§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be received. I propose to make one or two observations in discharge of undertakings which I gave during the Committee stage of this Bill, to examine various points raised by noble Lords in the course of the discussion. I think that the most convenient procedure for the House will be for my noble friend Lord Henderson to follow me, because that should give noble Lords an opportunity of saying whether or not they are satisfied with our efforts to meet them. My first undertaking was given to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It was on the question of the rate fund contribution. The noble Lord was afraid that the method of payment to development corporations, set out in the Bill, of the equivalent of the rate fund contribution for houses which attract a subsidy, might cause various inconveniences. The noble Lord thought, for example, that the enterprise of those corporations would be impaired by the prospect of having to go to the Treasury afterwards for a grant. He spoke in rather strong language of "liberating the development corporation from the thraldom of the Treasury."
768 I can assure the noble Lord, and any other noble Lord who shares his view, that neither the Minister nor the corporations will be held back by a prospective deficiency on housing. No sensible housing scheme will be rejected because the equivalent of the rate fund contribution has to be recovered by way of grant. The financial procedure in the Bill will not work out in that way. What will happen, simply and briefly, is this. The development corporation engaged in a housing project that attracts subsidy will estimate in advance its annual losses, and the Minister, when he sanctions a housing scheme of this type, will agree to the contemplated financial loss and undertake that it will be made good out of annual grant. There will, therefore, be no shadow of doubt that the payment of the full amount of the rate fund contribution will be met. I very much hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord and relieve him of his anxieties.
The other point not covered in the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the Government, is a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on Clause 15. Having examined this carefully, and having consulted my right honourable friend the Minister, I am satisfied that the winding up process will not be delayed in the manner suggested by the noble Earl, and that it could not be modified with advantage. On this second point, it would, I think, be unnecessary and inappropriate for the Orders made under subsections (1) and (2) to be subject to the same procedure as Orders made under subsections (3) and (4). These are the only points, I think, that arise, apart from further explanations that will be made on the Amendments. I will therefore leave it to my noble friend Lord Henderson to reply to other noble Lords who took part in the discussion during the Committee stage.
§ Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ 2.42 p.m.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, four specific points were raised at the Committee stage, for which further consideration was requested. I undertook to consult the Minister about them, and I have done so. The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, asked that a particular type of hard case at present not qualified for compensation 769 on the basis of the 1939 ceiling plus supplement, should be put on the same basis as owner-occupiers. The type of case entitled to qualify for compensation at the 1939 ceiling plus supplement was settled less than two years ago. It was agreed by all parties and approved by Parliament. My right honourable friend regrets that he is unable, for the purposes of this Bill, to concede an extension of the agreed scope of the term "owner-occupier." The second point urged that the existing basis of compensation was inadequate for certain classes of owner-occupier whose property is compulsorily acquired for public purposes. The fact is that the changes which were urged by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Earl, Lord Munster, would not be appropriate to this Bill. It would be impossible to amend the law of compensation for the purposes of this Bill without dealing with the whole compensation problem. The two noble Lords did, I think, recognize in their speeches that this was in fact the position. I will not therefore discuss the merits of the proposal.
Perhaps I may be allowed, however, to point out that the original basis of compensation for the owner-occupier is not static. It was fixed in 1944 on the basis which I have indicated—namely, the 1939 "ceiling," plus a maximum supplement of 30 per cent. That maximum supplement is; about to be increased to 6o per cent., and if experience of the new basis of compensation should show that it is not adequate, it will be possible, under Section 60 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, to review it again and to submit a new Order for Parliamentary approval. I will only add that the Minister is mindful of the various representations which have been made, and these will be taken into consideration.
The third point previously raised by noble Lords related to the question of co-opting on to the development corporation in an advisory capacity members of the local authorities concerned. My right honourable friend the Minister has made it clear that he recognizes the vital importance of the closest co-operation being maintained throughout between the development corporation and local authorities, and that the latter should be kept fully informed of all proposals with which they are concerned. He will encourage such 770 co-operation, but he does not regard it as wise that any particular form of co-operation should be made a statutory obligation. It will depend upon experience and upon local conditions. It may be found that the machinery of consultation which is most suitable for one area would not be the most suitable for another. I suggest, therefore, that it is not unreasonable that the form of consultation should be left to each corporation, subject to any direction which the Minister may think fit to give. I hope that the noble Earl, Lora Munster, will agree.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, referred to the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Order, which was about to be published and which will include a list of professional bodies such as that suggested by the noble Lord in his Amendment. The reason for including the list in this special Order is that the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Board is, in effect, a local authority organization and the Board when appointing an auditor will have to select a member of one of the professional bodies included in the list, which is identical with that inserted in Section 239 of the Local Government Act, 1933. In other words, the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Board will be required to follow the same procedure as a borough council. The position with regard to the New Towns Bill is quite different. The appointment of an auditor will be made by the Minister himself. An assurance has been given that only a competent and properly qualified acountant will be appointed. Noble Lords will remember that a similar assurance was accepted in the case of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. Flaying fulfilled my promise to bring these matters to the attention of the Minister, and having indicated his position regarding them, I venture to express the hope that noble Lords will now be content to allow the Bill to go forward to its remaining stages.
§ 2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy Lords, the two noble Lords who have spoken have been good enough to give the House an explanation of points raised on the Committee stage. I have no doubt that there are other noble Lords who wish to say a word on these points, and I will deal only with the particular point which I broached to your Lordships at an earlier 771 stage of this Bill; that is, the rate of compensation which should be paid. The case I cited was that of a farmer who had expended both money and effort on his holding since 1939, and who would not be fully compensated by the 1939 "ceiling," even with the 60 per cent. supplement which may be given under this Bill. I am very sorry that it has not been possible for the Government to meet us on this point, although I would like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who has taken immense trouble to see if anything could be done and who has shown very great sympathy with the point.
From what he has said I understand that he does not dispute the fact that my point had substance. His difficulty is that it is a matter of machinery; that it is extremely difficult to differentiate between cases such as I mentioned and other cases of people who are to receive compensation. In any case he thinks this is hardly the right time to make any amendment to the existing law on the question of compensation. I recognize, as I suppose we all do, that these difficulties are real, and that this is a very difficult and thorny question—as are all questions of compensation. I do not want to press the Government unduly now, but I take it that there will be some measure dealing with compensation and betterment in the future. It has been under discussion for some time, and was so even in the days of the Coalition Government, and I would ask the Government to consider this particular point again in connexion with this Bill.
I can promise them that we will also consider it. If they are unable to do anything we might find ourselves in a position to take some action in the shape of an Amendment when the Bill comes along. I would also urge upon the Government that, if they do think of anything that can be done, they should make it retrospective to the extent of covering cases that might arise under this Bill. It is, of course, a limited type of case. I am not trying to raise the whole question of the 1939 ceiling and the whole basis of compensation. That was, rightly or wrongly, accepted by all Parties in the days of the late Government. These are special cases of hardship. I know that the Government want to meet these cases. It is really a question of machinery. I do hope that they will do their utmost for those unfortunate people.
§ 2.52 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy Lords, I should like to add one word. I would begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for the sympathetic way in which he has considered what we have said. I have only just seen the Order by which the 30 per cent. is enlarged to 60 per cent. As I read it, it applies only to the value of land and does not apply to the clause in the Act of 1944 where, if there has been improvement of a dwelling or a house or a farm, the value of the improvements can be given as compensation calculated by reference to the prices of 1939. I do not myself see that that is covered here because the reference in this Order is to values and not to prices which are referred to in the clause which deals with improvements since 1939. Perhaps the noble Lord would think fit to look into that.
With regard to the question of owner-occupiers, it is very difficult to deal with that matter on this Bill, but I do feel strongly that the clauses with reference to owner-occupiers are going to lead to extraordinary injustice. The clause is extended to cover the case of a person who has granted a tenancy of the house in question, but the clause with which I am dealing adds that the person in question has to prove that at the date of acquisition of the premises by the authority it was his desire and intention to return within five years. That intention, in truth, does not exist in a great number of cases because the owner in question cannot afford to go back into these premises, and the clause as it is drawn will exclude some very worthy people who are just as much entitled to consideration as a person who can say, "Well, I let the house while my husband was away"—or something of that sort—" I now want to get back; I cannot get back at present, but it is my intention to get back within five years if I possibly can." The person I am thinking of is somebody old and ailing who cannot get back. Yet such a person is not treated as an owner-occupier. I have had myself one or two letters from Stevenage on the subject. I hope that when some new Bill comes forward and when the experience of Stevenage and other cases has shown that this New Towns Act does not work equitably, the Government will consider the question on the basis of justice.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the two noble Lords opposite for the manner in which they have dealt with the points which I raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. I need not deal with the question of the 1939 prices which has been mentioned by my noble friend behind me. I trust that the Minister has taken note of what has been said in this House for use in any further legislation which may come along. With regard to co-opting of members of local authorities on to the development corporations, I naturally accept the view which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, expressed—namely, that the Minister would encourage co-operation and that he desired co-operation, Nut that he wished such co-operation to be undertaken on his direction. It may not be suitable in every case for such co-operation to take place; nevertheless, as I say, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the Minister's attention to my remarks and for the observations he has made with regard to the points raised.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, before allowing this Report to go through, I wish to draw attention to the point which I raised on Clause 25 with regard to the provisions as to Scotland in this Bill. I do not wish to raise a debate on this point again. We had considerable discussion, and in the course of that discussion my noble friend Lord Llewellin made what I thought was a very excellent suggestion. I am not quite sure whether he was speaking in the capacity of an Englishman or a Welshman, or both, but, in any case, he agreed that Scotland had been treated very shabbily in this matter, and he made the suggestion that perhaps the Government might consider preparing a consolidated New Towns Bill for Scotland, in order to clarify what is now, as it stands, a very complicated Bill so far as Scotland is concerned. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who replied and said that he would convey the suggestion to the Minister. I had hoped that in the statements which have just been made to your Lordships, we might have heard something about that particular point. I rise to ask whether the noble Earl can now give us a reply—I hope a favourable one.
§ LORD WESTWOODMy Lords, the answer given last week by my noble 774 friend the Earl of Listowel was passed on to me to make the necessary inquiries of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have been in consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the matter. I can assure your Lordships that he is most anxious to make arrangements to assist the local authorities and others concerned with the subsequent administration of this Bill after it has passed into law. He has authorized me to say that he proposes to issue a Paper setting out the terms of the Bill as it applies to Scotland, which will be published and circulated for the convenience of local authorities and others concerned. I think that meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin.
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I understand that the Paper will really be the Bill as it applies to Scotland—that although it will not be called a Bill, that, in effect, is what it will be. If that is the case, it completely meets the suggestion I made.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, as I raised this point originally, I should like to acknowledge what the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing in order to try to clarify the position. I understand that the Paper that is being issued will actually be treated as the law on the subject. Am I correct in that?
§ LORD WESTWOODThat is my interpretation. That is the interpretation I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKThen I gladly acknowledge it, and I thank the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble friend for having done what they have done.
§ LORD HENDERSONBy leave of the House, I should like to thank noble Lords for the friendly way in which they have received the statements from my noble friend the Earl of Listowel and myself. With regard to the query raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on the Order, I will have that looked into and either communicate with him or see him about it. I will make it my business to call the Minister's attention to the observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I am sure my right honourable friend will take them into sympathetic consideration.
§ LORD REITHMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is not here, but I know his mind on the matter of the rate fund contribution. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would like to know what I think Lord Balfour of Burleigh would say. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, informed us that the rate contribution would really be an automatic credit; in other words, it would not be argued about as part of the deficiency grant. That, I am sure, would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and in the circumstances it satisfies me.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.
§ Clause 4:
§ Acquisition of land by Development Corporations.
§ (7) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that a development corporation established under this Act is a public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
§
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved at the end of subsection (7) to insert
and that Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, applies accordingly for the purpose of the assessment of compensation for the compulsory purchase of land by such a corporation.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, during the Committee stage. The noble Viscount pointed out that as the Bill is now drafted the compensation provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, might not apply to purchases by development corporations under the Bill. This Amendment removes any possible doubt that could exist that Sections 57 and 58 of the 1944 Act are to be applied under this Bill. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for drawing my attention to a possible source of ambiguity in the Bill as it now stands. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 5, line 42, at end insert ("and that Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, applies accordingly for the purpose of the assessment of compensation for the compulsory purchase of land by such a corporation").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy Lords, the suggested phrase is quite satisfactory to 776 me, and I thank the noble Lord for considering the matter.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 10:
§ Statutory undertakers.
§ (3) An order made under the last foregoing subsection may provide for the transfer to the transferees of any part of the undertaking of the transferors, and may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as the Minister of Fuel and Power thinks necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, any such order may provide—
- (a) for transferring to the transferees any property or liabilities of the transferors;
- (b) for amending or repealing any local enactment relating to the undertaking of the transferees or of the transferors;
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 11, line 8, after ("enactment") insert ("including any order or by-law)").—(Lord Henderson.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 15:
§ Winding up of development corporations.
§ (5) An order under this section which provides for the transfer of the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of a development corporation to any local authority or statutory undertakers may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as the Minister thinks necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, may extend or modify the powers and duties of that authority or those undertakers so far as appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer:
§ Provided that—
- (a) in relation to an order which provides for extending or modifying the powers and duties of any statutory undertakers, subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if for the first reference therein to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the Minister and the appropriate Minister; and
- (b) no such order shall confer or impose upon any local authority any powers or duties which are exercisable within the area of that authority by any other local authority.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 17, line 18, leave out ("such order") and insert ("order under this section")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17:
§ Limitations of actions, etc.
§ 17.—(1) The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and Section twenty-one of the Limitation Act, 1939, shall not apply to any action, prosecution or proceeding against a development corporation, or for or in respect of any act, negligence or default done or committed by a servant or agent of any such corporation in his capacity as such.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause also. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 17, page 18, line 26, leave out ("negligence '') and insert ("neglect").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 21:
§ Saving for enactments relating to water, electricity and gas.
§ 21. Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of Section two of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing a development corporation to carry on any undertaking for the supply of water electricity or gas, except under the authority of an enactment other than the said Section two specifically authorizing them in that behalf.
§ LORD HENDERSON moved after "gas" to insert "or any railway, light railway, tramway or trolley vehicle undertaking." The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will explain both this Amendment and the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel. This Amendment extends the principle of Clause 21 to the carrying on by development corporations of certain transport undertakings, namely, railway, tramway and trolley vehicle undertakings, as it is considered that the same principle applies to these undertakings as to water, electricity and gas undertakings. The Amendment was suggested by the Ministry of Transport, who are concerned to ensure that the provisions normally included in Private Acts or Provisional Orders for securing public safety shall be applied 778 to transport services operated by a development corporation.
§ The next Amendment, which is consequential, enables the Ministry of Transport to make an Order which will be subject to special Parliamentary procedure authorizing the development corporation to run trolley vehicles and containing any necessary provisions for the protection of the public. The Amendment is necessary as there is no General Act under which Orders can be made authorizing a trolley-vehicle undertaking, and a development corporation wishing to run trolley vehicles would, without this Amendment, have to obtain a Private Act authorizing them to do so. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 21, page 19, line 16, after ("gas") insert ("or any railway, light railway, tramway or trolley vehicle, undertaking.")—(Lord Henderson.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD HENDERSON moved at the end to insert the following new subsections:
(2) The development corporation established for the purposes of a new town may be authorized by means of an order made by the Minister of Transport to operate trolley vehicle services for the purposes of a new town; and any such order may impose such conditions as appear to the said Minister to be required in the interests of the public safety, and may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the said Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order, including provisions—
§ (3) Any order under the last foregoing subsection shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure.
§ (4) In this section the expression "trolley vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads without rails and moved by power transmitted thereto from some external source."
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, at and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Henderson.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
779§ Clause 25:
§ Provisions as to Scotland.
§
(6) In section four—
(c) in subsection (3) for any reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, there shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945.
§
LORD WESTWOOD moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert
(d) in subsection (7) for the reference to Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, there shall be substituted a reference to Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to the Amendment moved by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel to Clause 4 on page 5, line 42, and provides the necessary reference to Part II of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, required by that Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 25, page 21, line 44, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Westwood.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.