HC Deb 27 March 1969 vol 780 cc1924-42

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, Southwest)

Hon. Members may ask why we are to have another debate on the Land Commission when we have already had three during the past week or so. My reply is, first, that it is an hon. Member's duty to take all steps to prevent hardship "being done to his constituents and to draw that hardship to the notice of the House; second, that, to date, Ministerial replies have been wholly unsatisfactory; and, third, that I was granted the Adjournment for Friday, 7th March, but it was later suggested that I might be out of order and, therefore, I should not proceed.

However, on 13th March the Table Office wrote to me as follows: It has, however, since become clear that the Minister himself, by making an order under s. 63 of the existing Act, can direct that no levy be charged in certain specified circumstances. Orders of this nature do not count, for purposes of an adjournment debate, as legislation, and it would therefore be quite proper to use your half-hour to press the Minister to make such an order. I am here tonight to press the Minister to make that Order and other Regulations, as he has the power to do.

I read the report of the debate on 21st March. Later I was encouraged by Press reports at the weekend. I had hoped that this debate would be unnecessary. I was shocked by the Minister's reply to the debate on 25th March. The weekend stories in the newspapers, although written by reputable reporters attached to the House and others, were denied. No sympathy or feeling was shown for the hardships which were disclosed in the debate. It appeared to me, I am sorry to say, that the Minister was completely out of touch with the feeling in the country—which is strong—and devoid of any sympathy for those suffering hardship and distress.

Thus, I was even more determined to press on with this debate. I hope I may say that I am not usually one who merely raises matters to score party points. I feel sick at the lack of concern shown about these cases of worried young and old people with little money who are hounded—this is the only way to express it in certain cases—by the Land Commission because the Minister will not make Section 63 Orders exempting small cases.

I hope we do not have to wait until a suicide or a breakdown in health. The Minister responsible should know better than most the real possibility of a breakdown in health or a suicide from the worry caused by some of these cases. I hope that the Minister will take action before anything like that happens. A few of the right words tonight and these thousands of people will be relieved of the anxiety which I shall show they are suffering when I come to the cases which have been brought to my notice. If these words are not spoken tonight, I warn the Minister that scores of hon. Members will hammer away at this point until justice is done.

I wish to refer to particular cases which have been brought to my notice. I have referred most of these cases to the Land Commission. I can give full details to the Minister later, if he wishes.

The first case concerns a widow, a Mrs. Wigley. She wrote me in these terms on 22nd January: Dear Sir, I have been advised to write to you about my problem. Five years ago when my late husband and I retired we spent all our savings on this cottage where I am now living and have now been a widow for two years and have nothing, only my pension to live on. Eighteen months ago I was offered £150 for a piece of my garden, which I readily accepted. This I received last March. Time "— I think she must mean "by the time"— I had paid solicitors' fees and had my cottage repaired which it was badly in need of I have now received a letter from the Land Commission demanding £45 12s. to be paid back to the Government within one month, but I have nothing left. This is causing me a great deal of worry and distress, and I should be grateful if you have any solution to this problem. That is a typical case of many hundreds throughout the country.

My second case concerns a gift of land. Again, there have been many hundreds of such cases. The gift was to a Mr. Sapey from a Mr. Hewitt, who wrote to me on 22nd February. I shall read just the relevant extracts from his letter. He wrote: I would like if I may to draw your attention to an iniquitous and tyrannical case so far as the Land Commission is concerned over a piece of land which I have passed on to my good friend John Sapey by Deed of Gift for him to build a bungalow for himself in order to live nearer to his people. This is now about half completed, he being his own contractor,"— Mr. Hewitt adds an explanatory note that Mr. Sapey is not a builder by trade but an employee of Watney Mann, the brewery firm— doing some of the work in his spare time, the rest put out to sub-contractors. He is faced with a payment to the Land Commission of approximately £250. The enclosed demand is shown as £296, but he has got this reduced to £250. … He just has not got the money to pay the demand of the Land Commission, and to add insult to injury they are charging him 1s. 1d. per day interest. Case No. 3 is somewhat different. I mention it to show the completely un sympathetic method adopted in certain cases to collect the levy. My constituent, then living in Northamptonshire, sold his share of a cattle hauliers business to his partner, a lady, because of ill-health. He retired to Norfolk and bought a bungalow with all his spare cash. His partner has not yet been able to pay him his share, due to the credit squeeze and other matters. The Land Com missioner's office in Nottingham has now written to him asking for payment of £2,388 4s. due only on 31st December last year on some part of that transaction, which we do not dispute. I would like the Minister to pay attention to the wording of the letter, remembering that it was written on 14th March, that the betterment levy did not become due until 31st December, and that already interest —

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

To try to get the matter cleared up, am I right in thinking that this is not a case that the hon. Gentleman has notified to my office?

Mr. Hawkins

I have not. It came to my notice only during the past few days.

The betterment levy was due only on 31st December, and yet a letter was written only 2½ months later, by which time interest of £31 12s. had accrued in these terms: Dear Sir, Despite previous applications for the above, I have not yet been advised that payment has been made. Accordingy, I must give you final notice that, unless settlement is made within seven days, the matter will be placed with the solicitors with a view to Court action for recovery of the levy and interest due, with costs. Will you please note that your liability to interest is now accruing at the rate of 9s. 1d. per day. Any remittance, which should include the full amount due (i.e. levy plus interest due to the date of despatch), should be sent to… No further communication will be sent to you from this office. That is a very harsh way to write to somebody who has not yet received from his partner a half-share of the proceeds of the sale and literally does not have to money to pay. Interest is mounting at a rate of £150 or £160 per annum. This is a completely wrong way to write to retired people. One can understand the anxiety and distress which it has brought to my constituents. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not condone this, but it shows how these cases can build up to immense distress to individuals.

Case No. 4 is another familiar one, that of a young couple given a bit of land by an aunt. The young lady wrote to me: My aunt has recently given my fiance and me a piece of land on which to build a bungalow. I enclose for your interest a copy of a letter together with enclosure, which I have received from the Land Commission. As you can imagine we need all the money we can get to enable us to build the bungalow, buy furniture etc. and we do not feel it is right that we should have to pay £136 0s. 0d. for no apparent reason. I have details of several other cases, some too complicated for me to understand, but enough has been said in this and other debates to show that these relatively small cases—small in total amount due to the Land Commission, but not small in number—which cause the greatest hardship are much more than the 3 per cent. of the total which the Minister referred to in a previous debate.

I wrote the the Minister on 12th March, saying, among other things: I have several cases of considerable hardship under the Land Commission Act where single plot owners with very little money are being pressed for payments of some considerable sums … I have however read in he papers recently of a statement made by Mr. Willey who piloted the Land Commission Act through the House that (1) interest can be waived and (2) that the Land Commission had power to defer payment of levy. I shall be very grateful if you can let me know whether this is the case and whether you will be issuing instructions to the Land Commission on these points. In the meantime I have told my constituents who are involved not to pay anything until the matter is clarified. I trust you will be able to do this fairly soon. The Minister for Planning and Land replied on 26th March: Under the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Land Commission Act, the Commission have power however, where they think the circumstances warrant it, to inform the levy payer that they are prepared to postpone collection or are prepared to collect the levy by instalments or that they are prepared to agree to an arrangement which combines both these facilities. What does "postpone" mean here? Can it be left until death and collected from the deceased's estate where elderly people are involved? This is about the only way, very often, in which this sum can be pa1d. I hope that in these cases waiver of interest could also be made.

The Minister concluded in this letter, of which I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has a copy: As you will see from the note, the postponement of levy is to be offered in those cases to which the Betterment Levy (Waiver of Interest) Regulations, 1967, apply. These are cases in which the benefit of the development comprised in the project under Case C is not immediately available and to collect levy forthwith might result in hardship to the person charged to levy. It would not be possible to extend the arrangements to waive interest to cover other cases "— and here is the relevant phrase— without a further set of Regulations under Section 51(4) of the Act. Why should not a further set of regulations be made to cover these extra cases?

It seems that the conclusions from these debates are these. First, on 25th March the Minister admitted that there are cases of hardship. He said: I have never denied that there are cases of hardship—never from the start."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1343.] Second, I am convinced, with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) who spoke in an earlier debate, that the vast majority of the money collected by the Land Commission has come from small amounts, from small people who feel the hardship the most. Third, it is stated by many authorities—the Table Office in its letter to me; the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), in his article in The Times; and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—that an Order under Section 63 could be made now by the Minister. This would relieve, by a de minimis provision, all those hardship cases which we have discussed.

Again, in his letter to me of 26th March, the Minister admits that a further set of regulations under Section 51(4) could be made to cover the waiver of interest in cases other than those previously covered.

So we have this position. Hardship is admitted by the Minister, and it is admitted that it is within the power of the Government to relieve that hardship and anxiety at once by announcing that they intend to issue the necessary Order under Section 63 and Regulations under Section 51(4). The Minister of Planning and Land has a last chance to do this now. I hope that he will because his previous remarks were out of character.

I feel sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary had been allowed to he would have liked to have given way. As it is, he is repeating "No, no, no" like that well-known character from Moscow, it may well be that the fault, as was the case with the Price Review, lies with the Chancellor and perhaps the Prime Minister. If so, let him say so and resign. I do not ask him to go into any details if he does not want to do so. All he has to do is to say whether he will issue these Orders and Regulations so that justice may be done and thousands freed as from tonight from anxiety.

9.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has raised several interesting cases, and I should like to make comments upon two of them. I have not been given notice of the others. I do not complain of that, because some may have come in late, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman has already been in touch with the regional offices. These cases, although apparently simple, can often be quite complex, and it is necessary to have all the facts before giving a helpful reply.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss or think that I am criticising him for raising this matter, but I am a little regretful that so much attention has recently been concentrated on this type of case—not that I do not want to see injustice put right, if it exists, and remedies applied. Because of this intense concentration, almost to the exclusion of everything else, the major purposes of the Land Commission Act and the Land Commission have tended to be obscured

Lieutenant-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)

The hon. Gentleman says that a great deal of attention has been paid to hardship cases. Surely it is the purpose, perhaps even the duty, of hon. Members, to draw attention to such cases. If we did not do so, we would be avoiding our natural duty.

Mr. Skeffington

The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have been listening to me. I said that it was the duty of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West to do that. I also said that I was sorry that there had been exclusive concentration on hardship because the whole purpose of what I regard as an essential reform in dealing with land has tended to be obscured and the Commission and those who serve it with devotion and loyalty have been painted in some quarters as being extremely oppressive in the way they operate the machinery. This is unfortunate because it is unjust and un fair.

I applaud what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West has done, but the exclusive concentration, particularly in the Press, on this side of the matter has created an impression which is false and which in the long run is not in the interests of those who are seriously trying to find a method of solving the very difficult problem of betterment and land acquisition. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not anxious to score party points. Nor am I. Governments have been baffled by the problem of how to deal with the enhanced value of land due, in most cases, not to anything which the owner of the land has done, but simply to the activities of society and its ever-increasing demand for land for housing development, schools, roads and all the other things which go to make a civilised society.

It is therefore important, even in the context of the cases which the hon. Gentleman has raised, that we should realise the major purposes of the Commission in attempting to deal with the problem of betterment and the acquisition of land on a comprehensive scale. If there were no objective and major social purpose there might be no point in having a levy and acquisition in the way in which the machinery of the Land Commission works. It is therefore necessary to look at these cases in the context of the operation of the Commission and the Act.

I shall say very little about acquisition because that is not so material to the cases which the hon. Gentleman has raised. The question of how to deal with the sudden creation of great wealth which is sometimes provided merely by a planning application is two-pronged: what can one do in the individual case, and how can one deal with cases collectively on behalf of society? Many people, including Professor Alan Day and an ex-Member of the House who was of the hon. Gentleman's profession, feel that some central organisation is necessary if land is to be available comprehensively where it is wanted, with a form of acquisition wider than that of any local authority, to meet the tremendous demand for housing and all the things which go with it.

It has been said that if we are to maintain a sufficient rate of house building to cater for the needs of people marrying younger and the growing population, which will perhaps be another 20 million by the end of the century, we need the equivalent of a new Bristol every year to accommodate 400,000 people, or a new town to accommodate 60,000 or 70,000 people every six or seven weeks. It is for this reason that many people feel that a central agency is necessary.

The Land Commission has been a long time getting off the ground. The Act may be complicated, but so are the English land laws and the interests with which we have to deal. No land system in Europe is equal to ours in the various interests which have legal recognition. Wide concessions were made in the early stages, so that it was not expected in the first few years that the acquisition programme would be a large one. This is peripheral, although it has to be taken into account in considering individual cases.

The crucial issue is how society in general deals with the sudden creation of great wealth which is not due to action taken by landowners. The classical case is that of an acre of agricultural land worth £200 or £300 which, upon planning permission being given for the erection of a petrol station, for example, becomes overnight worth perhaps £40,000. It is the view of the public that this enhanced value which is brought about by the needs of the society should not go to an individual. Various solutions have been suggested, from the advocacy of a simple tax on site values to the solution adopted by the Government. I had thought that this view was generally accepted, but if there is disagreement on this I should like to know. I was under the impression that this policy was broadly agreed by both political parties. Although methods may differ, I have understood from speeches which have been made in the past that even the Conservative Party would not be opposed to a moderate tax or levy upon land which benefits from planning permission.

Mr. Hawkins

I cannot, as a back bencher, speak for my party, but I agree largely with what the Minister has sa1d. He said that he would speak about the larger aims of the Land Commission, but he has not yet done so. Speaking as a professional chartered surveyor, I wholly disagree that this policy has kept down the price of land; on the contrary, I am convinced that the workings of the Land Commission have increased the price of building land.

Mr. Skeffington

This is an argument to which I have not yet addressed myself. I am prepared to do so if the hon. Gentleman thinks it will be helpful to the House. Evidence from all parts of the country gives considerable support to the view that the operations of the Land Commission have not added to the price of land because of the law of diminishing returns. People buy land for speculative building—or perhaps I should say for private enterprise building—but there is a limit to the amount which they will pay and to the amount which people will pay to buy the houses.

This is a controlling factor, quite apart from the fact, as I believe, that the greater the scale of the activities of the Land Commission, the more moderating its influence will be. I should like to see the Commission getting into its stride as rapidly as possible and helping to provide land for the 40,000 houses a year which are required in the Home Counties. I believe that it can do that, very much to the assistance of the local authorities.

Though there may be disagreement on individual cases, I think it is agreed that there is a case in society for taking, in at any rate a category of cases, some of the new value which land acquires when it gets the benefit of planning permission. The method chosen by the Government is the betterment levy at 40 per cent. which, in view of suggestions that it should be 70 per cent. or even higher, is a very moderate level in the kind of case which it is intended broadly to cover. I am sure that there will be no disagreement in the House about that, though I am not sure that the Country Landowners' Association will agree with me. Certainly sections of public opinion agree that it is right.

Then I move on to the question of how the levy is to be applied and what one does in cases of very much smaller amounts where the kind of problem emerges which the hon. Gentleman has described tonight.

I must begin by pointing out that there are a number of exceptions which have been of great benefit in that no levy has been imposed. In the course of last Friday's Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to a speech which I had made about an exemption after the publication of the White Paper but well before the publication of the Bill. I imagine that he thought that there was some inconsistency between what I said in answer to a question and what the position really is. Indeed, when I heard that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise the matter, I thought that I had given a hostage to fortune, particularly as the question had been raised at a public meeting and one sometimes does not carry all the relevant details in one's head. However, I hope that on that occasion I adopted a more precise attitude than one hon. Member who has been the subject of a recent inquiry by an all-party Committee of this House.

I was asked by a local councillor whether a plot of land next to a building would escape levy. I replied that, if someone who owned the land wished to use it for themselves or, say, for their son and daughter, there would be no levy. But, if it were sold to a builder as a business deal, it would then be levied. I am glad to say that that is correct. It was one of the great exceptions. If land were held for a single dwelling house for the owner or his son or daughter, it would escape levy.

That was the first of the concessions. It was a very valuable one, and it would have been quite wrong to penalise people who, well in advance of the White Paper, had procured some additional land either for retirement or by way of a gift for a son or daughter on marriage.

Lieutenant-Commander Maydon

If the land in question in the case which he has mentioned was sold to a son or daughter, would the same thing apply? Would there be no levy payable?

Mr. Skeffington

Provided that the conditions are satisfied, it would turn on whether the transaction was notifiable to the Inland Revenue. Once we get into the realm of a notifiable transaction, it might be affected. I should have to know all the circumstances —

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

Mr. Skeffington

This was the first concession, and I think it was an important one.

In view of the other cases which have been put forward, it is right to draw attention to another concession of considerable importance. That is what I might call, for want of a better term. the 10 per cent. tolerance in relation to dwelling houses. In these cases, if there is either rebuilding or expansion of an existing house, provided that the extension or rebuilding is not greater than 10 per cent. of the original area or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater, it does not need a planning certificate and it escapes levy. This is a considerable concession or exemption. The 1,000 sq. ft. is an area as great as many of the houses being built by local authorities at the end of the war. It is right that this should be put on record to weigh against the other cases. It is not that one right justifies what the hon. Gentleman thinks is wrong. This is so that the public can see the picture as a whole.

On conversions, not more than three adjacent buildings can be converted to any number of separate dwellings without attracting levy. There are similar concessions relating to industrial expansion which are beneficial. In the case of industrial expansion the levy does not become payable, even if the extension is beyond this figure, until there is a sale. Therefore, the fears which some hon. Members and members of the public had about this being a deterrent to industrial expansion have not taken place.

There is then the waiver of interest regulations or the postponement of levy. This applies in a number of cases which are controlled by Section 45 of the Land Commission Act. I will not weary the House with the details, unless I am pressed. In these cases the collection of the levy in whole or in part can be postponed to a date that may be determined. This period is at the discretion of the Commission. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. This is a very important instrument which the Commission can use and, so far as I know, does use sympathetically in the discharge of its duties.

Mr. Hawkins

In other words, so far as the Minister can say, there is no reason why the Land Commission should not postpone payment of levy until death occurs.

Mr. Skeffington

I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look at Section 45(2) to see where this concession applies and how it operates. I am not trying to be evasive, but this is rather complex. We must consider that categories of cases are set out here and in the appropriate regulations which have to be read in conjunction with the various cases, A, B, C, D, E and F. The hon. Gentleman will realise that if I went further than that in answer I might give a misleading impression, which I do not wish to do.

The hon. Gentleman referred to hundreds of cases. I hope that the figures given about cases will be treated with caution and responsibility. I am not saying that if there is one case of hardship, particularly if it ought not to have arisen, it is justified, but I have looked at many of the cases that we have received. My impression—and I shall know more about this in due course—is that this is not nearly so widespread as has been suggested. If there is one case which has caused hardship it is to be regretted, but one must get the matter into perspective, and it is my job to try to do that tonight.

About 80,000 transactions a year will be notified to the Commission through the Inland Revenue. It is not a heavy bureaucratic operation because an additional copy of the form which has had to be completed in any case since, I think, 1931, simply goes to the Commission. In the overwhelming number of cases there is no levy. The form is examined and passed on. It is a matter of a few minutes' scrutiny, if no question of levy arises.

It is worthwhile putting on record that since we have had these Adjournment debates, and since there has been a campaign in the Press, a number of people have thought that if they sold any sort of house it would attract levy. This is not so. It is only where a question of betterment value in excess of the 10 per cent. tolerance to which I have referred arises that levy may become payable. In the ordinary sale of a house at its existing value no betterment value arises, and so no levy is pa1d. In the overwhelming number of the 80,000 cases there will be no levy. I am happy to put that on record, because the whole position may get very much out of perspective if it is thought that the contrary is the case.

I have been surprised in a number of cases that I have seen to find that those who could have taken advantage of skilled advice, and of many of the provisions to which I have referred, either did not do so, or did not carry out the correct procedure. They started building operations before the due date. They did not take advantage of the simple matter of notifying the Commission in time. I am sorry about this, because I am sure that it was not due to anyone's malevolence, and I hope that it is not thought to be due to anything that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, and now the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has done, because we conducted the best campaign that we could. We issued advertisements, and about one million leaflets. We issued booklets specially designed for property owners and estate agents. We issued a more technical book to those who had to deal with the subject. We did everything we could, and it is to be regretted that in some cases, although professional advice was available on quite simple points—I am not talking about the intricacies under A, B, C, D, E and F—mistakes were made. I very much regret that that was the case.

Mr. Hawkins rose—

Mr. Speaker

Interventions prolong speeches.

Mr. Hawkins

I wish to query what the Minister has said about the number of cases of hardship which come forward. I mentioned hundreds of cases. As I have had seven cases in one constituency, I believe that over the next few months several hundreds, if not thousands, of cases will come forward.

Mr. Skeffington

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little cautious about this. A number of cases which have come to us have not been cases in which there has been hardship of the kind that he has alleged, but cases of people who have not wanted to pay the levy, and I understand that. Nobody wants to pay any kind of tax. Nobody wants to pay rates. Not all of the instances that come to our notice have an element of hardship, or an element which, after consideration., would make society say no levy should be pa1d. The analysis so far—and I agree that it is not complete—is not such as to lead me to think that this is perhaps more widespread than I believe it is.

The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to two cases about which I have made some inquiries. He mentioned two more about which I have no details, although I know that he has been accurate in what he has said and they may well be with the Commission now. If he cares to send me details, I will look at those cases and, if I can, make helpful comments.

The first case he mentioned about which I have a note concerns Mrs. Wigley. He described it well and accurately. The Controller for the region where this case arose said that if Mrs. Wigley wished for help she should inform the regional office about certain details. She was sent a questionnaire for that purpose so that the Commission could be informed of the facts, and consider whether help could be given, either under the Act or through some kind of discretion.

Mrs. Wigley replied that the matter was being dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. He has been a notable advocate on her behalf. But I hope he will accept that the information which he has passed to the Land Commission was its first proper information about Mrs. Wigley's circumstances. Even if he had not intervened on her behalf, she would have been asked for those details, and on the basis of her replies the Commission would have considered how it could help her. I have had cases of this kind, as have other hon. Members, and perhaps I may emphasise that, if hon. Members get in touch with the regional controllers, they will always find them extremely helpful in suggesting ways in which cases can be tackled. They give a good deal of advice.

I understand that the payment in Mrs. Wigley's case is about £45 and that it should be possible to make the payments by instalments over a period which, I hope, will be neither oppressive nor unfair. However, I will keep a fatherly eye, as it were, on the case, although I have no doubt that the Land Commission will deal with it adequately and properly.

In the case of Mr. Norris, I understand that he offered his bungalow for sale and a purchaser agreed to pay the price.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not mention Mr. Norris. His is not one of the cases I mentioned, although I have it in my file.

Mr. Skeffington

I mentioned it because it was one of those which I understood the hon. Gentleman wished me to deal with.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not say so.

Mr. Skeffington

Then I will not weary the House with details. Perhaps my office was wrongly informed but I was informed that this was one of the cases he wanted me to deal with tonight.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not mention it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let us not argue about cases we are not arguing about.

Mr. Skeffington

I have been into the case. There was some dispute as to whether levy was due and, as I have explained, levy becomes due if there is a difference between existing use value and the value of the property with a planning permission. This was the sort of case where the seller did not get planning permission but someone else did, and the price of sale was equal to the market price with planning permission, so levy became due.

I will look into the other two cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I do not have details of them. I hope that what I have said puts the matter into perspective. A number of concessions have been made in this matter. A vast number of transactions go forward without difficulty and I do not think that it is true, from what I know of the operations of the Land Commission, that it desires to be or is oppressive. We welcome details of any cases where this is thought to be so, and I assure the House that they will be carefully looked into.

I hope that the background details which I have given will help to put this matter into perspective. I will only add that the kind of cases which hon. Members have raised are being examined so that we may assess precisely what the position is.

10.16 p.m.

Lieut-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)

The Minister's remarks lacked precision and clarity, particularly when he spoke about parents who wish to dispose of small pieces of land to their children. I should like a definite answer about the position of parents who sell, for a peppercorn price or even for the valuation price, a small plot to a son or daughter who may wish to build on it. Are such parents and children expected to pay betterment levy?

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

My hon. Friends and I recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary is one of the few masters of the complexity of the Land Commission Act. We regret that there are not more hon. Gentlemen opposite to give him some support, for we note that he sits by himself on the benches opposite.

We do not understand why the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax could not be applied to those who derive any financial gain from betterment. We recognise that if planning permission enhances enormously the value of a plot of land, as it may do, the community is entitled to extract some tax or levy from those who have had that windfall. So far, however, the Government have not explained why the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax should not be applied.

Instead, the Government have created this edifice of a Land Commission, which is costing the taxpayer millions of £s with very little return. In so doing, they are causing great anxiety and distress to many people with small plots of land or with gardens which are larger than they really need and who wish, particularly when they are getting old and are seeking some supplement to their retirement pensions, to derive a small financial benefit from that holding.

It is all very well for the Government to say that people in this predicament can go to the regional offices of the Land Commission and have their cases sympathetically examined. That may be so, but it is harsh to expect people who are living humble and ordinary lives to incur that sort of trouble.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people with small plots of land—perhaps of half an acre or a little more—on which their own homes may be sited and who feel that they can sell off a small part of the plot to a relative or neighbour, so enabling them to have an extra few hundred £s, do not realise that they will suffer by being charged betterment levy.

Thanks to the Press—we applaud the way in which the newspapers have taken up these cases—many people are beginning to realise the dangers they run. It is astonishing that we should have set up this great edifice of a Land Commission when Capital Gains Tax would have done the job perfectly well. After all, the Government sought to hit the speculative owner of a sizeable amount of land with the advantage of planning permission and, thus, a windfall. It was right that he should pay some tax, but why should we have this cumbrous procedure—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot in an Adjournment debate abolish the Land Commission, even if the hon. Gentleman wishes to. We can talk about matters of administration such as other hon. Members talked about in the main debate on this subject this week.

Mr. Body

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Having sat on the Standing Committee for so long, I have acquired a certain hatred for the Land Commission Act.

The Government have not said why, in all these cases, the simple mechanism of Capital Gains Tax could not have been applied instead.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what I asked him not to do. We cannot substitute Capital Gains Tax for the betterment levy in this Adjournment debate. There are other opportunities for doing so in Parliament, but not tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.