Clause 129 (Hansard, 29 May 1968)

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
I beg to move Amendment No. 551, in page 175, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.
This Amendment leaves put the operative subsection of Clause 129. The Clause seeks to classify the new authorities and executives as a particular form of statutory undertaker. The Freight Corporation, the Bus Company, the Scottish Group and the passenger transport executives will all become statutory undertakers under Section 86 of the Transport Act, 1962. The benefits given to statutory undertakers are very substantial in town and country planning law. These bodies will have to apply for planning permission when they wish to develop operational land. When planning permission is refused, as the law stands they will receive 100 per cent, compensation out of the ratepayer's pocket.
If the Town and Country Planning Bill now passing through the House receives the Royal Assent and certain regulations are made under the new Act, that 100 per cent, will be reduced to 50 per cent, compensation in certain cases and in other cases there will be no compensation for refusal of planning permission. At the moment the House has only the statement from the Minister of State, Housing and Local Government of the intentions in regard to those regulations. What developments by statutory undertakers may, if refused planning permission, produce 50 per cent, compensation we do not know, except that we have been told that they will be the sort of developments where it is necessary that they should be in certain places and done in a certain manner. If there is a discretion to the statutory undertaker to carry out his undertaking where he chooses, if he chooses to do it somewhere that the planning authority does not like and the planning authority refuses planning permission, he will not get compensation either at 100 per cent, or 50 per cent.
I quote from the Minister of State's statement during the Report stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill when he referred specifically to this Bill. He said: Next, an example from the transport world. Under the Transport Bill, now before the 2036 House, the proposed new passenger transport executives will be statutory undertakers. They will have a wide variety of powers … We know that they have a wide variety of powers—32 under Clause 10— and they will certainly have operational land. I should expect a general extension to a city bus station to be specified development … —and therefore to carry 50 per cent, compensation— because the station is necessary to enable the executive to do its primary job, and the places where the extension could be sited would be considerably limited. Equally, I think that a new waiting room building at the station would be specified development. But a petrol filling station at a car park serving private car owners would not be. It would not be part of the primary function to provide transport services, and. if there were objection to it by the local planning authority, I do not think that the executive could claim that the primary operations for which it was set up would be seriously or unreasonably impeded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 79.] We have the statement of the intention of the Government introducing the Regulations, but until the regulations are made a statutory undertaker who is refused development of his operational plan can claim 100 per cent, compensation out of the taxpayers pocket. When the regulations are made in a great number of cases the statutory undertaker will still be able to claim 50 per cent, out of the ratepayers pocket. By this Bill we are to increase one hundred-fold, two hundred-fold, five hundred-fold, the number of statutory undertakers who will be able to take money out of the ratepayers pocket. We are not only creating these four bodies, the Freight Corporation, the Bus Company, the Scottish Group and the executives but all their subsidiaries. They may be building bookstalls or petrol filling stations or running car delivery firms. These are all to be statutory undertakers, and if an essential statutory undertaker were refused opportunity to develop at a certain pace by the local planning authority he would be entitled to be paid compensation. We really are increasing the burden on the ratepayers to a very great extent by this Bill. The Government ought to think about it again.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
There can be no Judy show without Punch and no Hamlet without the Prince, and I am very glad the hon. Member for Crosby 2037 (Mr. Graham Page) has been able to take part in our proceedings on this Bill at some stage.

§ Mr. Graham Page
At the very last moment.

§ Dr. Mabon
Unfortunately, he has not read this Clause with his usual assiduity. He is seeking innocently to achieve the very thing he fears, because he would in effect, if the Amendment were carried, be disapplying Section 86 of the Transport Act, 1962, and under the Bill the authorities he mentioned, and the P.T.A.s would get the wide privileges under the town and country planning legislation the existing boards enjoy. I can understand to some extent the hon. Gentleman's confusion. I have been trying to follow the Town and Country Planning Bill for England and Wales because of what we intend to do in Scotland.
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the Minister. The Minister will be able to define very closely by regulation what types of undertakings will attract rights to compensation. It will in effect mean a further restriction going beyond what is imposed by Section 86 of the 1962 Act. The special provisions of Section 86 are twofold. The special privileges apply only to development for purposes which are intrinsic in carrying out a statutory undertaker's business. I think the hon. Gentleman is worrying over much because he thinks the special privileges will somehow apply to the development for other purposes. I can assure him that is not so. Special privileges do not apply to purposes such as manufacturing activities under Clause 45, the development of shops and offices for use by other people, or the notorious oil refinery at Nuneaton, or paint works or the rather esoteric suggestions we have had from time to time. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman about this position. Application of the Section which he is seeking to delete would achieve the very thing he is aiming at.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong on this. At it is worded, a subsidiary, if it has a statutory duty, will get the benefit of 50 per cent, compensation. If the hon. Gentleman 2038 does not intend it to have it, let him alter the Section, which needs alteration and very careful alteration.

§ Dr. Mabon
The last time the hon. Gentleman said that to me was on the Police (Scotland) Bill of 1966 and he was quite wrong and I had to write to him in those terms pointing it out to him. On this occasion again—I am sorry to be so certain about it—he is wrong. I was right on the last occasion and he was wrong. It is quite true that he is not always wrong and he is sometimes right. On this occasion he is wrong. What I am trying to distinguish for him is the distinction between special privileges resulting from the actual function of an undertaker in the statutory sense and peripheral functions which are not within the same compass.