THE APPOINTED DAYS, ETC. (Hansard, 13 October 1975)

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 276, in page 10, leave out line 5 and insert 'and'.

§ Mr. Speaker
We shall consider at the same time the following Government amendments: Nos. 36, 38 to 41, 127, 128, 132, 168 and 172.

§ Mr. Silkin
Clause 20 at present provides for the Secretary of State to make an order placing a duty on the authorities concerned to acquire all land in the area designated by the order which is needed for the types of relevant development designated in the order. Clause 23 provides that any planning permission for designated relevant development granted on or after the commencement date, which is the date specified in an order under Clause 9 and which cannot be before a relevant date for the same area, shall be suspended until such time as the land has been acquired by an authority and made available by it for the purposes of that development.
Although the Bill was drafted to provide for the possibility of separate dates for applying Clause 20—the full duty clause—and Clause 23—the prohibition—in an area, I have always recognised that in practice it would usually be sensible to operate them together and to make them apply to the same designated relevant development.
When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Opposition argued that the whole of this drafting could have been greatly simplified. I have thought a great deal about this, and as a result I accept the force of the Opposition's argument. The effect of the amendments will be that a relevant date order under Clause 20 will automatically bring in the provisions of Clause 23, and thus the concept of a separate commencement date disappears, as does the need for a separate commencement date order. I hope that the House will accept this as a better and simpler way to deal with the matter.

§ Mr. Rossi
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the point which we made in Committee. We spent a lot of time trying to understand what was meant by "commencement date", and the definition in the Bill seemed rather to add to the complication and to confound us all. Now, however, since the Minister is dealing with the matter in this way, he has rendered it far more simple, although no more acceptable. Nevertheless, we accept his amendment on that basis.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 277, in page 10, line 15, leave out from "all" to end of line 16 and insert: relevant development has been designated, by orders under section 20 of this Act, in all areas of Great Britain".

§ Mr. Speaker
We shall take at the same time Opposition Amendment No. 37, in page 10, line 15, leave out from "when" to end of line 16 and insert: "commencement dates have been appointed in respect of all areas in Great Britain".

§ Mr. Silkin
These two amendments are designed to achieve much the same purpose but I think the Opposition will recognise that ours goes a little further and is slightly more effective. This is only because it is related to the new circumstances of the amended framework of the Bill.
Amendment No. 277 provides that the second appointed day bringing in the move to current use value cannot be appointed before orders under Clause 20 are defined in all areas in Great Britain in relation to all relevant development. I think that the Opposition's point in Committee that there should be a universal bringing-in of the provisions in relation to relevant development in the new circumstances was right, and I hope that the House will accept that the amendment meets that point.

§ Mr. Rossi
Again we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting a point we made in Committee. As I understand it, the second appointed day under the Bill must now be postponed 989 until orders have been made under Clause 20 in respect of every local authority area in the country and of all classes of relevant development.
One of the matters troubling us was that there could be an order for one class of relevant development in an area of a minimal kind, but now the whole shooting match must be before we have the second appointed day.

§ Mr. John Silkin
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct.

§ Mr. Budgen
Does this mean that the date of the second appointed day will be further postponed? In Committee we were anxious lest the Minister should try to accelerate the date of the second appointed day because, technically, the position—although it was not his intention—was that, provided that in all areas there was some relevant development, even if it were only the designation of a golf course, for example, the second appointed day could be brought in. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concession but I hope that it is not just about technicalities—and legal technicalities at that—but means that there is a real change of heart and that he expects that the second appointed day will be a long time hence.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I do not want to anticipate an exact date for the second appointed day. I think it is sufficient that we all know how the scheme is to work. Some local authorities will have the duty imposed on them by a Clause 20 order ahead of others. I hope and trust, contrary to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) says, that everyone will move at enormous speed compatible with their enhanced experience and expertise. I have always felt that this would happen. The Bill was designed so that we could move at the correct speed and in the right way. I hope, therefore, that the House will be satisfied and will approve the Government amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I am sorry if I am still in a little doubt. Is it still the case that under Clause 20 separate orders can be made for separate areas and for separate types of relevant and designated development? If that is so, there is no 990 change there and it is only when all these orders all over the country for all developments have been made that the second appointed day will come in, but we could still get piecemeal orders before that, although when they are made the authorities will be under no obligation to purchase for current use value. Am I correct?

§ Mr. John Silkin
The situation is that there may be a number of authorities to which Clause 20 orders relate and to which "relevant development" may apply, and there may be others where that situation will not apply. So long as that situation arises, various Chancellors of the Exchequer might act in different ways. One might operate on current use value and another on a percentage of DLT. Therefore, that would be an impracticable arrangement.

§ Mr. Rossi
In that case I shall not press the point.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 368, in page 10, line 17, leave out first 'The' and insert 'an'.
Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also take Amendment No. 369, in page 10, line 17, after 'appointing' insert 'the first or'.

§ Mr. Page
The amendment seeks to add to Clause 9(5) an order appointing the first appointed day as requiring procedure in this House. At present that subsection requires the order appointing the second appointed day to be put before the House in draft before it is made, and the draft will have to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
We have just discussed the second appointed day, but the order appointing the first appointed day will also be of considerable importance. Schedule 1, on page 49 of the Bill, sets out what will happen on the first appointed day. It brings into operation several provisions, namely, Section 17 dealing with development land and the general duties of authorities; Section 18, power to acquire development land; Section 21 and 22, planning permission for relevant development; Section 25, disposal notification areas; and Section 50, reserve powers.
991 These are very important matters, and we want to know whether local authorities will be ready to carry out these powers—for example, the provisions in Sections 25 and 26 in respect of disposal notification areas. We believe that it would be right to bring the order appointing the first appointed day before the House by means of a draft so that it can be considered by the House and so that we may be able to apply the same procedure as that relating to an order dealing with the second appointed day.

§ Mr. Michael Latham
I support my right hon. Friend on this significant amendment. In view of the relationship between the first appointed day in the Community Land Bill and the development of land taxation legislation, if there is to be such a thing, it is important that these provisions should be meshed closely together.
One of the purposes of discussing such orders is to enable the House to decide whether, say, an order bringing in the first appointed day under the Community Land Bill should take place in advance of an order for the first appointed day under the development of land taxation legislation. As the Bill at present stands there is no such procedure, and the Minister can make the first appointed day order under the Community Land Bill straight after Royal Assent, assuming that it is obtained. It is surely better that if the Minister is to decide on two first appointed days, as it were, they should fall on 6th April the following year, which is the beginning of the next financial year. It is a mistake to have two appointed days on different occasions. One of the advantages of the amendment is that it will allow hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their opinions when it is desired to bring legislation into operation.

§ Mr. John Silkin
In this procedure I followed the normal procedure of the House. It is a well-precedented procedure, and I believe it is correct in its formulation. The order appointing the first appointed day, which is when the transitional arrangements under the scheme come into force, will be by virtue of the provision of Clause 55(2) and will 992 be made by statutory instrument. It is usual for orders bringing the provision of a Bill into effect not to be subject to parliamentary procedure. I do not think that there is any good reason for parting from that precedent.
We could have written a specific date into the Bill. We could have specified Royal Assent, but I think it is right to follow precedent and to follow the normal procedure that is employed.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) talked about the in tandem in its Latin sense—namely, the application of the development land tax. If any case of an appointed day were required to be debated separately by Parliament such a debate would obviously take place, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on to a very important point. All that the first appointed day procedure does is to follow the legislation which we are now debating and which very shortly, as everyone in the House hopes, believes, trusts and prays, will receive Royal Assent.
As regards the second appointed day, I am sure we all hope and pray that that will be soon. There can be argument and discussion about the day on which that comes in that there are many intervening matters. There can be argument and discussion as to whether it is the right moment to bring it in. That is why the second appointed day is subject to order and why the first appointed day is not.

§ Mr. Page
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the order appointing the first appointed day is not the commencement order of a Bill? He and I know perfectly well that a commencement order is by statutory instrument and that no parliamentary procedure is laid before the House. However, these matters bring into operation certain duties on the part of local authorities when another Bill will be going through involving the development land tax and when everyone is very concerned about the expenditure of public money. I think that this is a matter that should come before the House as a substantive order and not merely as a commencement order.

§ Mr. Silkin
I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that this is so very different from a commencement date in any event. I have considered the precedents and I have been 993 assured this is the way in which Parliament has always chosen to proceed.

§ Mr. Michael Latham
As the right hon. Gentleman appears to be resisting my right hon. Friend's amendment, will he tell the House whether he intends to make his commencement order before the introduction of the land acquisition and management schemes? If the target dates are not met, will the right hon. Gentleman wait until they are?

§ Mr. Silkin
It would not be the intention to do that. I am giving away no great secret to the House or anyone else if I say that I would be thinking about the first appointed day during the course of next year.