PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND BILL (Hansard, 29 January 1974)

§ Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the acquisition by local authorities of land to be used for housing. for other building and for other purposes. It so happens that 50 years ago in March 1923 a Labour Member of Parliament introduced a similar Bill into this House. If it had been accepted by the Government 50 years ago, our people would not be suffering the housing tragedy that exists today and Britain would be a far happier, healthier and more beautiful place in which to live.

The object of my Bill is twofold. First it is to halt and reverse the rocketing land prices which are driving the cost of new houses beyond the reach of most ordinary families and increasing to exorbitant levels the rents which they have to pay for houses to let.

The second aim is good planning, so that the growth of population in an area, the bringing forward of sites and the provision of essential services can be phased to go hand in hand.

The House should consider what is happening today. Let us suppose that an area of land, perhaps the size of Wembley Stadium, eight or 10 miles outside one of our great cities such as London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield or Glasgow, is at present used for growing potatoes. Then the council builds a road to the area and essential services, such as sewers, electricity, water, gas and telephones are provided. Then a factory is built nearby and all around the population grows. One day planning permission is given to build on that land. Overnight the potato field turns into a gold mine and the value of the land can increase one hundredfold or more in that short time.

I ask the House to consider two examples of that. To use the language of Arthur Conan Doyle, they might be referred to as "The Case of the Two Viscounts". I refer to Lords Wimborne and Carrington.

249 I have checked carefully with Poole Borough councillors the facts of the case of Lord Wimborne. He inherited a vast area of land in Dorset and seven years ago 350 acres of it which was heathland was estimated to be worth £120,000. Recently that acreage has been sold to Poole Borough Council for £7.5 million.

The second case is that of Lord Carrington, the Secretary of State for Energy, not to mention a number of other offices that he holds. He is now in negotiation with the High Wycombe Council for the sale of 140 acres of land. The price has not yet been decided, but it is highly likely that the sum realised will not be very far short of that attained by Lord Wimborne.

I ask the House to think of the effects of this on the house buyer and the house renter. I was informed last week by Greater London Council officials that the average price of a site for a council house in London is now £5,000 before a single brick is laid. As the GLC is now paying interest at 11 per cent. on its borrowing, it means £550 a year or £11 a week merely to cover the cost of the land alone. Sites for private houses in London are even more expensive. In the provinces, where I come from, as anyone can tell from my accent, the cost is not as great. But it is rising even more sharply than it is in London. Such a situation needs a radical solution because the effects on house buyers and house renters are so staggering.

My Bill is based on the essential principle that where the value of land increases, not through the efforts of the owner but through the efforts and needs of the community, that increase in the value of land must go back to the community which created it. I think that will seem eminently fair to most people.

The Bill has three basic feature. The first is that land will be compensated at its existing use value—that is to say as potato fields, as derelict land or as disused dock land. My opinion about disused dockland is that its value is practically nil. In London there are nine square miles of this disused dockland which could be made available for housing. It would help solve London's tragic housing situation. There are further square miles to the east of that area which could also be taken over. Owing to the 250 contraction in docking because of rationalisation, in Manchester and Sal-ford, in Liverpool and in other great ports there are similar areas of land which could be taken over for the purpose of housing our people. There are many thousands of young couples who have left the East End of London who could be attracted back in this way.

The second basic feature is that there should be compulsory purchase, because that will be necessary. There is nothing wrong in that. There are compulsory purchase orders today for dealing with slum clearance.

The third feature is that there should be a 10-year land bank with yearly additions available to all local authorities for them to be able to plan ahead and use their land in the best possible way.

I stress that, contrary to one or two reports, owner-occupiers have nothing to fear, as they will not be affected. Indeed the Bill will benefit owner-occupiers and tenants alike.

This is an eminently practicable proposal. It is already in operation in certain countries of Western Europe. In Sweden 75 per cent., of all building and development land, and in Holland 83 per cent. of all such land, is municipally owned. It is working highly successfully.

The cost to the community would be nil because more than was paid out for the land would be received back out of development values—money which otherwise would have gone to private. developers.

The Bill follows closely the proposals of the national executive of the Labour Party in which leading town planners have engaged. The working party has been chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) whose father did a great service in his Town and Country Planning Act. Unfortunately later Acts unscrambled the legislation. The racket in land prices would not have come about if his Bill had not been virtually repealed by subsequent Governments. A fortnight ago this item was given prominence and priority in the election manifesto which the Labour Party published and on which it will fight the election. Although there may be differences among members of the national executive on other questions, on the public ownership of land, 251 Left, Right, and Centre are completely agreed that it will take place. Indeed, the list of sponsors to my Bill demonstrates this to be the case.

This will be a key issue at the General Election. I do not expect the Conservative Government to allow the Bill to go through. They may do what has been done with previous Housing Bills, introduced by private Members—namely, let it go through its first stage knowing full well that they will kill it subsequently by failing to provide parliamentary time. I suspect that there may be such ideological objections to this kind of measure that some hon. Gentlemen opposite will oppose it this afternoon. Whatever happens, if this Government do not allow it, a Labour Government will.

When we talk of acquiring land we touch the very heart of the ruling class. This issue of who owns the land reveals the real conflict of interest between the people and the great vested interests.

I believe that this Bill is both right and popular. It is a vote winner. Far from public ownership being irrelevant, most people recognise that to deal with the land speculators it has never been more relevant than at this moment. Indeed, I believe that such a Bill could become a Young People's Charter.

I ask that leave be given to bring in the Bill.