HC Deb 20 June 1967 vol 748 cc1460-6

The owner of any land which is a road, footpath, watercourse, sewer, drain, garden, parkland, recreational or sports ground, communal building or other premises, used in common by or for the benefit of the residents of any neighbouring house and premises of which that owner is the landlord by virtue of a long lease at a low rent, may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 serve on the Council of the County Borough or County District in which the land is situated a notice requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VIII of the said Act and the notice shall have the same effect as a purchase notice under Part VIII aforesaid and the condition that the person serving the said notice is the owner and landlord aforesaid shall take the place of the conditions set out in section 129 of the said Act and the provisions relating thereto as stated in that section. —[Mr. Clegg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Clause is designed to deal with one of the consequences which are bound to follow upon enfranchisement. There is no doubt that the effect of enfranchisement will be to fragment the larger estates. In the garden city type of estate many landlords are responsible for keeping up a network of roads, sewers and drains, besides open spaces, sometimes at considerable expense. Following upon enfranchisement, the natural incentive to a landlord to maintain such amenities as open spaces, roads and drains will be gone. In the past, the provision of such amenities gave him a better letting value for his premises.

We may, therefore, reach a situation in which a landlord will not want to maintain these common amenities. That would be bad for the new freeholders, or even for those who had extended their long leases. Under the present state of the law—at least, until we receive the report on positive covenants—I do not see any effective way of dealing with this problem other than that proposed by the new Clause.

The Clause gives a landlord a right, if he finds that the maintenance of the common facilities is becoming a burden, to require the local authority to purchase them from him. It seems to those of us who support the new Clause that the local authority is the right body to take over these common facilities from the landlord. Some local authorities might well like to be able to buy them from landlords. I am thinking of places like Letchworth.

The Clause deals with a problem that is certain to arise. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts it it will operate fairly for the landlords and those who have either extended their leases or have bought in the freehold.

Mr. Willey

I am in a dilemma. If I say that I will think about this I shall excite the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and if I say that I will not I will excite him even more. I am persuaded by what the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has said. A few days ago I received a deputation from some of the Cambridge colleges which raised a similar point. I am not enthusiastic about cluttering the Bill with provisions which are not effective. That is the reason for my hesitation. Later, we shall be discussing Amendments which may affect the attitude of those who have made representations to me, but I am willing to consider the question. I shall explain why I have doubts about this.

As the hon. Member said, we are here concerned with estates. If Clause 19—on management—is accepted, provision could be made for contributions towards maintenance, but where there is no such scheme the problem has to be faced by the freeholder. There might be extensive enfranchisement and he might have left on his hands the open spaces and roads. It is not merely a question of purchase; it is a question of maintenance.

Let us take the case of a road where the leaseholders have enfranchised. The freeholder of the remaining part of the estate would be under no obligation to maintain the road. I doubt, however, the wisdom of providing machinery to transfer property compulsorily to a local authority. The essential problem is that of maintenance—whether the local authority thinks that an open space should be properly maintained. Generally speaking, the most satisfactory way of dealing with the problem would be by agreement. If that were done, the open spaces would be taken over and properly maintained.

However, in the light of what the hon. Member has said and the representations made to me recently, I am willing to consider the question again to see whether those who are mainly affected—the larger estates—feel that such a provision should be made for compulsorily acquiring the community part of an estate.

Mr. Oscar Murton (Poole)

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I point out that the leader in The Times this morning takes the view that the Bill is a mess. I take exception to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to clutter up the Bill with various provisions. The Bill is a hotchpotch as it is. I can foresee many difficulties of interpretation. When my hon. Friends and I attempt to iron out some of the anomalies the Minister should at least consider them. I hope that on this occasion he will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Hooson

I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the new Clause and, if necessary, amend it in another place. It seems to deal with a matter which is not dealt with anywhere in the Bill. It is not only in the landlords' interest and the interest of leaseholders; it is also in the public interest that this provision should be included.

It is natural that with a Bill dealing with as complicated a subject as leaseholds there are bound to be gaps. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has done a service to the House in drawing this point to our attention. The right hon. Gentleman says that this matter is best dealt with by agreement. That may be so, but what about circumstances when agreements are not possible—when a local authority, for some reason, does not wish to co-operate with landlords? What happens then?

I have always been a passionate advocate of leasehold enfranchisement, but it seems to me that there may be circumstances in connection with the enfranchisement of larger estates where those estates can no longer afford to maintain the amenities. The local authority may, in its lack of wisdom, decide not to do anything about the matter. Upon whom does the obligation rest? The legal obligation is upon the landlord, but there is no incentive for him, after enfranchisement, to maintain these services.

I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could give way on this point. He can amend the Clause in another place if necessary. It would give a good deal of reassurance to those who are concerned to make this a good Measure if the new Clause were accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Hale

I do not want to make purely verbal points, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in every 999-year lease in Oldham, this would enable the authority to be compelled to take over every drain—and just the drains—that serves two adjoining houses? I doubt whether one house in Oldham is not confronted with that problem and the local authority would have to be responsible for all such drains.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hooson

I doubt whether any hon. Member is as great an authority on the 999-year leases in Oldham as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)

And on many other things.

Mr. Hooson

I concede that.

I listened to the hon. Gentleman's points with great interest. I do not suggest that the new Clause is ideal, but it deals with a glaring gap in the Bill. The Minister of State should accept it now and amend it in another place.

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

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was in a dilemma because he had not thought enough before Report, but would do so after. He would not be in this dilemma if he had thought about it before. I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I have not the expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) of leasehold estates, but I have considerable knowledge of property purchased by owner-occupiers where there is some doubt who owns the drains, roads and communal services.

The new Clause is serving the Bill and not cluttering it up. The Minister of State does not realise how, once an estate is broken up, these things, which have happened automatically in the past, cease to happen because the estate has been fragmented. He should accept the Clause. If he needs to give it further thought, he should at least show his desire to help the Bill by accepting it at this stage.

Mr. Willey

I am not anxious to do that, for two reasons—apart from the difficulty of the present drafting of the Clause mentioned by the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The first reason is that the House wishes to give compulsory powers against a local authority, which we should consider further. The second is need. This was raised with me only recently. The well-managed estates have been very active but this was the point which they took when the Cambridge deputation raised this with me.

When I said that I was unenthusiastic, it was because one does not know whether they feel that this is a need which ought to be met. One estate which was mentioned when I met the deputation was Sunningdale, but it was at once said that if certain Amendments were accepted they would not be so concerned about the matter. I want to establish that those responsible for the estates are satisfied that this would meet the need and we should also see that local authorities would find it acceptable.

Otherwise, there would be the difficulty of maintenance, which is what we are concerned about. We do not want to prejudice that by something which is regarded as unnecessary or as not the most effective and practical solution.

Mr. Graham Page

I do not want to prolong the debate, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking. I have no objection to his thinking about this again—although he ought to have thought about it before—first, because the White Paper gave no undertaking about this, and, second, because the Clause is built on a legal fiction. It is none the worse for that, and I think that it would be effective, but it would have to be looked at again. Other matters flow from this and need decision.

Nevertheless, the Clause should be accepted and, if necessary, amended later. After all, what will happen to the common parks if the estates are broken up? This is not a question only of university estates—this was put to me before the Minister had discussed it with the university estates—but particularly of the private roads on these estates. What will happen to them? Some solution must be found for the tenant, the landlord and the public. The Government have put forward none yet except to see whether it can be done by agreement.

We have at least had a shot at a solution and the Government could have responded better with their own positive solution. However, on the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking I think that we shall see something later. It is very disappointing that the Government should not bring forward a positive proposal on a matter which they agree needs solution, and that we should have to think up a solution which, so as not to clutter up ten pages of the Notice Paper, must be based on a legal fiction. I still think it works and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted it.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

The right hon. Gentleman said that the new Clause would clutter up the Bill. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said, it is not distinguished for its elegance as it is. When the Minister says that, he is like a man energetically defending against insult the character of an incorrigible rogue. This is late in the day; it is a classic case of shutting the stable door after every horse has gone, because the Bill is a clutter.

We are told that one does not know that this need ought to be met. The Bill, unfortunately, has seen the light of day for a long time, and by now the Minister should have had every opportunity to study its inadequacies and my hon. and right hon. Friends have deployed their skill to pointing out some. I was depressed to be told at this late hour that the Government do not know that this is a need which ought to be met.

No one can complain that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is undermanned. Counting the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, as one must, there are eight of them. I wish that they would hire themselves an eight and go for a row on the river. I should be prepared to cox the boat, although I do not say that it would come back, but I should at least have served a useful purpose in getting rid of such a gang. I would not have spoken on this at all had I not been exceptionally depressed by the low standard of the Minister's argument.

Mr. Willey

I might wish later that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) were sculling on the river. On the question of need, we have said several times that we were willing to look again at Clause 19 to meet anything which the well-managed estates thought should be met. I am not complaining, but one of those affected has raised this point with us late in the day, and the hon. Gentleman did the same this afternoon.

The other point, which is important, is that if one is looking to the result one does not necessarily get the right result by compulsion. I think that we too often rely on compulsion. If what we want is the maintenance of the amenities of the estate by the local authorities it may be better to do it other than by compulsion, as in the case of Hampstead Garden Suburb, where it has been done by agreement.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

If the Minister's words mean that he is ready to accept Amendment No. 63, it will do much to reassure us.

Mr. Hamling

The hon. Member is kidding himself.

Mr. Clegg

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accept the Amendment. I doubt whether he will get anywhere by agreement—there must be a reserve power such as that in the Clause to make it effective.

However, in view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.