HL Deb 14 April 1953 vol 181 cc673-81

2.35 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Provisions as to payments for depreciation of land values]:

(2) The proviso to subsection (2) of section sixty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the proviso to subsection (2) of section sixty-one of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which provide for invalidating assignments and assignations unless notice is given within a prescribed period to the Central Land Board), shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to any assignment or assignation affecting any such claim as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section, being an assignment or assignation made or granted on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two (whether before or after the passing of this Act), but, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, no such assignment or assignation shall be of any effect unless and until it has been approved in writing by the Central Land Board.

(3) In the exercise of then powers under subsection (2) of this section the Central Land Board shall act with a view to securing that, as far as may be, any such claim made in respect of an interest in land enures either wholly for the benefit of some person having an interest in all that land or to the appropriate extent (but only to the appropriate extent), for the benefit of some person having an interest in part only of hat land and where any assignment or assignation (whether made or granted before or after the passing of this Act) either—

  1. (a) only operates to transfer the beneficial interest in a claim made in respect of an interest in land to the person beneficially entitled to that interest in that land 674 or to some interest in which that interest has merged; or
  2. (b) does not operate to transfer any beneficial interest in the claim.
the approval of the Central Land Board shall not be necessary if, whether before or after the passing of this Act, notice in writing of the assignment or assignation is given to the Central Land Board within one month from the date of the making or granting of the assignment or assignation or from the date of the passing of this Act, whichever last occurs.

LORD MANCROFT had given notice of several Amendments in subsection (2) the first being, after "assignation"(where that word first occurs) to insert "whether made or granted before or after the passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: The first Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper really marches with Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5, and I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I briefly discussed the point involved in all four of these Amendments. A noble Lord sitting behind me has rather unkindly pointed out that so complex and complicated is the purpose of this Amendment that it would not much matter in which order we discussed the Amendments to this clause. That is not strictly so, and I think this is an Amendment which should commend itself to the House.

Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause provide for control over assignments—what are rather charmingly called in Scottish law "assignations"—of claims on the £300,000,000 fund. So long as payment from the fund was to be automatic, it was a matter of no consequence in whose hands the right to any payment lay. The 1947 Act therefore provided that claims should be freely transmissible so long as notice of any assignment was given to the Central Land Board within a period to be prescribed—that period, indeed, was prescribed in the 1947 Act. But under the Government's new compensation proposal; to be embodied in next Session's legislation, payments will be made only as and when restrictions are imposed on the development of land or land is acquired by a public authority, It therefore becomes important that in the meantime the right to receive any payment should so far as possible run with the land.

To meet the changed situation, subsection (2) of this particular clause provides that an assignment made on or after November 18, 1952—that, of course, was the date on which the Bill was introduced into another place—shall be of no effect unless and until approved in writing by the Central Land Board. Subsection (3) lays down the principles by which the Board are to be guided in giving and withholding approval, and it excepts from the need to secure positive approval all assignments of claims which will result in the claim and the relevant interest being in the same beneficial ownership and all assignments of claims made by trustees to other trustees for the same beneficiaries, if notice of the assignment is given to the Central Land Board within one month from the passing of the Bill or from the date of the assignment where that is later.

These arrangements do not, as the Bill stands at present, touch assignments made before that introductory date of November 18, 1952, which are still governed by the provisions of the 1947 Act, under which notice had to be given within the prescribed period to which I have just referred. However, the period prescribed expired at the end of last year, and it has become clear since then that there are a number of cases in which an assignment was made but no notice given, and the assignment is, therefore, or would appear to be, of no effect. As the Bill stands, the only course open to the parties would be the cumbersome one of making a fresh assignment which would then be governed by the new provisions. The effect of the Bill, as amended by the proposed Amendment, will be that these assignments will be validated if notice is given not later than one month after the passing of the Bill. This is achieved by making subsection (2) apply also to assignments made before November 18, 1952, and then introducing these into subsection (3) as a third class of assignment in respect of which notice only need be given. I am afraid it is a complicated and technical point, but I think it is a need which must be met. I believe that this Amendment which I am now proposing meets that need and, therefore, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 8, after ("assignation") insert the said words.—(Lord Mancroft.)

EARL JOWITT

I agree that this is a very difficult subject I am afraid that I have not studied it, and though the noble Lord who has just spoken is generally very clear, on this occasion I do not think he has made it clear to my mind. I suspect that that is my fault, or it may be that it is impossible even for the noble Lord to make this matter crystal clear. I should like to see if I have it right. Originally there was going to be a definite charge on the £300 million fund, and although that would not be paid in the immediate future, yet one was perfectly entitled to assign one's right to anybody. That was the law. Then came this Bill, if I follow it aright, which took away that right of assignment unless certain conditions had been fulfilled. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that after the introduction of this Bill or before—take either case—you had assigned the right for the benefit of creditors or under a marriage settlement or what you will. Am I right in thinking—I am only asking for information, for I am rather lost—that that assignment would have been destroyed by this Bill unless and until this Amendment came forward? And am I right in saying that this Amendment has therefore really a beneficial effect?

LORD MANCROFT

Yes, that is so.

EARL JOWITT

It restores. I take it, subject, no doubt, to certain steps which have to be taken, the agreement which the parties have come to beforehand. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a desirable Amendment, because it would obviously be undesirable to interfere by ex post facto legislation with an arrangement which the parties had come to in all good faith amongst themselves. If I have got this matter right, presumably I am correct in saying that this Amendment will be beneficial.

LORD MANCROFT

That is so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT

This Amendment, of course, is consequential on the last. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 9, leave out from ("section") to ("but") in line 12.—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (3) (a), to omit the word "has" and to insert: merges by virtue of the same instrument or as part of the same transaction or has already.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I am sorry to say, is no simpler and no clearer than the one I have already moved. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and I are marching together. I hope that I shall carry him with me on this Amendment, as well as the last one. The purpose of the Amendment is to meet yet another legal difficulty which I think one or two noble Lords touched upon in the course of the Second Reading debate, and which arises in the defining of the first of the classes of assignment which do not need the positive approval of the Central Land Board.

As I attempted to explain in moving the previous Amendment, the general intention is that claims on the £300 million Fund should remain, so far as possible, in the hands of persons interested in the land to which the claims relate. Where a claim and the relevant interest in land are to be in the same hands after assignment of the claim, and no question of a division of the claim arises, there is no need for the Board to scrutinise the transaction and a simple notice of it is sufficient. The wording of this clause as it stands is sufficiently wide to include cases where the transfer of the claim and the relevant interest in the land is effected by the same instrument; but doubts might arise as to any cases where by the same instrument a claim and the relevant interest in the land were transferred to a person already holding a superior interest in the land. For example, a leasehold interest in land and the claim in respect of that interest might be transferred altogether back to the freeholder. In such a case the freeholder would not be, at the time of the assignment, the person beneficially entitled to an interest in which the leasehold interest had merged. The Amendment makes it clear—or I hope makes it clear—that, provided the merger takes place on the same occasion as the assignment of the claim, the exact order of the process does not matter, and only a notice of the assignment of the claim need be given to the Board. The matter is not, I am afraid, crystal clear to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, judging by the expression on his face, but I hope he will take my word that this is a useful and necessary Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 28, leave out ("has") and insert ("merges by virtue of the same instrument or as part of the same transaction or has already").—(Lord Mancroft.)

EARL JOWITT

I will take the noble Lord's word for it, and leave it at that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT

This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 30, at end insert— ("; or (c) was made or granted before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT

This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("Board") to the end of line 36 and insert ("not later than one month after the passing of this Act or, if the assignment or assignation was made or granted after the passing of this Act, not later than one month from the date of the making or granting thereof.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2. as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Savings and special provisions]:

(2) Nothing in section one of this Act shall entitle any person to the repayment of any sum paid before the passing of this Act by way of development charge in respect of any development of land within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, where, after the payment—

LORD MANCROFT moved to omit paragraph (a) of subsection (2): The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next also go together. I think I am safe in saying that, compared with this Amendment, the previous two were simplicity itself. The provision made in Clause 1 of this Bill for the repayment of development charge in cases where no part of the development had been begun before November 18, 1952, gives rise to the possibility of double payment if the land concerned is compulsorily acquired or is the subject of an order modifying or revoking a planning permission. That is because, under the 1947 Act, the fact that development charge has been paid entitles the owner to additional compensation in these circumstances, and that additional compensation will still be payable, despite the fact that development charge has been or is to be repaid. To prevent this, subsection (1) of Clause 3 provides that if the development charge has been or falls to be repaid under Clause 1, the compensation on compulsory acquisition or on a revocation or modification of planning permission shall be assessed as if that charge had never been paid. That, however, is not enough. The compensation on the compulsory purchase or revocation or modification order may already have been paid or become payable before Clause 1 takes effect. To meet this possibility subsection (2) provides that in such circumstances no refund of development charge shall be made.

This will work well enough in the case of a compulsory purchase or revocation order totally extinguishing the planning permission in respect of which the development charge was paid. The whole of the development value attributable to the permission will then be included in the compensation payable and the owner will get his money back that way. But in the case of an order modifying a planning permission, on the basis of which development charge has been paid, the amount of the compensation payable in respect of depreciation in the value of the land may be quite small; it will, of course, depend entirely on the extent of the restriction which the order imposes. It would, I should have thought, be quite wrong that payment of a small sum under this head should disqualify the owner from receiving a larger sum by way of repayment of development charge. That, however, appears to be the effect of subsection (2) as it is now drafted. The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to this matter from one or two professional sources, notably the Estates Gazette.

The net result now of these Amendments is that the amount refundable under Clause 1 in such a case will be reduced by the amount already paid or payable in compensation for depreciation in the value of the land, instead of no refund at all being made. This is achieved by deleting paragraph (a) of subsection (2), so confining that subsection to the case where the land concerned is compulsorily acquired, and inserting a new subsection (3) to deal with the case where a revocation or modification order has been made.

I hope that the matter is clear. It is, I suppose, as complicated a one as your Lordships could possibly be asked to tackle. All I can say is that the matter has been examined very carefully, in the face of some outside professional criticism, and this is the attempt of Her Majesty's Government to meet that legitimate and well-meaning criticism. I hope that it does so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pace 5, leave out lines 38 to 44.—(Lord Mancroft.)

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, the noble Lord will be the first to agree that this matter is not crystal clear, and I agree that it is not his fault. We feel that the best thing we on his side of the House can do is not to raise any objection to this matter at this stage of the Bill. Between now and the Report stage of the Bill, we shall be able to consider most carefully the observations which the noble Lord has made. I shall then have the great benefit, I hope, of having the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to advise me on this matter—he is out of the Chamber at the moment, but he will be back in a few moments. We shall be able to look at it more carefully and critically then. Studying carefully, as we shall, the words which the noble Lord has used to-day, we shall no doubt see what it is all about. So far as this Amendment is concerned, the broad principle which attracts me is this. It is to leave out lines 38 to 44. As a broad general principle, I think the more of this Bill that is left out, the better. However this proposal has my support. I only wish that the proposal went much further.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MANCROFT

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 8, at end insert— ("(3) Where—

  1. (a) any sum or sums has or have been paid before the passing of this Act by way of development charge in respect of any development of land within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, or of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947; and
  2. (b) after the payment, compensation has been or falls to be paid to a person under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the first mentioned Act or under subsection (1) of section twenty of the second mentioned Act in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of his interest in that land by virtue of the revocation or modification of permission for that development; and
  3. (c) but for the provisions of this subsection, the said sum or sums would have fallen to be repaid to that person under section one of this Act,
the repayment of the said sum or sums under the said section one shall be restricted to the amount, if any, by which it or they exceeds or together exceed the said compensation.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Cause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Back to