HL Deb 21 June 1932 vol 85 cc54-62

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a report in the North Wilts Herald of May 27 of the proceedings at a meeting of the Wiltshire County Council, from which it appears that the Road Committee of the Council had bought four cottages for £2,587 from one of the members of the committee; whether members of the Council objected to this purchase, and whether the Road Committee insisted upon carrying out the purchase; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the local newspaper, the North Wilts Herald, of May 27, an account of the proceedings at the meeting of the Wiltshire County Council was given. At that meeting the minutes of the Roads and Bridges Committee were read, and the newspaper says that it appeared from the minutes that in connection with the widening of the London-Bath road it was necessary to acquire four acres thirty poles of land and four cottages at Overton. The district valuer had agreed with the seller, who was a member of the committee, for the payment of a sum of £2,582 17s. in respect of the land and cottages and the committee in accordance with delegated powers had confirmed this. In his report the district valuer stated: The principal item making up the figure of £2,582 17s. is in respect of the four cottages which had to be demolished. The report of the district valuer then went on to say that the seller, a member of the committee, was a farmer who owns and occupies about 1,600 acres of land together with 36 cottages, and rents about 800 acres in addition, without cottages. He also rents two cottages from an adjoining owner. All those cottages are occupied by [the farmer's] own men, with the exception of one let to the widow of one of his workmen. Under these circumstances the four cottages in question are of peculiar value to the property, and … in my opinion entitles him to substantial compensation owing to the injurious affection caused to this adjoining property and interference with his business.

A special meeting of the Roads Committee was held to consider a resolution from the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee had by twelve votes to three resolved that the Roads and Bridges Committee be informed that the Finance Committee did not agree to the terms they proposed to make because there was no undertaking by the farmer in question to replace the cottages. The Roads and Bridges Committee resolved after full consideration to take no action with regard to the Finance Committee's resolution. Then at the meeting of the full council the Marquess of Lansdowne is reported as saying: It was most regrettable this should have happened … The broad facts were that as a revenue-producing proposition these cottages were worth very little money, but if they had to be rebuilt their value would be very much larger … there was no obligation whatever on the owner to replace them and it was generally asserted he did not intend to replace them. Here I have to say that the owner was quite candid about the matter. He has declined to replace the cottages and he is going to put the £2,587 in his pocket. The newspaper report goes on to say that the Marquess of Lansdowne said he did not think a large sum of ratepayers' money should be handed over under those conditions when a valuation had been made on the basis of replacement. Colonel Fuller, another well-known member of the council, said, according to the newspaper report, that he understood the owner of the property had given no undertaking whatever for the replacement of these cottages, although the council was actually paying the price for reinstating them. Another member of the council pointed out that the Marlborough Rural Council were asking for assistance in building four houses at West Overton, and presumably they might be to take the place of those demolished. Then the vice-chairman of the council said this: The very outside market value of these cottages was £600; to replace them would cost about £1,600. Yet in face of that the Roads and Bridges Committee continued to insist upon giving the sum of £2,587 for cottages which, according to the vice-chairman of the council, were only worth £600 and which could be replaced for £1,600. I think your Lordships will agree that four labourers' cottages, four good cottages, could be built each with three bedrooms, kitchen and scullery, for £400 each. I believe as a matter of fact they could be built for less. Presuming, however, that they can be built for £400 each, that means that the cost of replacing these cottages would be £1,600 and not £2,587.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

May I correct the noble Lord on that point? That sum includes 20,000 yards of land and the cost of replacing, I think 3,300 yards of fence. He is perfectly correct as to the value of the cottages, which is put at about £1,600, but the rest of the £2,857 is for other things.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

About four acres of land has to be included, but I think the noble Marquess will agree with me that that land is on the borders of the downs. Downland is certainly not worth more than £15 or £16 an acre. Even if you put it at £20 an acre that means that the value of the land is £80 at the outside, and I am probably exaggerating the value of the land. I am a ratepayer in Wiltshire, and I do not want to have my rates increased unnecessarily even for the purpose of widening the Bath Road, which personally I think is absolutely unnecessary. I would point out to your Lordships that only yesterday we agreed to the Second Reading of a Bill which gives great power to local authorities to spend money. My noble friend who is going to reply for the Government will remember that only a few months ago there was an inquiry into certain circumstances at Hull where it was found that one member of the Housing Committee of the local authority had arranged with another man, a friend of his, to buy certain land and houses. He then proceeded to advise the local authority to purchase them at a very considerably enhanced price. That was stated at an inquiry which was held, I believe, by the Government, and it appeared that this man made several thousand pounds in that way.

I do not wish to say that anything of that sort occurred here, but we cannot forget that this price was given by the Roads Committee to one of their own members. If we are going to give great powers like this to the local authorities they should be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. I do not think that it can be doubted, first, that the price was excessive; and, secondly, that the idea of the district valuer that the farmer's property would be injured and diminished in value is not correct, because the farmer is not going to replace the cottages. It is clear, therefore, that he does not want them. If he did he would replace them. I might add that I have received a letter from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in which I regret to say he states that he is ill and cannot be here to-day, but he is very glad I raised the question. He says that the value of the cottages is not more than £600.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, I think after what the noble Lord has said you will perhaps agree with me that this is really a domestic question between the Wiltshire County Council and one of its committees. But I will try to deal with the matter in so far as the Department which I represent is concerned. The terms of the purchase were recommended by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue. It is always the practice, I gather, to call in the district valuer in eases such as this and quite open for either party to go to arbitration if they think it necessary. The figures given by the noble Lord, as has been said, were perhaps inclined to be somewhat misleading. The actual terms recommended were as follows:—Four cottages and their land, £1,800; other land, £225 10s.; payment in respect of fencing which is being provided by the owner, £529 7s.; payment for repair of twelve gates which is being done by the owner at 30s. each, £18; payment in respect of reconstruction of Feeder and Field Bridge, done by owner, £10. This makes a total of £2,582 17s. As a further illustration of the magnitude of the deal it may be mentioned that 20,000 square yards of land are included in the purchase besides the four cottages and that the length of new fencing to be constructed is about 3,300 yards. This gives a notion of the length of the road which will be improved as the result of the purchase from Mr. Swanton.

In his report the district valuer used words which my noble friend has already quoted. I think they are important words and I think they make it quite clear that this sum of £2,582 17s. is what the district valuer in his considered opinion, and with his unrivalled experience of such cases, thinks the owner is justly entitled to in compensation. As regards the actual terms neither the Ministry of Transport nor the Wilts County Council are brought into consultation. In all cases of this kind we rely on the impartial expert advice of the Valuation Department and we do not enter into negotiation over the head of the district valuer. I think your Lordships will agree that this is the only possible course we could adopt. If we were prepared to reopen cases of this kind there would be no end to the time wasted and the complications which might ensue.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Do I understand that the district valuer is an official of the Inland Revenue?

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I think that is so. I should like to pay a tribute to the district valuers. It is rarely indeed that we have any complaint with regard to the decisions of district valuers, and where there have been any complaints they have been on the ground that the district valuer has tried to drive too hard a bargain rather than that the compensation awarded has been on too generous a scale. I do not want to delay your Lordships, but I do want to emphasise the fact that the district valuer holds an entirely independent position and I am certain that he would not be swayed either by the County Council or by any individual county councillor. This is one of the great advantages which the local authority finds in employing the district valuer. In fairness to the district valuers I wish to add that their services are increasingly appreciated by local authorities who at one time were slightly prejudiced against them. Their rigorous impartiality has been demonstrated so frequently that local authorities are now apt to complain that their services cannot always be made available.

There is one further point I would like to refer to. Mr. Swanton, the owner of the property, is a member of the County Council and also a member of the Roads and Bridges Committee. There are apparently some people who think that this in itself renders the circumstances of the transaction somewhat suspicious. But I would point out that the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, provides that a councillor shall not be disqualified by reason only of his having any share or interest in any purchase of land. I am informed that Mr. Swanton retired from the meeting of the Roads and Bridges Committee when this matter was under discussion.

I understand that the main ground of objection by certain members of the County Council to this transaction was that, while Mr. Swanton received full compensation for the property which he had to give up, he was at the same time placed under no obligation to replace the cottages which were demolished. That is so, but I do not think that this is a matter which concerns either the district valuer or the Ministry of Transport. I dare say-the district valuer may have thought that the injury which the owner sustained in this case could best be measured by the cost of replacement of the cottages. But I am sure that in arriving at the figure which he fixed upon he had to take many other considerations into account. I venture to say that the question of replacement, or making a condition of replacement, was one which the district valuer himself could not possibly deal with. He had nothing at all to do with that question. He is asked to state what he believes to be a fair sum to which the owner is entitled for the injury to his property, and it surely does not come within the scope of his powers to make any conditions such as were suggested by the noble Lord. If it was desirable to make such a condition this was a matter which the local authority might have taken into account in view of the fact that this is a scheme which is being carried out under the agis of the County Council.

I can only conclude by saying that I am absolutely confident that Mr. Swanton's position as a member of the County Council had no influence whatever upon the terms of the compensation. I believe they were fair terms, they were the terms which were settled by the district valuer who is entirely impartial and who has had very great experience in cases of this kind. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that the Department which I represent could not have acted in any other way in dealing with this matter.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

My Lords, I think I state the case correctly in saying that the district valuer who, as my noble friend has said, is an official of the Government more than of the County Council, in taking into consideration the value to be assessed says that the damage suffered by the individual shall not be less than the reinstatement value of the cottages, and that if there is equal accommodation handy he would not get the reinstatement value. In this case there was no accommodation of this particular character that could be taken into account. I want, however, myself just to place the facts shortly before your Lordships, in view of the concluding words of the noble Lord's Question, and I can perhaps do it better than my noble friend on the Front Bench.

It was in March last that the Roads and Bridges Committee had the valuer's report before them. They then approved of the terms. I may say that the committee had the powers delegated to them in August, 1929, nearly three years ago, when the scheme, which nobody very much likes I think, was first put in hand. Acting under those powers they proceeded to approve of these terms. Then they reported them to the Finance Committee of the County Council, who met in April and expressed their disagreement with the terms and referred them back to the Roads Committee. The latter, however, decided to adhere to their decision, under the powers which had been delegated to them. Further than that, when the matter appeared on the agenda paper of the County Council at the end of May, there was further criticism expressed in the Council itself. I think I know what really was in the mind of the committee in approving of these terms, not having also got the undertaking of the owner of the land to reinstate. They were afraid of risking arbitration. They were afraid of a higher sum being awarded in case of arbitration, and I am bound in all fairness to say this, from all I can gather down there, that a reference to an arbitrator would probably have resulted in a higher sum. Still it is a question whether it would not have been better in the circumstances to have taken that risk.

It is perfectly correct, as my noble friend has said, that the owner of the land retired during the discussion. I most say this here, because, as I have said, it is perfectly open, it has appeared in the Press, and the opposition has been general to this transaction. I regret very much that the owner of the land in question has refrained from giving an undertaking to carry out what, I understand on all hands down in the neighbourhood, he will be practically compelled to do—namely, to find other accommodation for these four men, who are absolutely essential to his farm and whose cottages were only on the other side of the road from his farm buildings. His refusal to give that undertaking has caused the whole of this difficulty. If he had given that undertaking there is no question that the price would have been perfectly reasonable, but I am bound to say that it is clear to me and to others that the delegation given to the committee was too wide, and that the conditions under which that and others have been granted will have to be considered, with a view of seeing that the Finance Committee have control over expenditure of this character.

LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM

I am extremely glad that I brought this Question before your Lordships, on account of the last few words just uttered by my noble friend Lord Bath. My noble friend Lord Bath has said that the result of this will be that in the future the Finance Committee will have control over these transactions—at least, that is what I understood him to say. That is an extremely good thing, especially in view of the fact that the Finance Committee, by twelve votes to three, opposed this particular resolution. I cannot see that because the valuer is an official of the Inland Revenue it is a good thing to give £2,587 for four cottages. The land was worth practically nothing, and you can construct a wire fence for very little, if you put up sleeper posts, which I find to be the most economical method. You can cut the posts in halves or even, as one noble Lord says, into three or four, and the cost of a fence like that—and I think I am correct in saying that in that part of the world there is a good deal of wire—with four or five rows of wire costs extremely little. I should think £100 would cover a fence of that description. I am glad that I have raised this case at the present moment.

There is another point. Presuming for the sake of argument that it was necessary to give this sum of £2,587 for four cottages and four acres of land, was it worth while doing it in order to widen the road? The road has been in existence for forty years, and was quite sufficient for the traffic. What is the use of widening it in order to allow people who do not belong to the county to drive at forty or fifty miles an hour along it? I am very glad of the conclusion to which the County Council have arrived, and I should like to make this quite clear, that I have never in any kind of way attempted to attack the County Council. They have behaved in a proper manner, and I have here in this newspaper five of the leading members of the County Council who take my view about the matter.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.