the week. Clause 6 is what I might call the main objects Clause of Part II. It puts the Land Commission into the property market as a purchaser, but not as a competitive dealer in land. It puts the Commission into the market as a manipulator by force, by compulsion. Why should compulsion be necessary and why, if compulsion is to be used, should not the Commission say and have a purpose for which it is using it?

One might argue that the Bill is back to front, that Part III should have come before Part II, because Part III creates a levy, and a levy means a large payment for selling property. Will anybody sell property if he has to pay for the privilege? As The Times put it very potently in a leading article yesterday: Because of their fear … that is, the Government's fear … that the levy will restrict the supply of land on offer, they have given the Commission large and indefinite powers of acquisition under the Bill. The Times leader added: In fact a combination of sensible planning policies and market forces would do most of what is necessary to bring land forward. That is a very good expression of the Opposition's policy towards the Bill. So, for the sake of the levy, we are having a Commission with large and indefinite powers of acquisition, to use the phrase in The Times leader, and Clause 6 gives those powers. This Amendment by another place is particularly concerned with the fact that the powers are indefinite after a certain time. They are indefinite after a time, because they can then be exercised without any purpose behind them. After the second appointed day, there needs to be no purpose, or any purpose—whichever way one likes to look at it—in the exercise of the powers.

The Lords Amendment seeks to retain some purposes, those already mentioned in subsection (4), after the second appointed day and it seeks to permit others, if the Government seek the permission of Parliament to introduce other purposes, seeking that permission by an Order. As the Bill stands, after the first appointed day and until the second appointed day there are three prerequisites for compulsory acquisition. I am not sure whether I am agreeing or disagreeing with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Whichever I am doing, I do it with great respect. However, I think that there are three quite separate stages towards the compulsory acquisition.

First, the Land Commission has to be satisfied about the kind of land which it desires to acquire. This appears in subsection (1) which says that in the opinion of the Land Commission it is land suitable for material development. Secondly, there is the condition of the planning of the land, of plans for the land. That comes in subsection (3) which provides that there must be planning permission, or allocation in a development plan, or that the land must be designated for compulsory purchase as part of a new town, or that it must be within a clearance area and so on. This is what I call the plans for the land. The third prerequisite to compulsory purchase is the purpose of the purchase. That comes in subsection (4). There are four alternative purposes —it must be for material development, or for development as a whole with other properties, or for use with some other authority with compulsory purchase powers, or for concessionary Crownhold

It is the third category which, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, is the constitutional safeguard. But after the second appointed day, if the Bill remains without the Amendment, that constitutional safeguard will have gone. The Land Commission will then acquire land —that is to say, it will force an owner to sell his land—for any purpose at all.

Thank heavens for the integrity of the Civil Service in this country! We might otherwise suggest that the Commission might be providing for itself country villas or town flats. It is true that if a later Amendment is accepted, it will have to state the reason for which it is acquiring the land, but if it said, "Our reason is merely that we are buying a country cottage for the Parliamentary Secretary", there will be nothing illegal about that. Of coure, I use exaggerated examples to illustrate the point, but the absurdity of the examples themselves forces one to question why should there not be purposes stated for which compulsory powers are to be justified. What is there to hide? I can think of some purposes not so absurd, but far more sinister.

When they introduced the Bill originally, the Government claimed—and they still allow people to assume this—that the Land Commission and the levy would bring down the price of land. No commodity was ever made cheaper by taxing it. Of course, by selling its own land cheaply, concessionary Crownhold land which it had bought at market value, the Commission might bring down the price of a small part of land. That would be easy. The Commission would borrow £45 million from the taxpayer and use it to buy land at full market price and sell it at cut prices, rather like supermarkets selling loss leaders. But if that sort of trading expands it has the effect on the rest of the market of depressing the prices of similar goods.

If the Minister desires, he can direct the Commission to buy many acres of land in a certain area at market price and sell at less than market price in order to flood the market in any particular district and to bring down the price of land there. I can appreciate that it would not be very politic to state that as the purpose of the acquisition.

But is that what the Government intend to do? In order to carry out their promise to get cheaper land, are they to flood the market with cheap land at the taxpayers' expense in order to deflate the price of land generally? Is that one reason, or the major reason, why the Commission will not be required to state the purposes for which it requires land after the second appointed day?

If accepted, the Amendment would leave intact after the second appointed day all the three prerequisites—that the Commission must be satisfied about the kind of property, the planning conditions of the property, and the purposes for which it is to be purchased. If the Government want other purposes to be inserted, then they can get them, if the Amendment is accepted, by an Order subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.

I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman wants to resist this Amendment. What he is doing is insisting on breaking a fundamental principle of English law. Never before has Parliament by solemn Statute given a public authority power to exercise compulsory powers of purchase against a citizen without stating the purpose for which it requires the property, not even in war time. In war time the purposes had to be stated as being for the defence of the Realm. Under common law, apart from Statute, the Crown had, and, I suppose, still has, a residue of such power, but Parliament has fought it for centuries and successfully fought it until the right hon. Gentleman took office.

As it is with Crownhold, so it is with the kind of land which we are now considering. Constitutionally, we are going back to where we started generations ago with seizure at the will of the Executive without any expression of the purpose for which the property is wanted. Once this legislative compulsion has been granted to the Commission to grab land for any purpose, or for none, how can the Government refuse this sort of power to any other public authority? The first Private Bill which comes forward after this legislation, perhaps from Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, will be a demand for exactly the same powers of compulsory purchase without stating the purpose. The National Coal Board will be next and then the electricity boards, until it gets down to the Arts Council demanding powers of this sort.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

And the G.L.C.

Mr. Page

Indeed, the G.L.C. If there is a public body which can seize a man's house, as well as any other of his properties, without stating a purpose, a man will have become nothing more than a tenant at will, at the will of the Land Commission. The land will be his no longer with the threat always present. "Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said, 'It is not my land, it is the Land Commission's land' ". In ease the right hon. Gentleman does not remember that the title of that poem, which I have rather mangled, it is the "Lay of the last Minister". It should be renamed, "Lay of the last Minister of Land and Natural Resources".

5.0 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

In the course of his observations, the right hon. Gentleman referred to an element of uncertainty. I do not think that there was any element of uncertainty before he got up to speak, but I can hardly say the same for the position at the end of his speech, for he seemed to introduce the maximum degree of uncertainty and confusion into the situation within a reasonably short space of time.

I would have thought that there was no doubt either as to the effect of Clause 6 as it stood, or as to the effect of Clause 6 as it could be if the Lords Amendment were agreed to. As the Clause stands, between the first and second appointed days, the Land Commission can acquire laud only for certain specified purposes, the four specified purposes set out in subsection (4).

After the second appointed day, the Land Commission will have a much increased power of purchase so long as it satisfies one or other of the conditions specified in subsection (3), which forms a sort of very wide outer framework within which the Commission must operate after the second appointed day. If effect is given to the Lords Amendment the Land Commission would retain the right to acquire land within any of the purposes specified under subsection (4), both between the first and second appointed day and, indeed, after the second appointed day. In addition to that, after the second appointed day, it could acquire land for extended purposes if it got the authority of Parliament to do so.

That would be the position, providing what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has properly called a constitutional safeguard. If the Lords Amendment is rejected, the situation will be that after the second appointed day land can be acquired by the Commission without specification of any purpose so long as it comes within the very wide outer framework of subsection (3), and the House can see how wide that outer framework is by looking at the first two conditions in subsection (3,a) and (3,b).

If there is a planning permission for carrying out material development not wholly implemented, it does not matter on whose application that permission has been given. It need not necessarily be the owner so long as the requisite notice has been served. That is quite sufficient to satisfy the conditions within this very wide outer framework. In subsection (3,b), the Commission will get a power in respect of any land zoned in a development plan for any purposes which the Minister might prescribe at his discretion. One can hardly envisage any wider framework within which the Commission's powers would operate unless there is some constitutional safeguard such as the Lords Amendment.

So far from this matter not raising issues of any great importance, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, it puts a very revealing spotlight on the attitude of the Government to constitutional safeguards and the basic rights of the citizen. The House should always approach these matters against the background that, in a sophisticated community, compulsory acquisition is a necessity, but a regrettable necessity, particularly for the unfortunate citizen whose land is proposed to be taken. Therefore, regard should always be had to five main principles.

First, power of acquisition should only be exercised by bodies with an elective or democratic responsibility. Secondly, it should only be exercised for purposes clearly falling within the public interest. Thirdly, there should be a full right of objection and inquiry by quasi-judicial process. Fourthly, although Ministers answerable to Parliament must be the final arbiters of what may be the public interest, nevertheless insofar as there are legal aspects to this matter, as there frequently are, the jurisdiction of the courts should not be ousted. Fifthly, compensation should be fair if acquisition is persisted in.

In this case, as we are all agreed, the first of these criteria is not satisfied. The Commission has not any democratic or elective responsibilities. That makes it all the more important that the second criterion, the one with which we are primarily concerned now, should be fully met. That is to say these powers should be given only for matters demonstrably within the public interest. As the Clause stands and will remain if the Minister has his way, the powers will exist for matters not clearly lying within the public interest.

It is right on every count that the Lords Amendment should be incorporated—right because the outer framework of subsection (3) is so very wide; right because of the nature of the Land Commission in having no elective responsibilities; right because we do not even know the time of the second appointed day; right, above all, because Parliament should not give, least of all to an undemocratic body, the right of compulsory acquisition save only for powers and purposes clearly defined and established as coming within the public interest.

Mr. Peyton

What a dreadful load of muck this Bill still is, and how clever the Government have been to select the present Minister as the one responsible for hauling it through Parliament, because he does it with such an innocent air, so quietly and peacefully. He even suggests that there is no controversy between us on certain points.

The right hon. Gentleman surprises me somewhat. Quite apart from the fact that he said that he was looking forward to the operation of the Commission—a prospect I do not share—he amazed me by saying that we must be careful about the individual citizen, be careful not to prejudice his rights. In the name of conscience, what is this Bill doing except prejudicing the rights of almost every individual citizen in the country and clouding them with uncertainty?

As if to pile surprise upon surprise, the right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about an element of uncertainty which the Amendment would introduce. He is the sole author of uncertainty. For him to talk in that way is on a par with chiding us for adding a spoonful of water to an already over-full swimming bath. He is the author of the uncertainty. For him to castigate the Lords Amendment in the name of uncertainty is an insolence quite intolerable.

The Clause turns the gentleman in Whitehall, mythical so far as he is omniscient, into a rogue elephant. It is giving him powers he can exercise after the second appointed day without any purpose having to be expressed. This unfettered right is one which could only be put upon the Statute Book by a party which has no regard for the rights of property and for freedom. I believe that the Minister and the Government responsible for such legislation should be castigated because I do not think that the country has yet begun to wake up to the significance of this horrid Measure. I hope that, when the time comes—I am a merciful man—the Minister's reputation will survive the odium which deserves to be cast upon those responsible for such foul legislation.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

I want to draw attention to only one point in the Minister's conduct which seems to go beyond the normal bounds of what we are accustomed to in complicated Measures of this sort. I should have thought that there was an obligation and responsibility upon him at least to set out the differences between the two sides, and, having done so, to explain why he then thinks that his approach and attitude is superior to that of the Opposition. Exactly the reverse has happened in this case. What he has done is to say that there is virtually no difference of substance between the two sides, that both sides are equally sensitive to the rights of the individual, that the Lords Amendment would prejudice the rights of the individual for mechanical reasons. But this is only a technical matter.

How lucky we are to have my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to explain the real difference between both sides of the House, because some of us who have not had the benefit of the abstruse discussions in Committee would have thought from what the Minis- ter says that this was a pure formality and that the Government, in their wisdom, had come to the conclusion that the Lords, no doubt with the best of intentions, had somehow blundered into confusion and produced a situation in which the subject would be much more prejudiced by the Bill as it left them than was the case when the Bill left us.

It is quite clear, even to the meanest and least instructed lay intelligence, after listening to the lucid explanation of my right hon. and learned Friend, that the reverse is the case, and that the requirements of subsection (4a, b, c and d) are to persist after the second appointed day if the Lords have their way, but will lapse if the Minister has his way. I cannot imagine a greater difference of substance and I cannot imagine it to be more deceiving than to say there is none in those circumstances.

That is my point, and it is indicative of the tactics of the Government with this Bill, who have been trying to "wool" the whole thing over. For a great period of the passage of the Bill they have succeeded. It has not been until the last month or so that the country and the Press have woken up to what this Bill really does. The Minister cannot get away with this "wooling-over" attitude in future, and I hope that as we come to each of the Amendments he will can-didly set out the real difference in substance when he moves that the House doth disagree with the Lords in their Amendments because differences of grave substance there certainly are.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

This Bill, if it is passed, will become an Act of tyranny in the country, and it deserves to be called by its proper name—an Act of tyranny. I had never thought that as a British citizen I would live to see the day when the democratically-elected Government would instruct its civil servants to perform acts of theft against the private citizenry of our country. In the many years when I lived in the United States, a land which still holds dear the concept of private property—

Mr. Willey

On a point of order, are we not rather wide of the somewhat narrow point before us on the last Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

We are getting a little wide of the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will keep more narrowly to the point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Further to that point of order, in my respectful submission, if you have in mind the proposals of the Government in excluding the necessary provisions inserted by another place, my hon. Friends observations are strictly related to what the Government are doing. Naturally the right hon. Gentleman may not like being told this, but it is surely fully in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

This is a very complex Measure, as I think the House will appreciate. It would be proper if the hon. Member continued, and I will endeavour to keep the point of order as clear as I can, as the debate proceeds.

Sir S. McAdden

May I take it from what you have said that you will be ruling what is in order and what is not and not the Minister who wants to keep the thing quiet?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I thought that by implication at least I had made that clear.

Mr. Griffiths

I am glad that the Minister rose to point out how thin-skinned he is. I am glad that he has shown to the House that the charge that I made against him had hit home, where it deserved to hit.

5.15 p.m.

I rise to support this Amendment, because in my judgment it will slightly limit the degree of tyranny which is being imposed by the Bill. It is for this reason that the Amendment is relevant and proper. The Amendment goes to the heart of the matter in that it brings forward the conflict between the two rights at issue, which are the rights of the private individual, on the one hand, and the right, which none of us on this side would ever deny, of society and the State. It is because the Amendment goes to the point of collision between these two rights that it is so important.

The rights of the individual must arise from private property if from anything at all. The people of the country, when they come to appreciate the real significance of this Bill will realise that what is being taken from them is the ability to say, "This is my land, this is my home, this is my property". In future, unless this Amendment is accepted, they will have to say, "This is no longer my land or my home or my patrimony". They will have to say, "It is someone else's", in this case the property of the Socialist State.

In this Amendment, the other place has gone some way towards allowing the people of this country still to be able to use the phrase, "My land, and home and my patrimony".

Mr. Tony Gardner (Rushcliffe)

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, who is using very strong language indeed, to see if one could use his argument in relation to the souls who live in this fair capital of ours. Would he like to tell the House how many citizens within the area of the Greater London Council can already say the sort of things that he is saying about property in this sense?

Mr. Griffiths

The point is not so much who can or who does own the land. Every man and woman in this country, if he or she does not own land, aspires to do so, and it is the aspiration that is just as important, and the aspiration is something that we on this side of the House wish to defend and to retain because it is basic to our people.

The other right is the right of society, of the State, in this case represented so ably by the right hon. Gentleman, to take away from the private individual his property if social need requires it. It is surely elementary that it rests with he who will take away a man's property to show why it is necessary, what it is for and why he cannot find some other property in order to achieve the same purpose. If the superior right of the State is to be introduced in order to take away a man's land, then it is up to the State to show why and to say what it is for.

This the Minister is refusing to do. He wants to act—and I am sorry if this is strong language—not just as a thief, but as a thief in the night, in the dark. I warn him that the people of the country are not so dazed and dazzled by what is going on that they will fail in time to realise what is being done to them. I warn him that people will resist, they will not accept lightly the deprivation of property which he and the Government are visiting upon them. I hope, as he looks at this Amendment he will realise that an attempt is being made, as it has been made through the history of this country, to prevent arbitrary power taking from the private citizen something that he loves and holds dear.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

It was significant at the Report stage and it is significant now how few hon. Members opposite wish to support their own Government. I said on Report that they were ashamed of the Bill and not prepared to come and listen, and it is the same today.

Mr. Peyton

Has my hon. Friend observed that even the Government Whip is so ashamed that he has moved to the far end of the bench?

Mr. Costain

I had not noticed that, but it shows how he feels. I have been a Member for nine years, but I never remember a Parliamentary Private Secretary jumping to the defence of the Minister and interrupting the speech of a back bencher opposite, yet that is what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) did.

I support everything said by my hon. Friends in defence of the private individual, but I declare my interest here and say that one of the activities of my group is the building of houses. My hon. Friends have dealt adequately with the position of the private individual, so I approach this matter from the point of view of the developer and the safeguards which the other place intended for the protection of the developer.

If the Minister claims that the Bill is a Measure to increase the supply of houses, will he consider the effect of the powers proposed on the work and judgment of the developer? When a developer purchases land for normal development, which the Government say they support, at least by words, he must make a judgment as to whether the land will be arbitrarily taken away from him. I look upon land as raw material, raw stock. Can one imagine B.M.C. starting up a production line to make motor cars in the knowledge that, at an hour's notice, the Government could come along, without giving any reason at all, and take away the whole of their raw material? Yet this is what is being done here. The position of a developer is made impossible, and there is no compensation given—

Mr. Willey

Will the hon. Gentleman direct himself to the Amendment, which, presumably, he supports, which would provide that the Commission shall have power to acquire land compulsorily for such purposes in addition to those specified in the last preceding subsection as may be specified in an order made for the purposes of this subsection"? In other words, they are further powers than under subsection (4).

Mr. Costain

The Minister's intervention makes my point even stronger. When a developer is making a judgment, he has to consider whether he will be allowed to use his raw material. When we know the condition on which the Government are likely to take that raw material away, we can make a judgment, and the Lords' Amendments would make a very bad condition at least somewhat tolerable, but if the restriction is to be abolished and overall powers are to be given, one might as well cast a dice at a board meeting when one is discussing whether land purchased will remain as one's raw material. So long as these powers remain in the Bill, there is no evidence to permit a proper business judgment to be made.

The Lords' Amendment, at least, gave one a sporting chance of making a judgment, but with these absolute powers, if the land can be taken over without any specification or idea of what it is to be used for, except the whim of the Minister or of the Land Commission, what judgment can one possibly make? Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean on this and not pretend that the Bill is a Measure to get more houses built? It is power to take away land whenever the whim suits him or the Land Commission. That is the objection, and that is why the Lords Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

The Minister seemed to imply that there is some protection for the citizen in our planning arrangements. I could not follow that because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) explained, the Land Commission itself can apply for planning permission. If it has power to do that and over-rule the wishes of the owner of land when it make an application, what sort of protection for the citizen is that? What will happen in practice, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, is that, provided that the Land Commission serves the necessary notices, which are merely an indication to the owner of the land that it is making an application through the planning authority, the owner of the land will have singularly few rights. He may object, but if the planning authority decides to grant planning permission, he will, as far as I know, have no right to a public inquiry and no right of appeal to the Minister against the granting of planning permission. The rights to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, therefore, are quite illusory.

It is misleading to say that there is any great protection for the citizen in the planning procedures to which the Commission will be subject.

In any event, the great mass of the country—certainly the great bulk of our urban areas—is already covered where there are current development plans. It is clear that the powers of the Commission, unless they are limited in the way proposed by the other place, are far too wide to afford any protection whatever to the citizen.

I am sorry that on Burns Night the Minister of State for Scotland should have left us, not wishing to hear or take part in a debate on freedom.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I am here.

Mr. Clegg

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir S. McAdden

I should not have intervened in this debate had not the line of the Minister's thinking been given to us by the intervention of his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he sought to extract from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) how many people there were in the Greater London Council area who owned property of any kind. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman was anxious to establish that there were not many such people, and, presumably, because there were not many, they did not matter. If that is the line of thought actuating the Minister's mind—the P.P.S. and his Minister work pretty closely together—we have further evidence of how wrong the Government's whole attitude is.

A law is either just or unjust. Apparently, the Government's view is conditioned by the number of people affected. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that there are only a few. Very many thousands of people not only in the Greater London area but throughout the country are owners of some piece of property, a house or the land upon which it stands. It is quite wrong for that sort of argument to be advanced, and it is quite wrong that the Minister's attitude should be conditioned by a conflict between the haves and have-nots, and, because he thinks that there are more have-nots than haves, he need not bother much about them.

The laws of this country are concerned with justice. The protection of the law is available to all citizens irrespective of whether a large body or a small body of them is affected. In fact, it is a large body, as the Minister will soon realise from the volume of protest coming to him as soon as the public realise how many thousands of people are affected by his iniquitous proposal. He will be drowned in an avalanche of letters from people protesting not only against what he is trying to do but also against the suggestion that, because there are not many affected, no one need bother about them.

Some of these people are the salt of the earth. They deserve support and encouragement. If one is to take at their face value the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members at Labour Party conferences, they have recently, in an attempt to cultivate the middle-class vote, decided to believe in owner-occupation. If they believe in it, let them ensure that people are secure in their occupation and that their property cannot be taken away at the behest of a non-elected body in order to fulfil purposes which have not been defined and which the Minister does not propose to divulge.

Mr. Richard Sharpies (Sutton and Cheam)

The Bill is being rushed through Parliament because the general public are now becoming aware of what lies behind the Government's thinking and the whole purpose of it. Some of my constituents wrote directly to the Minister and voiced their apprehension about the so-called simplified procedure which we are now discussing. In a letter dated 1st December, the right hon. Gentleman himself replied to a Mr. Baker, one of my constituents-—he did not send me a copy—and said: … the Commission's power to buy property does not extend to any house. Is that true or false, because it seems a part of the whole tactics of the Government in trying to conceal the truth from the people? I have asked the Minister now for a clear statement. Is the statement in the letter to my constituent true or false? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

Surely we shall have an answer, in view of what has been said on this side of the House? It seems extraordinary that the Minister should stay absolutely silent. I would have thought that he would intervene to answer the rather serious charge which has been made that he has misinformed the public in a letter. I shall willingly give way to him now if he wishes to contradict that point.

Mr. Willey

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) did not give me notice that he would raise this matter. If he will let me have the letter I shall certainly deal with it.

Mr. Sharples

The letter is signed by the Minister himself and addressed to one of my constituents. Surely he knows what is in it?

Mr. Allason

The question here is whether there is any need to safeguard the citizen. It appears that it is rather necessary to safeguard him from misinformation.

But here we are dealing with the wider question of whether it is necessary to safeguard him in his property rights. The Minister said, "Indication of purpose is of less and less importance", that is, as the Land Commission gets further and further into the saddle. That is a clear indication of the Government's attitude towards safeguarding the citizen.

The Government have consistently maintained that whilst no purpose must be stated after the second appointed day, as under Clause 6(4). because that is abolished, a reason will nevertheless be shown by virtue of a planning permission being in existence. That depends on the wording of Clause 6(3) which refers to many other things besides planning permission.

The Minister has consistently attempted to give the impression that if there is a planning permission for ten houses to be built in a certain field everyone will know for what reason that field is to be compulsorily acquired. That makes things a great deal too simple. For example, a playing field is in agricultural use. If land is to be taken for a playing field it will be necessary only to show that there is planning permission for agricultural use. There is no need for planning permission in that case, because the existing use is agriculture. On existing property there is clearly already planning permission for use for building, and therefore in an area such as most of Greater London, where there are houses already on the land, those houses can be taken.

I wish to tell the Parliamentary Private Secretary that there are a great number of owner-occupied houses in London, and all of them are now at risk, because the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in Committee that the Land Commission would certainly have powers to purchase compulsorily freehold or owner-occupied houses in London, if the Commission were buying up land in advance of the requirements of the local councils for redevelopment. That means that owner-occupiers in London might well then find themselves the tenants of the Land Commission.

Under Clause 6(3) it is only a matter of planning permission. The mere fact that land lies within the designated area of a new town is sufficient for it to be taken by compulsory purchase. No reason need be given, because the land lies within the designated area of the new town, and under those terms the Land Commission can take it. The fact that a piece of land falls within Clause 6(3) does not indicate a purpose for which the land is to be taken.

We on this side of the House regret that very few Government supporters have been present to hear the debate, because it concerns most important principles. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, constitutional safeguards for the basic rights of the citizen are under discussion. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide in favour of retaining the Lords Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

We have heard a series of interesting speeches, some phrased rather extravagantly. There was an occasion during a Finance Bill debate when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Philip Snowden, said that having listened to some of the speeches he was reminded that the pantomime season was still on. When I listened to one or two speeches by hon. Members opposite and the grotesque implication they saw in this part of the Bill, I thought the same.

Perhaps I can assuage some of the fears and put the position into perspective as the Government see it. There are two ways in which one should look at the Lords' Amendments. One is a narrow technical way, which is ample ground for the Government rejecting them. The Opposition, both here and in another place, have not objected to a second appointed day. They have not suggested that there should not be a second appointed day, as no doubt they have accepted, at any rate for the purpose of their argument so far, the reasoning, originally set out in the White Paper as long ago as September, 1965.

There is always talk about the Bill being rushed through. In fact, there has been more adequate discussion on every section of it than on almost any other land Bill I recall, unlike many of the others, where whole Sections were never discussed.

In the White Paper and subsequently the Government have deployed the argument that it would be impossible for the Land Commission to process all transactions and it might not even be desirable. Therefore, the categories with which it would be concerned in the first stages are set out in the early parts of Clause 6, and were in the White Paper. Therefore, my right hon. Friend was right to refer to them as priorities. They are categories of land acquisition which, in the Government's view, should concern the Commission in the early stages when it is not in a position to purchase all the land.

We then come to the more long-term purpose and responsibility of the Com- mission, to which not a single hon. Member has addressed his mind this afternoon, and I think that that is equally true of the other place. If we are to meet the enormous demands which will be made upon the country's resources to house the additional population expected in the next 25–30 years, none of the instruments we have at present will be able to do it. I have evidence of shortage of land all over the country. Although it has been allocated in plans, it is not coming forward. There, we have a terrific task. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that, as a chief planner to the Ministry of Housing had put it, to provide houses and roads for the expanding population, we should need to build each year something of the order of a city like Bristol of 430,000 people, or a town of 60,000 or 70,000 people every six weeks.

When one comes to the second appointed day, if the Commission is to discharge its duties adequately and effectively, it must have powers to buy well in advance. The Commission's powers have to be flexible. Technically, it is very difficult, if not impossible, when buying large areas ahead of requirement, although within locally decided planning decisions, to do it in the form of the Amendment. In fact, the Amendment would not do what the other place wanted, but I do not rest my argument upon that, because that is usual in these Amendments.

It would be almost impossible for the Commission to discharge its functions to meet the demands of national, regional and local plans in the future, if this Amendment were carried. Here I would put an alternative argument to that put by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill as now drafted was creating a kind of nameless, faceless monster in Whitehall, deciding what was to be done—

Mr. Peyton

rose—

Mr. Skeffington

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. What happens under the Bill as now drafted is that the Commission cannot act outside the planning apparatus. There have to be planning decisions, apart from other Ministerial responsibilities. If the Amendment was carried and Whitehall was to act, then, as was said in another place, that could go right across the existing planning machinery and against decisions which might have been taken by local planning authorities.

On both those counts, the Government feel that this Amendment is misconceived and very seriously hamstrings the Commission's operations after the second appointed day.

Mr. Peyton

I never referred to anyone as being nameless or faceless. What I said was that the provision converted the gentleman in Whitehall, whom I do not believe to be omniscient, into a rogue elephant who had to give no reasons for his actions.

Mr. Skeffington

If that is the hon. Gentleman's view he ought not to support the Amendment, because he might be giving an instrument to Whitehall which is greatly in addition to anything which the Bill proposes.

Practically every speech from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite has been based on the assumption that the Bill is and has been deliberately designed to be oppressive to the rights of the individual citizen. I reject that utterly. The very reason for the length of the Bill is that, in case after case, we have spelt out the rights of individuals so as to give them every opportunity. In either stage, the Commission can only buy land for which there is planning permission or which is suitable for material development. There is a safeguard that the Minister must approve every compulsory purchase order which is contested, and there is the further fact, to which I do not think any right hon. or hon. Member referred, that, by an Amendment to Clause 7, the Commission will in every case give its reasons, although it will not define in advance the purposes for which it requires the land. That, therefore, completely alters the picture, and I am sorry that it has not been mentioned before.

On the wider matter of principle here, although there is a good deal of technicality in this which may govern the matter for the purposes of the Amendments from the other place, the clash on principle is between those who wish to see a new effective instrument able to provide the land required for all the pur- poses that I have mentioned, free from the uncertainties that dogged the old Central Land Board—those who want to see an effective Commission able to serve the community—and those who still hanker after laissez faire. With the pressures facing us today, really the community cannot afford that kind of ineffective apparatus.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Allason

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he fell back on the Amendment to Clause 7 as being a reasonable case which made this unnecessary. However, the Amendment to Clause 7 only refers to compulsory purchase, whereas Clause 6 refers also to the voluntary acquisition of land. Does he expect that anyone will agree voluntarily to sell land to the Commission if he cannot be told for what purpose it is required?

Mr. Skeffington

I mentioned the matter in connection with the points being made about compulsory purchase powers, but I have also mentioned the other safeguards. Taken together, I think that there is every reason for leaving the Bill as it is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If the Government want to make progress, they must provide better answers from the Front Bench than that to which the House has just listened.

It comes after a debate conducted, apart from the Minister's speech and one unhappy intervention from the Parliamentary Private Secretaries' bench—solely from this side, criticising above all the decision of the Government to reject a Lords Amendment which would at least let someone whose land was taken know for what purpose it was taken. Only in his concluding sentences did the Parliamentary Secretary, who otherwise read his brief very agreeably, come near that central point. What he said then seemed to damn his whole case, because he said that the clash is between those who want to have an effective instrument to acquire land for the great housing tasks of the next 20 years, and those who prefer laissez-faire. He was really admitting that the Government's method of dealing with the problem involved doing plain and blatant injustice to individuals. That is the clear admission in what he said when he came to the point in the concluding moments of his speech.

That is the attitude of the party opposite. What about the hon. Member who intervened from the P.P.Ss' bench to ask how many people had property to take? The plain indication is that these are only a minority, and that it does not matter if we do them injustice.

This House has revolted for centuries against that doctrine. Not only is it a bad doctrine; it is based on a complete inaccuracy. In all there are about 8 million owner-occupiers in this country, every one of whom may be affected by the Bill. Before hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby to do injustice to what they believe to be a contemptible minority I hope that in their own interests they will appreciate that it is a very large body of citizens.

Then we had the extraordinary behaviour of the Minister. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) wrote a letter to the Minister, to which the Minister replied to the constituent concerned, without sending a copy to my hon. Friend, containing a statement which he says gives the effect of the Bill. My hon. Friend read one of the paragraphs from that letter. It reads rather amusingly when one recalls that earlier the right hon. Gentleman said that ther had been a great deal of misrepresentation about the Bill. He is at least consistent.

The right hon. Gentleman must be able to answer the question without hiding behind a request for notice. The letter says that the Commission's power to buy property does not extend to a house; it can only buy land required for substantial development or redevelopment. My question is simplicity itself. Is that statement true or false? It is basic to the Amendment. If it is true, plainly it will go a great way to meet those of us who are anxious to protect the interests of 8 million owner-occupiers. This was the letter of a Minister of a Crown writing to inform a citizen of the effect of a Measure for which he is responsible. The Minister is not prepared, in the House, either to deny or to accept the truth of what he said in that letter, written as recently as 1st December.

How he can expect to remain a Minister if he conducts himself in this way I do not know. It was a lamentable performance. He had time to obtain information from the Box—which has been far more populated than his own back benches—before he rose to answer the simple question: on 1st December, did he or did he not tell the truth? The right hon. Gentleman still sits there. Throughout the debate he has adopted the technique of a bolster—just sitting there being punched, praying for the arrival of a Blucher, in the shape of the Patronage Secretary. When his own personal accuracy is in dispute the right hon. Gentleman may discover that it is not very remunerative to remain silent. We are left with a very unhappy impression.

Mr. Wiley

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the rules and traditions of the House. If an hon. Member wishes to raise a point made in a letter it is usual and courteous to give notice so that a Minister may look at the correspondence. Having heard a further quotation by the right hon. Gentleman, it is clear to me that the letter is correct. Whether it is ambiguous or not is a matter to consider in the light of the correspondence. I can only surmise, but it seems to me that the correspondent was saying that the Land Commission can exercise compulsory powers in respect of any house, and that I was saying—which is quite correct—"No. it cannot exercise compulsory purchase powers in that respect; there must be an element of development."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

This makes the position even more unhappy. I shall not argue with him about courtesty. He rebukes my hon. Friend for not having given him notice that he was going to refer to this letter. My hon. Friend was equally right in rebuking the Minister for corresponding with his constituent —writing on the official paper of his Department— behind my hon. Friend's back. This has happened before, and the Prime Minister, who has higher standards in this matter, has had the decency to apologise for another Minister who did it.

Whatever may be said against the letter there is no ambiguity about it. It is in sharp contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches in that respect. His answer does not clear up the question whether the statement in that letter is right or not. It is obvious from the context that the letter from the constituent was the letter of a man who was anxious lest his house be taken. The right hon. Gentleman has never disputed that many houses and gardens have a development value. We still want to know whether the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend's constituent was accurate. I beg him, for the sake of his reputation, to say that what he said in the letter is completely untrue, and that there are many cases under the Bill where people's houses can be taken.

That is one of the major reasons for the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is not only prepared to take people's houses without letting them know for what purpose they are required; he wants to conceal this from the public until he has got the powers on the Statute Book.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the provisions of Clause 6(3,b) a man whose house is in an area zoned for some other use in the plan—if that use is ultimately prescribed by the Minister—could have the house taken even if there were no fully implemented planning permission in respect of that house?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, who speaks with exceptional authority on this subject. Here again, the Minister has had the advantage of his advice. The Minister would do better to say, "I am a hard-worked Minister, dealing with a Bill that I do not wholly understand. I made a slip, and I apologise."

Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)

It appears from the Minister's intervention that the Land Commission will operate only when there is a question of substantial development or redevelopment. What does he mean by "substantial development?" Is it a question of the number of houses or the area of land? Perhaps a house on a quarter of an acre or half an acre will be exempt; I am not sure. Will the Minister define this term more closely? Is he visualising that the Commission will buy up land, whether in large or small amounts—perhaps one house and an acre—for the purpose of the Greater London Council or any other local authority?

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 139.

Division No. 253.] AYES [6.0 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Gregory, Arnold
Alldritt, Walter Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Grey, Charles (Durham)
Allen, Scholefield Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Anderson, Donald Davies, Harold (Leek) Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Archer, Peter Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Armstrong, Ernest Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Harper, Joseph
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Delargy, Hugh Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Dewar, Donald Haseldine, Norman
Barnett, Joel Dickens, James Henig, Stanley
Bence, Cyril Dobson, Ray Hooley, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney Doig, Peter Horner, John
Binns, John Driberg, Tom Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bishop, E. S. Dunn, James A. Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Blackburn, F. Dunnett, Jack Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Booth, Albert Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bradley, Tom Edwards, William (Merioneth) Hunter, Adam
Brooks, Edwin Ellis, John Hynd, John
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Ennals, David Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon, Tyne, W.) Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Fernyhough, E. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Floud, Bernard Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Cant, R. B. Foley, Maurice Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Carmichael, Neil Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Kelley, Richard
Carter-Jones, Lewis Forrester, John Kenyon, Clifford
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Fowler, Gerry Lawson, George
Chapman, Donald Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Leadbitter, Ted
Coe, Denis Freeson, Reginald Ledger, Ron
Coleman, Donald Gardner, Tony Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Concannon, J. D. Garrett, W. E. Lee, John (Reading)
Crawshaw, Richard Ginsburg, David Lestor, Miss Joan
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Gourlay, Harry Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Oakes, Gordon Small, William
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Ogden, Eric Snow, Julian
Lipton, Marcus Orme, Stanley Spriggs, Leslie
Lomas, Kenneth Oswald, Thomas Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Swain, Thomas
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Owen, Will (Morpeth) Swingler, Stephen
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Symonds, J. B.
McBride, Neil Parker, John (Dagenham) Taverne, Dick
McCann, John Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Thornton, Ernest
MacColl, James Pavitt, Laurence Tinn, James
MacDermot, Niall Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Tomney, Frank
Macdonald, A. H. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Urwin, T. W.
McGuire, Michael Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Varley, Eric G.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mackintosh, John P. Price, William (Rugby) Watkins, David (Consett)
Maclennan, Robert Probert, Arthur Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Randall, Harry Weitzman, David
McNamara, J. Kevin Rankin, John Wellbeloved, James
MacPherson, Malcolm Redhead, Edward Whitaker, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Rhodes, Geoffrey White, Mrs. Eirene
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wilkins, W. A.
Mapp, Charles Robertson, John (Paisley) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Marquand, David Rodgers, William (Stockton) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Mason, Roy Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mendelson, J. J. Rose, Paul Winterbottom, R. E.
Millan, Bruce Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Woof, Robert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Shore, Peter (Stepney) Yates, Victor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) Zilliacus, K.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Moyle, Roland Silverman, Julius (Aston) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Neal, Harold Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Mr. William Whitlock and Mr. William Howie.
Newens, Stan Skeffington, Arthur
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Osborn, John (Hallam)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Baker, W. H. K. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Batsford, Brian Harvie Anderson, Miss Percival, Ian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hastings, Stephen Peyton, John
Bell, Ronald Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pink, R. Bonner
Bessell, Peter Heseltine, Michael Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biffen, John Hill, J. E. B. Prior, J. M. L.
Body, Richard Hirst, Geoffrey Pym, Francis
Bossom, Sir Clive Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Holland, Philip Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hornby, Richard Royle, Anthony
Bromley-Davenport. Lt. -Col. Sir Walter Howell, David (Guildford) Russell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hutchison, Michael Clark Sharples, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Iremonger, T. L. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Sinclair, Sir George
Bullus, Sir Eric Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Smith, John
Campbell, Gordon Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Channon, H. P. G. Jopling, Michael Stodart, Anthony
Clark, Henry Kimball, Marcus Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Clegg, Walter King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cooke, Robert Kitson, Timothy Temple, John M.
Cardle, John Knight, Mrs. Jill Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Costain, A. P. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Thorpe, Jeremy
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Tilney, John
Currie, G. B. H. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of Longden, Gilbert van Straubenzee, W. R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Lubbock, Eric Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Doughty, Charles McAdden, Sir Stephen Vickers, Dame Joan
Eden, Sir John Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maddan, Martin Walters, Dennis
Farr, John Marten, Neil Ward, Dame Irene
Fisher, Nigel Maude, Angus Weatherill, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mawby, Ray Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Fortescue, Tim Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Monro, Hector Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Goodhart, Philip More, Jasper Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Goodhew, Victor Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Worsley, Marcus
Gower, Raymond Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Grant, Anthony Murton, Oscar TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grant-Ferris, R. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Grieve, Percy Onslow, Cranley
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 3, leave out from "section" to "to" in line 6.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

On a point of order. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the last debate, to which I intend to make no reference, some serious charges were levelled at the Minister, upon his honour and upon his accuracy. May I inquire, through you, whether the House could be assisted by the Minister, who has now had an opportunity to consult no fewer than seven or eight civil servants in the Box? Would he like to make a statement touching on the charges which were levelled at him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member knows that I was not in the Chair when those charges were made. I was not aware that they had been made. The Minister has no doubt heard what he said and will, if he wishes, be in a position to deal with it later in the debate.

Mr. Skeffington

I wonder whether it would be convenient if we also took, with Amendment No. 7, Lords Amendment No. 27. They are on the same point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not think that it would be either convenient or in order. The rules of the House require that each of these Amendments made in another place must be dealt with separately. On each occasion after the Clerk has called the Amendment, the Minister must move either that this House doth agree or that this House doth disagree before we can proceed. May I therefore invite the Minister to move, in relation to Amendment No. 3, whether he is inviting the House to agree or disagree with the Lords?

Mr. Skeffington

I will do that, but the point which I was making—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must ask the Minister first of all to move as a substantive Motion whether he is inviting the House to agree or disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. Skeffiington

I thought that I had already done so. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must say that as a result of the earlier debate I understood that this House would be invited to disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that we were passing to Amendment No. 7. I had not realised that I had to move the earlier Amendments separately. I beg to move, That the Lords disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order. I believe that the Minister just moved that the Lords do disagree with the said Amendment. It is very difficult for the Lords to do so for the reasons, first of all, that they made the Amendment and, secondly, that they are not here to disagree.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We all admire the verbal dexterity of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but as I understand it—perhaps I was not listening as carefully—the Minister intended to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. Am I correct?

Mr Skeffington

indicated assent.

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order. May we not see whether the Minister can actually do this? I know that it is a very complicated operation, but it should not be entirely beyond the capacity of someone who has been a member even of this Government for a few months.

Mr. Skeffington

I hope that the hon. Member will not try to be deliberately offensive. I have moved, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. I have now done it three times, and I hope that he will be satisfied.

Mr. Graham Page

May we know at this stage with which Amendment we are asked to disagree?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Surely it is unnecessary to answer that question. We are dealing with the Amendment which the Clerk just read out—the Amendment in page 6, line 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 6, line 38, at end insert: () In relation to planning permission granted on an outline application (that is to say, an application for planning permission subject to subsequent approval on any matters) the reference in subsection (3)(a) of this section to the development authorised by the planning permission shall be construed as including all development for which planning permission was granted on that application either with or without any requirement as to subsequent approval.

Mr. Skeffington

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Clegg

I rise with some diffidence to question this Amendment because of the reception it got in another place. It may be that I am more suspicious than some of my hon. Friends, but, then, I have been exposed to the virus of the Land Commission Bill for perhaps a longer period.

As I understand the effect of the Amendment, it is to extend the powers of the Commission to purchase land where there is an outline planning permission. This is the second of two Amendments which were moved to Clause 99 at a late stage on Report, when it was pointed out that, if a person is to take advantage of the concession, he must have had full planning permission before being able to start the development before the first appointed day. It seems that the Government want in this creature, the Commission, the best of both worlds. However, when it comes to the citizen wanting to start work before the first appointed day, he must have absolute permission.

Lord Kennet, who moved the adoption of the Amendment in another place, said that there was great confusion in construing the Bill and the difficulties that would arise. He was right. More than a year after the White Paper was published and following all the debates that have taken place in this House, that noble Lord said last November: …the present Clause 99(3) was inserted because it was evident from comment in the legal Press and elsewhere that there was confusion in the minds of the public about the meaning of the words 'authorised by planning permission'"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to quote from speeches made in another place.

Mr. Clegg

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was quoting the words of a Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman was quoting from a Ministerial statement, that is in order.

Mr. Clegg

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who was moving a Government Amendment—and who, I presume, was, at least at that time, a Minister—said: which were used in various places in Part III of the Bill. Clause 99(3) made it clear that these words meant that any detailed planning consents necessary under an outline planning permission must have been obtained before any work done was authorised by that planning permission. He went on: We have now realised, however, that the Amendment has had more severe repercussions on Clause 6(3,a) than was expected and has made it clear that the Commission would not be able to buy land where the planning permission was in outline and the necessary detailed planning consents had not been obtained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th November, 1966: Vol. 278, c. 529.] It seems that at every stage the present Government, with all the powers at their disposal, including the skill of the Parliamentary draftsmen, have not been able to understand the consequences of their proposals. Despite this, the Parliamentary Secretary said in this House last Tuesday at Question Time that more people understood the Bill than was generally realised. I confess that Lord Kennet's views do not exactly accord with that.

It is strange that the Government, when they want to help the Commission, lean over backwards while, when it comes to considering the position of the man who has bought land or who has got land and wants to develop it before the appointed day, they make it more difficult for him to do so.

Mr. Skeffington

I will explain the position, particularly since the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has picked out and referred to certain facets of the Amendment. In passing I will refer to Amendment No. 27, to which we will come later and which applies to Clause 6. It was clear, as I reported to the House, that in the technical Press and elsewhere there was some confusion about the meaning of the words "authorised by planning permission". This, of course, is the phrase used constantly and consistently in Part III of the Bill. An Amendment was, therefore, made in this place on Report to Clause 99 and that made it clear that the words meant that any detailed planning consents necessary under an outline planning permission must have been obtained before any work done was authorised by that planning permission. Thus, Clause 99(3) was designed to maintain that consistency throughout the Bill It was welcomed as removing an uncertainty, although it is perfectly true that, when the effect of the Amendment was considered on Clause 6(3), it was found to be unduly restrictive.

The hon. Member for North Fylde is wrong to imagine that the Amendment will be of advantage only to the Commission. Without it it would have been impossible for the Commission to purchase by compulsory purchase unless this procedure had been carried out. It is equally true that failure to amend the provision would not have advantaged the landowner, either, because it would merely have created procedural difficulties which would, I assure the hon. Gentleman, have been of no advantage to him.

In other words, if the Amendment had not been made the Commission could not acquire land compulsorily while no consents had been given under an outline planning permission. The landowner, meanwhile, could not proceed with his development until he had obtained approval—and then the Commission could acquire the land. Without the Amendment the landowner would be afraid to move, while the Commission would be ineffective to intervene. It is only in connection with the application of Clause 6 that the Amendment is necessary, but it is very much to the advantage of all the parties that the Amendment should be made. That is why we took this opportunity in the House of Lords to make the Amendment, and in another place the matter was agreed to, which allows me to present the Amendment to the House as being a reasonable and necessary one.

Question put and agreed to.