§ 4. Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Environment how many extra civil servants are already being employed both by the national and local governments as a direct result of the Community Land Act.
§ Mr. John SilkinNo extra staff have been engaged by my Department on account of this legislation. Local authorities have been advised not to consider recruiting extra staff until they have agreed land acquisition management schemes.
§ Mr. MorrisonNo extra staff have been recruited so far, but how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that, as a direct result of the Community Land Act, there is bound to be a substantial increase in the number of public servants with the Prime Minister's recent speech castigating local government for being overstaffed?
§ Mr. SilkinThe hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, assuming to himself a rather greater knowledge of the effect of the scheme than I have. I shall give him one or two thoughts which he may put into his general interest in this subject, because he has previously asked me a question about local government staffing.
The local goverment staff referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Community Land Act are those to be engaged when the scheme is fully in operation at the end of the transitional period. I have never said, nor am I satisfied, that this necessarily means extra staff. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, so he bears no responsibility for it, but one of the great achievements of the Conservative Government was to reorganise local government in such a way that, as we pointed out at the time and as has since proved to be the case, there was a wild increase and duplication in the number of skilled staff. I believe that we shall meet this problem more by redeployment than by an increase in staff.
§ Mr. McNamaraHas my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to past issues of the Estates Times, to see the way in which the industry itself is looking at the effects of this "Communist Land 1665 Act"? If he has not, I recommend it as soporific bedtime reading. Is he aware that among local authorities there is concern that the Treasury may not make available sufficient money to implement the scheme in the way envisaged when the Bill was introduced? Can my right hon. Friend deny that the only amount of money to be made available will be £25 million?
§ Mr. SilkinI have had the greatest support and encouragement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury and the local authorities stand to gain financial benefit from the Act—£4 million back to the community for every £1 million paid out is not a bad deal. The Estates Times is a periodical which, perforce, these days, I read more than The Times, and I note that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) seems to be at variance with the rest of the development and property industry in his view of the Act.
§ Mr. RaisonWill the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Pilcher Report on the commercial development of land says that the Act must mean greater delay and cost? That report has only just been published, although it was finished by 12th August specifically so that it would be available for consideration of the final stages of the Community Land Bill. Why has the report been suppressed until now?
§ Mr. SilkinI had better deal with the more serious part of that supplementary question, although I do not see how it relates to the original Question. The Pilcher Report deals with disposals, as the hon. Gentleman will find out when he reads it. Because it deals with disposals, it was more appropriate when the Community Land Bill became an Act. The hon. Gentleman criticises delay. That was not the argument of the Opposition in Committee or on Report, when we were trying to cut down delays in compulsory purchase procedures.