HC Deb 25 January 1967 vol 739 cc1705-14

Lords Amendment: No. 28, in page 98, line 19, at beginning insert: Except in so far as sub-paras. (3) to (5) of this para. otherwise provide".

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Willey

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

I think it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 29, in page 98, line 25. at end insert: () Where the land comprised in such a compulsory purchase order as prepared in draft by the Commission consists of a dwelling-house, and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the last preceding sub-paragraph shall not have effect in relation to that objection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

indicated assent.

Mr. Willey

These are Amendments to Schedule 2. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is still with us, because he was in error earlier in referring to Schedule 2. We are here meeting a point which was raised in the Lords. It was first raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), but he did not pursue it by way of Amendment in our proceedings in this House.

Under the shortened procedure there is discretion with the Minister whether to hold an inquiry. I have always given the assurance that when an occupier of a house was affected, no Minister would in those circumstances refuse an inquiry. The point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby, which I give him the credit for raising, was taken again in the Lords and there was a general wish to make this an explicit provision of the Bill.

The two Amendments provide that we will not rely upon the assurance of a Minister on behalf of the Government and that this requirement will be written into the Bill.

Mr. Allason

I did not catch all that the Minister has just said, but I think he told us that these Amendments dealt with the special expedited procedure for compulsory purchase. He certainly told us that it would not be the Minister's intention not to hold a public inquiry or hearing. He must have meant this in reference to a dwellinghouse.

Mr. Willey

indicated assent.

Mr. Allason

Throughout the passage of the Bill we have complained about the absence of a right to a public inquiry or hearing, particularly in the case of a householder. It was appalling that the occupier of a house should have no right of appeal and had to rely entirely on the Minister's discretion as to whether there was any right of a public inquiry or hearing.

It certainly appeared from the terms of the Bill that a person could be turned out of his home at 28 days' notice on receipt of a certificate from the Land Commission and without any chance of a hearing save by the good graces of the Minister. Lords Amendment No. 29 exempts a dwellinghouse from that procedure.

Once again the other place has more aptly judged public opinion, which was rightly indignant at the apparent affront to reasonable behaviour by the State. It is not right that people should have to rely on the good intentions of a Minister as expressed in Committee. They much prefer to see this right written into the statute. We rejoice, therefore, that at last the Government have seen sense about a man's home, although he can still be turned out of his business on the same terms at 28 days' notice upon receipt of a certificate from the Land Commission.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he was glad I was still here. I am not sure, in view of Lords Amendment No. 21, whether I can reciprocate, because I think he is the ex-Minister; but he did say, apart from that preliminary courtesy, that the reason for his pleasure at my presence was that I had been wrong on an earlier Amendment in respect of the Schedule. He did not, however, specify in what respect I had been wrong. It was a curious omission which no doubt he will now take the opportunity to rectify. It is rather unusual to say another Member has been wrong without explaning in what respect.

The only other comment I would make at this stage is that I am indeed glad that at this last stage the right hon. Gentleman is agreeing to go some way to meet some of the very serious objections which many of us have urged to the provisions of the Schedule. It is indeed shocking that the denial of a statutory right of a person likely to be deprived of his land to have a public inquiry should have been left to this stage, and certainly shocking that it should have been carried thus far. It is gratifying to those of us who over the last eighteen months have pressed for this that at this stage this point has been thus far met. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough now to explain my error.

Mr. Rossi

Before the Minister replies may I put one other suggestion about this Lords Amendment. Where it says that the Minister shall require the Commission to make the order with a modification so as to exclude the dwelling-house". I wonder if some thought could be given to adding at some stage the words "and curtilage". Surely it is not the intention of the Minister just to take the area on which the building happens to be, but some of the surrounding land should also be included? I wonder whether he would bear that matter in mind.

Mr. Willey

I will bear it in mind, as far as one can administratively. I am not seeking to amend the Lords Amendment. I have in mind the point the hon. Member is making, certainly.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I understood him earlier in our discussion to be talking on the assumption that this provision was not being made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think the right hon. Gentleman has telescoped my argument with that of one of my hon. Friends. I did not make that point at all. I was very conscious of this Lords Amendment, which is one of the most clear aspects of them all. But I accept the apology.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 103, leave out Schedules 4 to 13.

Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Percival

I have not had the opportunity to listen to the whole of the debates which have been going since yesterday afternoon, but I have heard a great deal of them. Many of the speeches have been very erudite and many of the points have been highly technical. My observations must necessarily be on a much more mundane level and in much more general terms, because as a mere lawyer I find the provisions of these Schedules so abstruse that there are not all that many of them about which I feel sufficient certainty to enter into any technical discussion. If I had Aladdin's lamp and just one wish left, of course the first wish I would express would be that these Schedules, the whole of them, and the Bill to which they are attached, and the Government who are perpetrating the outrage of pushing all of them through the House, should disappear into thin air, but if for any reason, such as a majority, I could not have that wish gratified, then I should use it for this purpose. My request would be that I should be told how many of those who propose to vote for these Schedules have read them, how many who have read them have understood them, and how many different views are held by those who have read them and think that they understand them. I can guess that the answers to all three are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. That is not related to the substance of the Schedules and I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member is out of order.

Mr. Percival

I shall relate this to the Schedules, if you will allow me to complete my sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My reason for endeavouring to persuade the House that these Schedules should not be returned to the Bill is basically that they are unintelligible. I was merely introducing myself to the subject and perhaps at this late hour in the morning endeavouring to put a point of view which I know to have been expressed by others. I do not mind how many others have expressed it; I want to make my protest. I shall endeavour to put it a slightly different way for the sake of variety.

I was dealing with how many different interpretations, how many different views as to their meaning, might be held by those who have read and thought to understand the Schedules. I suggest that that is directly related to whether they should be returned to the Bill. I was about to say that my experience among technicians in the law, those specialised in this subject, is that one gets almost as many different interpretations of these Schedules as the number of people one asks about them. Certainly on some parts of them even the most highly expert technicians take different views as to what the meanings are. It is a very serious consideration when one is passing legislation and that even the highly expert differ in their views as to the interpretation, surely the House should think very carefully before returning them to the Bill.

I said that I would like to know how many people purported to understand them. The relevance of that is that we ought not to pass legislation unless we understand what it is intended to do. My guess would be that if we were to be honest with ourselves the percentage of hon. Members who, having read these Schedules—and that eliminates a lot—could put their hands on their hearts and say that they understood them would be very small.

The relevance of the number of people who have read them is this: I have felt, and I am not sure that I do not still feel, that the most powerful and persuasive speech which one could make against what is proposed is to read the Schedules from start to finish. I cannot believe that if one did that there would be anyone left to vote for them—I do not believe that there would be anybody left to vote for them or anything else. To put everybody's mind at rest, attractive though that possibility is and splendid as that argument would be and although we now have plenty of time and everybody who is here is here because he is interested in the subject, I say at once that I shall resist that temptation, and I shall take it rather more shortly than that.

2.45 a.m.

But it is worth having a look at one little part of one Schedule, which I will use on its own to illustrate my point. I looked at Schedule 4 on page 105. I appreciate that I should be out of order if I were to say much about Clauses 27 to 85 but since what these Clauses mean, or how they are to be applied or whether they are good or bad can only be decided by looking at their parents, as it were, it may be permissible to do just that.

In Schedule 4, paragraphs 10 and those following relate back to Clause 30(3) and (4). I shall not read these, for that might be out of order. But I draw attention to the fact that subsection (3), whilst in itself it sets out a number of values which have to be ascertained, refers to Schedule 4 to show how they are to be ascertained. On the face of it, although subsections (3) and (4) may not look too bad—there may even be some who find them not too easy to follow—the situation really begins to get complicated when one follows up the reference in subsection (3) to Schedule 4 and looks up the relevant passages.

To assist those failing to follow the point, paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 is where one has to start in doing one's calculations, which one is required to do under Clause 36. Paragraph 11 says: (1) There shall first be ascertained what immediately before the disposition is the value of the chargeable interest, calculated in accordance with Schedule 6 to this Act and on the assumption that planning permission— (a) would be granted for any development of the relevant land which does not constitute material development"— whatever that means— but (b) would not be granted for any development of that land which constitutes material development. (2) The value of the chargeable interest, calculated as mentioned in the preceding subparagraph, is in this Part of this Schedule referred to as the current use value of the chargeable interest. Paragraph 12 says: (1) There shall also be ascertained what, immediately after the disposition, is the value of such prospective right as the grantor then has to possession of the relevant land at the end of the tenancy. As a rest from reading, I will interpolate one or two comments. If anyone can follow all that—and perhaps some people are clever enough to do so—one has to look at Schedule 6, which covers nine pages, and in the little bit that I have read there are already two imponderables. The first is as to what material development is and the second is the prospective right which the grantor …then has to possession of the relevant land at the end of the tenancy. But let us go on. Paragraph 12 goes on: (2) For the purpose of ascertaining that value it shall be assumed that the relevant land will at the end of the tenancy be in the state in which it was immediately before the disposition. (3) The value referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph is in this Part of the Schedule referred to as the reversionary value of the chargeable interest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I find it difficult to see the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman is adducing for not accepting the Amendment. So far he has merely read out relevant parts of the Schedule without argument. I must ask him to adduce an argument or resume his seat.

Mr. Percival

That is what I propose to do. I have already said that the best argument against this Schedule is that it is so appalling that the House ought not to pass it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I must press the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is now getting rather repetitious. He has advanced this argument on at least four separate occasions. The hon. and learned Gentleman must address himself more to the question.

Mr. Percival

I have advanced the argument four times, as a respectful comment on your questions as to the relevance of it. So far I have read about 15 lines out of goodness knows how many pages, and I was proposing to confine myself to the next two paragraphs. Perhaps I might ask hon. Members to read them to themselves. They continue in the same vein as the paragraphs that I have read out, and I did so so that I may make this comment: what a shocking lot of mumbo-jumbo the whole lot is.

Supposing all had an ascertainable meaning, who could ascertain it? I am prepared to accept that there are some people who are so clever that they can find an ascertainable meaning to all of this. But how many? This is a measure which may have very serious consequences for every property owner, however small his holding may be. How many of them would be able to make head or tail of this, half of which I have read out and half of which I referred to? I picked as a short example part of a Schedule which is tolerably clear compared to some of the others because I did not want to confuse the House.

Here is one comparatively simple piece which I suggest to the House would be, to the average citizen, nothing more than a lot of mumbo-jumbo. It might be expected that lawyers, solicitors and barristers would welcome this sort of thing, because these are the people to whom the citizens will have to go to find out their rights. They will have no chance of understanding this and they will have no choice but to go to the professional for advice, for which they will have to pay. It might be expected that this would be welcomed by those to whom this will be a tremendous source of income, but it is not welcomed by them any more than it is by anyone else. I can only speak for the lawyers, and it is deplored by the majority of them for the simple but very good reason that it creates such an appalling mess, muddle and mass of uncertainty.

It was the proud and justifiable boast of this country until quite recently that a man could know the law and that he was free to do what he pleased within the law. Neither of these sayings are true now. I realise that I shall be out of order in developing the second part of this, although the temptation to do so is almost irresistible. I must therefore confine myself to the first part, that it was once the boast that an Englishman could know the law. The way things have been going in the last two years not even the lawyers could help the citizen if there is any difficulty, or can be sure that they know it any longer. This is a serious inroad into something that really matters, and no other Measure makes a bigger inroad than this Bill.

That is true particularly of the Schedules, and this of itself is a sufficient reason to throw the whole lot overboard and start again. Now that Clauses 27 to 85 have been restored, there must be some Schedules because those Clauses refer to them, but it is in the Schedules that most of the detailed working out is to be found and they are, therefore, of immense importance. Even at this stage, the Schedules as they now stand should be taken out. They are complicated beyond belief and beyond all necessity. They introduce a fearful mess and muddle and mass of uncertainty.

I am a great optimist, but I am not so optimistic as to think that the Government will accede to heart-felt plea, but the House and the country must realise what the consequences will be. When people begin to see the effects of the Bill and the Schedules and to feel them, which a great many will soon do, let them not blame the law. The blame lies on this Government and on this Government alone.

Mr. Clegg

I support the serious and substantial attack my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has made on the incomprehensibility of the Schedules. On that ground alone, they should be consigned to oblivion, as the other place wished to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) tried to raise this point earlier, but Mr. Speaker ruled him out of order because the Clauses and not the Schedules were then under debate.

I am intrigued by Schedule 8 paragraph 18. If the Minister can let me know on a half sheet of foolscap what it means, I may be persuaded to drop my opposition to the Schedule. Paragraph 18(1) reads: In this Part of this Schedule 'the increase (if any) in the current use value of the chargeable interest', in relation to a taxable disposal, means the amount (if any) by which the value of the chargeable interest immediately before that disposal, calculated on the assumption specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph, exceeded the value of that interest as the relevant earlier time, calculated on the like assumption.

Mr. Percival

Will my hon. Friend kindly read it again?

Mr. Clegg

I could not stand the strain. I am sure that, if he had been here now, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil would have used that paragraph to illustrate his argument, no doubt, with considerable wit.

The fundamental criticism is that people cannot know and understand their rights under legislation of this kind. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that, in many ways, the difficulty of the wording is there not to persecute the citizen but to protect him. It is a strange feature of our civilisation that we should be driven to this sort of thing. If the citizen cannot understand what Ministers have put into the Bill to protect his rights, it is not of much value to him.

Question put and agreed to.