TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL (Hansard, 28 April 1953)

§ LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I am happy to think that I need not detain the House for long in moving the Third Reading of this Bill. I wish to offer only a few observations, first, because there has been some slight misunderstanding upon a point of principle, and, secondly, out of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was unable to be here on the Committee stage of this Bill. Of course, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is pretty well synonymous with town and country planning. Indeed, I wish we had had him here, because there would then have been at least one noble Lord present on the Committee stage who understood all the Amendments. As some noble Lords have discourteously pointed out, they looked as if they had been drafted by "Beachcomber" of the Daily Express.

As I said on Second Reading, this Bill is only a prelude to the main legislation which we shall have to consider next Session. Its aims are two. The first is to free from liability to development charge all schemes of development begun on or after November 18, 1952, which was the date when the Bill was introduced in another place. That proposal has occasioned singularly little criticism from either side of the House or, indeed, from outside. It seems to be generally agreed that whatever views we may have held about the theory of development charge—a theory which, I freely admit, goes back to the Coalition White Paper of 1944—it has not worked well in practice. The second main purpose of the Bill is to cancel the distribution of the £300 million fund. As the 1947 Act stands, this sum is due to be distributed among the claimants by the end of June of this year. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that it is quite unnecessary to pay out this huge sum in order to secure effective control over the use of the nation's land. As to the need for that control we are all agreed. In any case, it is obvious if development charge is to be abolished, there can be no question of distributing the fund blindly among all claimants, because many among them will now be able to 19 reap the benefit of developing their land. With the abolition of development charge some form of "payment as it hurts" becomes a necessity. I think that that also is common ground between us. The remaining provisions of the Bill are concerned to avoid certain anomalies, for the most part in the payment of compensation, which would otherwise follow from the abolition of development charge and the cancellation of the pay-out.

I would admit at once that legislating in two bites in this way has certain drawbacks. It is not a method which any Government would adopt through choice. Considered even on the narrow ground of tactics, it has the disadvantage that the sugar is handed out before the pill. I think I can fairly claim that, in the circumstances, this was inevitable. No one in this House would suggest that the Government should have embarked on amendment of the financial provisions of the 1947 Act without first making a careful examination of the whole subject. On the other hand, for the reason which I have just given to your Lordships, legislation had to be on the Statute Book by the end of June if payment of the£300 million was to be stopped. Once that sum had been paid out, any far-reaching amendment would obviously have been impossible. It would have been impossible in the time available to have completed the necessary review and then to have produced a comprehensive measure for consideration during the present Session, even had the Parliamentary time been available.

In saying this, I do not want to give the impression that postponement of the main legislation has been a major calamity. Although it means that land transactions must be carried out against a somewhat uncertain background, there is no sign whatever of paralysis in the land market. All the signs are of an awakening activity: land which had been withdrawn from the market as a result of the 1947Act provisions is again on offer. But there is one consequence of the postponement which the Government wholeheartedly regret. Those whose land has been acquired by public authorities or has been restricted against development and those who have paid development charge must wait a little longer for the money which they were expecting to 20 receive this year. In most cases that delay will be amply compensated for by the fact that payment may now be made up to the full agreed value of the claim instead of being limited to about 16s. in the pound, as was previously likely to be the case. But to those who are advanced in years or feel the hot breath of their creditors upon the backs of their necks, the time of payment may be more important than the amount, and to them any postponement is a bitter blow. The Government have sought hard and genuinely for some means of making early payment in cases of hardship, but it has proved impracticable to make any payments in advance of the main legislation. We can therefore only direct our efforts to making the inevitable delay, with the help of all concerned, as short as possible.

But if the present Bill marks only the first stage of our journey, it is none the less important for all that. It strikes at two of the key features of the financial system of the 1947 Act, the development charge and the fund. It does not settle the shape of the new system, but it does mean that it will be very different from the old. Yet even amongst those who express doubts about the Government's positive proposals, few, I think, question the need for the preliminary steps contained in this Bill. I have no hesitation, therefore, in commending it to your Lordships for a Third Reading. I beg to move.

§ LORD SILKIN

My Lords, there is not much for me to add to the rather long statement which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. A number of the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to-day were, in fact, answered by me then, in anticipation, and I do not propose to repeat what I said on that occasion. I feel that it is most unfortunate that the Government have thought it necesssary completely to upset the existing structure, which, on the whole, was an agreed structure and which, in my view, had never been given a proper chance. It had operated under most abnormal conditions. Many of the difficulties which were encountered, and which it was alleged were due to the 1947 Act, were due entirely to the abnormal conditions 21 which existed from the time the Bill became law until the present time. Take, for instance, the necessity to restrict capital expenditure. That was a fact that could never have been anticipated; it was something which was abnormal and which was the cause of a good many of the restrictions on building which were attributed to the 1947 Act.

I do not deny that I have said in the past that this rather complicated measure—the complexity of which is always exaggerated—after a number of years of experience, had shown some signs of the need for amendment; and nobody would have complained if the Government had brought in an Amending Bill, even a Bill for the postponing of the payment of the £300 million, on the lines that I indicated in my Second Reading speech. Suggestions have been made by all sorts of people interested in this matter—practitioners in connection with land and others—as to Amendments to the Bill; they were Amendments which, in my view, would have worked and would have rendered unnecessary the throwing of the whole question of the planning of land into the melting pot. I appreciate with gratitude that the planning provisions of the 1947 Act are not in dispute. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made some rather flattering observations about that section of the Act which I greatly appreciate, but I would ask him to bear in mind that the financial provisions were an integral part of the planning provisions and were regarded as necessary in order that the planning provisions might be carried into effect.

It was recognised until recently that, unless something on the lines of these planning provisions had been introduced, planning would have been ineffective; and one is very much concerned about the fact that the financial provisions have been completely disturbed and that, so far as we know, nothing equally effective is being put in their place. I respect completely the sincerity of those who desire that our land should be used and planned in the most effective way in the interests of the community as a whole. I think that noble Lords opposite are as sincere in that desire as we on this side are—there is no quarrel about that. But those of us who have been concerned with this subject know that for many 22 years planning has been rendered ineffective through there not being any satisfactory financial provisions. My great fear is that we are not going to have satisfactory financial provisions now; and my fear is based upon what I read in the White Paper and upon my doubt as to whether anything substantially different from what is contained in the 1947 Act will be effective. I have said all this before, but I still beg leave to reserve my doubts on the matter.

Moreover, this Bill creates a number of hardships. Lord Mancroft was quite fair in indicating the hardships that will arise as a result of this measure; and in those circumstances I do not understand what he meant by the sugar coming first and the pill afterwards: I thought these hardships probably were the pill: certainly they are going to affect a considerable number of people. It is really not a matter of people having their payments deferred; it is the great uncertainty that exists as to whether they will receive any payment at all; or, if so, when. The noble Lord spoke as though it were quite certain that within a relatively short time the classes of persons he mentioned—and I accept the fact that, broadly, they represent the people who are suffering as a result of postponement of the payment of compensation—will get their full compensation, possibly with interest. But I would refer the House to what the Bill says.

If we look at Clause 2, subsection (1) (a) we find these words: claims for such payments duly made to the Central Land Board under the said Acts shall be satisfied in such manner, in such cases, to such extent, at such times and with such interest as may hereafter be determined by an Act of Parliament passed for that purpose. That provision is not quite so definite as Lord Mancroft made out. It still leaves room for a great deal of doubt. I myself, if I had a claim, should not like to assume on the strength of this paragraph that I was going to be paid is full within a very short time, with interest, on the amount of my claim. A great many reservations are made—and perhaps wisely: I do not complain. Incidentally, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to say a few words to-day, but I should like him, either on this or another occasion, to tell me whether anything similar to this has ever occurred in any 23 other Statute. Has there ever been a Statute containing a reference to another Statute which is to be passed in the future for the purpose of meeting the claims which have already been approved? If so, I am not aware of it. It may be an innovation which is desirable or otherwise, but it seems to me a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

I remain completely unconvinced that this Bill, which amounts to a repeal of the 1947 Act, will have beneficial effects on planning, or will make planning more effective. And the ostensible reason for introducing this measure is that the 1947 Act has, in many ways, broken down. I have grave doubts as to whether, even if the White Paper is in due course implemented, it will bring about any improvement. On the contrary, I think there is a great danger that we may go back to the days before the war when we had relatively unrestricted building taking place. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I have very grave doubts indeed as to whether we shall not go back to those days, with our ribbon development and extended towns, with open spaces and green belts built on. After all, the 1947 Act brought about a financial settlement of all these matters. We should have made our payment once and for all, and after that, for all time, we should have had complete control over the development of our land. In this measure all that is taken away and, as I have said, the thing is thrown into the melting pot.

I deeply deplore, not for any personal reasons, what has happened. I greatly fear that not only shall we have these evil results but that once more planning will be turned into the cockpit of politics. One of the great advantages of the1947 Act, apart from its settlement of the financial aspect, was that it brought about stability. People did know, for better or for worse, where they stood. The difficulty about planning and about land legislation generally has been that no Statute has been on the Statute Book long enough to give it a fair chance of implementation. There has always been an element, an atmosphere, of uncertainty, of instability; and here we have it again. It may well be that certain land that was not in the market has come into the market to-day, but I wonder whether the noble Lord has inquired about the prices that are being 24 asked. I have, and I find that, in many cases, prices asked for land to-day have doubled, and even trebled, as compared with what was being asked only a year ago. If the noble Lord takes the trouble to make inquiries, he will find that what I say is correct: that there have been enormous increases in the value of land. If he imagines that, with these vast increases in the cost of land, and the high cost of building to-day, there will be any substantial increase in development, I think he will find himself sadly mistaken. This is a very sad parting with this Bill. I face this Bill with great apprehension and anxiety about the future of our land. I can only hope that I may be mistaken.