Lords Sitting of 24 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Hillingdon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
BROMLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

REGISTRATION SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the registration service in England and Wales with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949; and to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before we go further with our Business, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say something about to-morrow's Business. As your Lordships know, there is a Motion down for debate to-morrow on the subject of Defence. It appears that a large number of Peers wish to take part in this debate—no fewer than twenty-six have already put down their names—and, in the circumstances, it seems clear that we cannot expect to finish the debate to-morrow night. What I would propose, therefore, is that we should rise fairly early and complete the debate on Thursday. I believe that this course is acceptable to noble Lords opposite, and I merely announce it.

BRIDGEND PRISONERS-OF-WAR CAMP.
2.39 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their intentions with reference to the former prisoners-of-war camp at Island Farm, Bridgend, Glamorgan, in which Field-Marshal von Rundstedt and other German generals were imprisoned and which the War Department has allowed to go to rack and ruin and to become an eyesore in the midst of a beautiful countryside.]
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, a part of Island Farm Camp, Bridgend, is needed permanently as a Territorial Army Centre, and it is planned to replace the existing temporary huts by a permanent building when funds are available. The remainder of the camp is being retained for the present for use in an emergency, such as mobilisation.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him two questions arising out of it? First, is it necessary to continue with this camp in its present condition, with broken windows, barbed wire, and so forth? Secondly, is it not possible to do something to utilise the land inside the camp, which at present is covered with nettles and other non-agricultural and useless products?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord a very satisfactory answer. It is the intention to use part of the camp as a permanent centre for Territorials. It was intended to spend quite a large sum of money on it, but that money is not available at the present time. The future of the rest of the camp has not yet been settled. However, I will convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said about the nettles, broken glass, and so on.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful for the offer made by the noble Earl. I do not want to press this matter too much, but I would ask him to remember that this camp is in a beauty spot, and it does not do the Government

241
or the War Department any good to have a broken-down camp right in the heart of what is really beautiful country.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I do not know this beauty spot, but I understand that the river which runs close to it is called the River Ogmore. I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should have thought that the name of the river gives a fair indication that it is a beautiful spot.

TRADE WITH CHINA
VISCOUNT ELIBANKhad given notice of two Questions concerning trade with China. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The two Questions were as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the importance of the Chinese market to British trade and commerce, particularly in the future, when China's industrialisation plans get properly under way, and to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in June, 1951—in relation to the United Nations resolution on the embargo of arms, armaments and strategic materials to China—that licences for goods not considered to he of military or strategic importance to China would be granted freely, subject to availabilities and prior claims on our resources, they can say (1) whether the embargo list is under constant review in order to ensure that it does not contain items which are not "of substantial military or strategical importance" and which may be entering China from Japan, Western Germany or Sweden, and (2) whether, if instances are brought to their notice in which it is suggested that items which are not "of substantial military or strategical importance" are included in the embargo list, or which may be entering China from other sources, they will give consideration to the elimination of such items from the list.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can say which member nations of the United Nations are putting into operation the resolution
242
on the embargo of arms, armaments and strategic materials to China which was adopted on 18th May, 1951, and whether there is consultation between those nations as to what items properly come under the resolution and should be included in their respective embargo lists.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if, with the noble Viscount's permission, I answer both of his Questions together. While Her Majesty's Government share the noble Viscount's views as to the potential importance of the Chinese market to British trade and commerce, they are obliged, in accordance with the Unites Nations resolution of May 18, 1951, to take all possible steps to prevent the export to China of any goods which would be of military and strategic importance to the Chinese forces in Korea. The United States and Canada maintain an almost complete embargo on exports to China. Some 40 other nations have said that they are implementing the resolution, and others have indicated that they do not export strategic materials to China. Only the Soviet bloc countries have refused their support.
The method by which the resolution was to be implemented was left to the discretion of each member nation. Her Majesty's Government have kept strictly to the terms of the resolution, and their published embargo list has been under constant review and discussion, both in this country and with other friendly countries, especially all the major exporting countries concerned. Most of these embargo the majority of items on it, and Her Majesty's Government are actively discussing the remaining items to achieve unanimity so that the United Nations policy can be fully effective. Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider, in consultation with other nations, the addition or deletion of any item if strategic considerations warranted such action. They would be prepared to consider in this context any suggestions the noble Viscount may care to submit.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his comprehensive Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that what I am

243
anxious to do is to obtain fair play for British industry in this matter of the export of non-strategic materials to China, in the face of what is admittedly fierce and growing competition? It is rather difficult to keep the whole of the Answer of the noble Lord in one's head, but I should like to ask him whether the Government would be prepared to take steps to set up a committee—a course which is not without precedent in similar cases—either to assist the Board of Trade Export Licensing Department in their difficult tasks, or to constitute an appeal court for British industry which felt that it was not getting satisfaction under these export licences. I commend that to the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There are, as I say, precedents, but I may not discuss them. The third thing is—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am asking questions; I am not making a speech—nothing of the sort. The third thing I should like to ask the noble Lord is this: Is it not a rather extraordinary position with which this country is faced, that while a certain number of the member nations of the United Nations get into a boat a certain number stay out; and that when they do all get into the boat they find themselves rowing in different directions?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Viscount, but he is really abusing the system of Question and Answer. He may put every alternative sentence in the form of a question, but he is making a speech.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With great respect to the noble Marquess, naturally I wish to observe the rules of the House—I am now speaking to the question of order which he raised. I have prefaced every one of my remarks with an interrogation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But they were all in the nature of what is generally known as rhetorical questions.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In the dictionary definition they are still questions. I have put my questions, and I ask the earnest consideration of the noble
244
Marquess himself to the question which I have put with regard to this appeals court. Because is he not aware of the fact that, in the case of the sanctions on Italy, of which, if I recollect rightly, he was one of the originators, the only sufferer was this country?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount is now asking a completely different question. If he would put that down on the Paper, and if it is passed by the Table, he will receive an answer.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask a specific question? The noble Marquess will remember that the noble Lord took the two original Questions together, a course which gives a little more latitude to the cross-examiners. My question is this: Is it not a fact that an order for chemicals worth a very large sum was offered to the British chemical industry; that they were forbidden by the Board of Trade to send the goods abroad, and that the order was thereupon taken up by a German firm called Farbenwerke Hoechst, and, I believe, is now in process of execution? This is a case in point, and I ask whether the noble Lord is aware of it and what answer he can give.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am aware of the case in point which the noble Viscount has mentioned. Perhaps I might answer him by reminding him of this. The International Red Cross may not operate in China and, therefore, are not in a position to send supplies. A limited quantity is allowed to be sent through normal commercial channels for essential civilian purposes. That, so far as we are concerned, completes the picture of the situation with regard to chemical supplies. Unfortunately, many other countries do not carry out their part of the bargain with the same scrupulous accuracy as we do. That has been the cause of much of the trouble.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord has said that every effort is being made to unify the practice. British firms were refused permission to execute an order for £500,000 worth of chemicals, and the order was taken up by the West German chemical manufacturers.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government have arrived at any decision on the order from China

245
for 10,000 tons of tinplate? I believe that that order represents something like £500,000. Is the noble Lord not aware that if we do not take this up—I am not saying we should; it is for the Government to decide—undoubtedly some other country, such as that which my noble friend mentioned, will do so?
LORD BARNBY: Is the noble Lord referring to the China recognised by the United States, or to the China recognised by the United Kingdom?
LORD OGMORE: I am referring to the order from the Chinese Government in control of China, and not the Government in control of one island off the coast of China.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this has developed into an interesting debate, but it does not seem to arise directly out of the Questions put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. If noble Lords would be good enough to put these questions specifically on the Order Paper I will do my best to produce specific answers. But there are many other individual problems on exactly the same lines as the two which have been mentioned, which are also causing difficulty. I do not think that at this moment I can give a specific answer.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But the noble Lord gave us an assurance that he was doing his best to ensure fair play for British contractors. It now appears that he knew of both the instances brought to his notice, but that in neither has he taken any action.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask whether the noble Lord has read the Statist this week, and whether he has read a statement that
"it is difficult for a businessman to see the sense in turning down an order for something which the British Government defines as 'strategic' while the Government of some industrial rival on the Continent takes the opposite view."
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask a question now on the second main Question? We are assured that every effort is being made to get other countries to work in line with us. What are the relations between ourselves and Ceylon in the matter of their rice contract with China?
LORD OGMORE: May I also know whether it is true, as reported, that the United States are supplying China, through Japan, with goods that we are not allowed to supply?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I really think it would be better if noble Lords were to put down specific Questions, rather than our having an absolute spate of supplementaries, some of which range rather wide of the original Questions. It is not in accordance with our usual procedure. I have no doubt that if noble Lords will put down Questions on these points they will receive an answer.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Report of the Sub-Committee on the House of Lords Refreshment Department was laid before the Committee and approved.
2.—HISTORICAL RECORDS.
The Clerk of the Parliaments laid before the Committee a report from the Ministry of Works on the present condition of the Victoria Tower. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that the necessary work should be proceeded with as a matter of urgency.
The Clerk of the Parliaments also informed them of the progress made in the re-conditioning of the manuscript repository; and the Committee approved a payment to Mr. F. D. Armitage in respect of his services for a mycological survey in the Victoria Tower and for laboratory tests.
3.—SUPERANNUATION.
The Committee sanctioned the adoption of the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, for the staff of the House of Lords.
4.—SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT.
The Committee authorised the application of the senior scale of salary to the post of Office Assistant engaged in the Committee Office.
5.—PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER—DUE FOR RETIREMENT.
The Committee sactioned a pension and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1935 and 1949, to John Spelman, M.M., the Principal Doorkeeper who attains 65years of age on 23rd March, 1953.
The Committee were informed that Mr. Spelman has been re-employed as an unestablished doorkeeper.
6.—HOUSEMAIDS.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishments Circular No. 5/53 dated 9th February, 1953 (Pay of Women Cleaners) to the Housemaids on the staff of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
7.—RETIREMENT OF CUSTODIAN INSPECTOR.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1859, 1909 and 1935 to Alexander Sutherland, an established Inspector of Custodians, on his retirement through ill-health before having completed ten years' reckonable service.
8.—SENIOR CUSTODIAN—DUE FOR RETIREMENT.
The Committee sanctioned a pension and an additional allowance under the Superannuation Act, 1935, to Terence O'Donnell, an established Senior Custodian, whose services were extended to 31st March. 1953.
The Committee were informed that Mr. O'Donnell would be re-employed as an unestablished Custodian.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I do not think there is any point in this Report to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it has fallen to my lot in the course of the last few months to address you on subjects of progressive dullness and complexity, and I am afraid that to-day the progress is clearly going to be maintained. I am credibly informed by those who understand this subject that there are many occasions upon which town and country planning nearly reaches the unplumbable depths of incomprehensibility, and I think my task is a little more difficult to-day in view of the fact that I am to be followed (though, I hope, not opposed) by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has forgotten more about town and country
248
planning than I am ever likely to know. He is, I believe on reliable authority, known as the only man in England who really understands the whole of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, whereas my knowledge of that Act of Parliament could be put into a nutshell, still leaving ample room for the nut.
I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if, in this debate, we consider not only the Bill which is now before us but also the proposals set out in the White Paper (Cmd. 8699) which the Government published last November. The Bill, after all, is only a prelude to the main legislation—it clears the ground. Because of shortage of time, the positive work of building the new system must be left until next Session. We can, therefore, consider the Bill properly only in the light of the Government's proposals, and for that reason I make no apology for devoting the greater part of my speech to these proposals.
As I understand it, the problem is the old one of the effect of planning control on land values. The problem as I understand it is a simple one but the solution is highly complex and sometimes contentious. So long as planning confined itself to what I may call glorified estate development—to laying down building lines and road widths, to regulating the density of buildings and to segregating uses—the problem was not acute. But as, gradually, the modern conception of planning grew up, as planning came to be concerned with deciding what land should be built on, what reserved for agriculture or set aside for mineral working, it soon became clear that the effectiveness of planning depended largely on a solution being found to the problem of compensation. The 1932 Act gave local authorities wide powers to regulate the use of land: but if land was restricted against development by a planning scheme the responsible authority were liable to compensate the owners affected for any depreciation in the value of their land. In theory this expenditure could be offset by the recovery of betterment: local authorities were empowered to recover 75 per cent. of any increase in the value of land due to the coming into force of a planning scheme or to the carrying out of any public works under it. Unfortunately, in practice these provisions proved abortive. What actually happened, in a

249
large number of cases, was that the fear of compensation proved sufficient to prevent land with any building value from being restricted against development.
The Uthwatt Committee, appointed in 1941 to examine the problem of compensation and betterment, made an analysis which has governed all subsequent Thought on the subject, even though the significance of the various factors may have changed in the very different post-war world. The Uthwatt Committee pointed out that development value—the additional value which some land possesses, owing to the prospect of its being used for some purpose other than the present one—commonly attaches to far more land than will, in fact, ever be developed, because no one can predict exactly where development will take place. Thus, all the land on the periphery of a large town is likely to possess development value, though perhaps only a quarter of it will ever be built on: and the aggregate of these several values will be artificially inflated by the fact that no one can tell whose land will be chosen. Further, if an embargo is placed on the development of one part of this land and compensation paid, the demand for land for development and the development value created by that demand are not extinguished: the value merely shifts to some other piece of land. The effect of these two factors of floating and shifting value was that if compensation is assessed piecemeal the aggregate paid will greatly exceed the true loss incurred. On the other hand, all past attempts at the direct recovery of betterment had been defeated by the sheer impossibility of distinguishing increases in value due to planning or public improvements from increases due to other causes. The Committee's recommendations were not accepted, but their analysis formed the foundation, first of the Coalition White Paper of 1944 and then of the 1947 Act—the Act of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Both these documents envisage some form of global assessment of compensation as a means of eliminating "float" and "shift." I apologise for using this language, but the jargon of town and country planning is inescapable. Both seek to evade the difficulty of identifying betterment by taking an arbitrary percentage of the total increase in development value, whatever the cause. In fact, the basic thinking of both these systems is very similar; and there is very
250
little in this that can be called a Party matter. We are all in it together.
It may, I think help the House if at this stage, with a wary eye on Lord Silkin, I summarise the main fundamental provisions of the Act of 1947: that will serve to make clear both what we intend to change and what we propose to leave untouched. But before I do so I want to make it clear beyond all doubt that in amending the financial provisions we are determined not to weaken the efficiency of planning control. It is surely common ground between us all that in an island as densely populated as this we have no choice but to plan for the whole. Planning is not just a matter of preserving amenity, of preventing the spoliation of coast and of the countryside, or even of improving living conditions, important though those things are. It is the technique of making the best use of our natural resources, our farmland and our mineral deposits, and of resolving, as far as may be, the competing claims on our limited acres. The fundamental doctrine of the 1947 Act was that, with certain exceptions, the rights of development in all land in the country were to be transferred to the State the interest of the individual owner was restricted to the value of the land for its existing use. The system had three main features. First, no development of the land was to be carried out without planning permission, and if permission was granted a development charge was to be paid to the State based on the difference between the value of the land with the permission to develop and its value when restricted to its existing use. In other words, the development charge aimed at bridging the gap between the value of the land for agriculture and for building or between its value for houses and for shops.
The second main feature of the system was for the £300 million fund. This was, in effect, the compensation payable to the owners for the loss of their development rights, for the fact that they were no longer free to develop their land without first securing planning permission and paying a development charge. It was to be a once-and-for-all payment, distributed among those owning land when the Act came into force on the basis of the claims which they were invited to make; and no compensation would be paid, generally speaking, in respect of any subsequent refusal of planning permission. The

251
owners had, in theory, lost all financial interest in the development value of their land. The third feature of the scheme was that land required for public purposes would be acquired on the basis of its value for its existing use, payment for development value being already dealt with by the £300 million fund.
Viewed as a theoretical exercise in the higher realms of planning fancy, without over-fussy attention to the facts of life, this was nothing less than a masterpiece. It avoided quite successfully the rival claims of floating and shifting value by bringing all development value into a common pool. It solved the problem of identifying betterment by claiming for the community a fixed slice of the total increase in value due to the grant of planning permission, irrespective of origin. On both points the resemblance to the Coalition White Paper is close. Although a number of points—notably the arbitrary fixing of the amount of the compensation fund—were hotly contested, I think it is fair to say that the underlying conception was accepted by both Parties.
What went wrong? I should be here all night if I went into the details of what went wrong. Perhaps the most serious defect—and this applies in particular to development charge—was a complete failure to get the Act across, to impress upon people what it was that the originators were seeking to achieve. In theory, the development charge was part of the purchase price of the land. The man who wanted to build himself a house in a field bought the existing use value, the agricultural value of the land, from the owner, and the development value from the State in the form of a development charge. The owner was expected cheerfully to sell the land at its agricultural value and to look to his claim on the £300 million fund to recompense him for the development value. Naturally enough, as it now seems, this seldom happened. For one thing, it costs money to sell land: the owner has to have to mark it out, advertise, and pay various experts to disagree with each other and the rest. Therefore, to sell the land at its value as farmland would leave the owner out of pocket; he would do better perhaps to keep his land—and many did. Moreover, the sum total of
252
claims, it was generally thought, would amount to a great deal more than the £300 million fund. In fact, this turned out to be a misapprehension: the effect of "floating value" in inflating claims had been grossly over-estimated: but the damage seems to have been done. Owners could hardly be expected to sell at a price excluding all development value when they had been assured that they could expect to receive only a fraction of that value from the £300 million fund.
The result was that a good deal of land was taken off the market, and that what sales there were took place, for the most part, at a figure intermediate between the existing use value and the full value of the land. Purchasers were willing to pay these prices, partly because of the substantial scarcity value attaching to a building licence, but more particularly because most people completely failed to grasp the separation of development value from the land, which was absolutely fundamental to the Act. To the ordinary man a good site is a good site, and he thinks it reasonable to pay a good price for it; and having paid it, he views the Central Land Board not as an owner with something to sell but as a blood-sucking tax-gatherer battening on his enterprise. Those who were able, because of the Act, to buy cheaply—a few land owners sold at or near existing use value—merely thought that they had made a good bargain and, if anything, resented development charge the more. Because the theory of development charge was not properly understood, it came to be viewed as a tax; and, because the method of assessment was not understood either, as an arbitrary tax into the bargain. To that must be added the fact that, in so far as developers had to pay twice for the development value of the land they needed—once to the owner and once to the Central Land Board—development charge represented an increase in the already high costs of development. As we move gradually into a freer economy this position becomes all the more serious.
I want now to turn for a moment to the £300 million fund. The general belief was that this would prove totally inadequate to meet the claims made on it, but this idea was exploded in February of last year, when my right honourable

253
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the sum total of those claims would be only in the region of £350 million.
I hope that I am not letting common sense run away with me but it does seem to me that to pay a sum of that size, even in stock, could not but have an inflationary effect, particularly as seven-eighths of the claims by number, and over one-half by value, were for amounts of less than £1,000. And it was clear that much of the money would go to people who had not, in fact, suffered any real damage as the result of the Act, to people who had no intention of developing or even had bought land for the express purpose of preserving it against development. We all know examples of this: they range from the landed gentry—that almost extinct class—sitting in their parks, to the householder who has bought the plot next to his house for the purpose of knocking down the fence and throwing it into his garden. That was the situation with which the Government found themselves faced: on the one hand a development charge which was likely to act increasingly as a brake on the enterprise which they were anxious to encourage, and on which as a nation we depend for our survival, and, on the other, an obligation to distribute this enormous sum of £300 million by the middle of this year, not only among those whose fortunes have been damaged—we do not question for a moment that they should be paid—but also among everyone who conceivably might be damaged in the near or remote future. To some of us, that seems planning run riot.
The first step was to make a careful and thorough examination of all the suggestions for modification of the Act made in a variety of quarters over the past few years. Three suggestions, in particular, engaged the Government's attention: first, the deferment of payments from the £300 million fund: second, a restriction in the range of development liable to development charge: and, third, a general reduction in the rate of development charge. For reasons which are summarised in the White Paper they concluded that none of those modifications—nor, indeed, any combination of them—could produce a satisfactory system under which development and enterprise could flourish, and that therefore more drastic alterations were necessary. The
254
main outlines of the Government's proposals will by now, I think, be familiar to your Lordships. In framing them the Government have sought to preserve what was good in the 1947 Act—and let me say here and now that much of the 1947 Act was good—and to produce a stable foundation on which the planning provisions of the Act could continue to function. We must never lose sight of the fact that the financial provisions are not an end in themselves but a means to the efficient planning of the nation's land in the national interest. And, as I have said, we are all at one in accepting planning as an indispensable instrument if we are to make the most of our limited land resources.
The changes which the Government propose to make may be grouped under three heads. First, development charge is to be abolished. Second, the £300 million fund will not be distributed, but compensation will be paid (subject to certain exceptions) as and when the development of land is prevented or severely restricted. Third, the claims ranking for payment from the £330 million fund will set the upper limit of compensation payable for loss of development value, whether on the imposition of planning restrictions or on the compulsory acquisition of land. The passing of development charge has, I suspect, attracted few mourners—and those who are mourning are not really crying very bitterly. It seems to be generally accepted that the idea, however promising in theory, does not work in practice. In so far as there has been criticism, it has been that the Government are abolishing this charge without making any alternative provision for the collection of betterment. That raises a big subject, but I must content myself with making one or two brief points. The first is that there is no real and necessary connection between compensation and betterment, except in so far as the proceeds of the one can conveniently be applied towards the payment of the other. Some settlement of the compensation problem you must have if you are to be able to plan; but whether or not you collect betterment is a taxation question, to be decided in the light of revenue considerations.
My second point is that in considering the recovery of betterment you must not ignore the effect of other taxation. In-

255
come tax, surtax and death duties recover for the nation a great part of the increment from this, as from any other source: the whole background to the question has changed since the early days of this century. And it is perhaps worth pointing out that the effect of public action on values is by no means always for the better. If we are to be scrupulous in the pursuit of betterment, on what principle do we exclude the payment of "worsenment"? Finally—and to this point I will return—the effect of the Government's proposals will be that owners of land will not be able to profit by future increases in land value at the expense of the community. It is only where there is no prior public claim—where in fact it is in the public interest to encourage private development—that the owner will derive any benefit from this source.
It has also been said that in abolishing development charge we shall bring about a rise in land prices, with little or no benefit to the developer. Some rise, is of course, to be expected: the owner selling land for development can no longer expect anything from the £300 million fund and must recover the development value from the purchaser. But the Government are confident that purchasers will not normally have to pay so much as they would otherwise have paid by way of purchase price and development charge combined. Indeed, when the market settles down the sale of land may easily prove to be highly competitive, as more land comes to be offered for sale. With the present high cost of servicing land, and of building, there is little scope for the large speculative profits which were once made. The Government will, however, watch the position with care and will look to local authorities to use their powers of compulsory purchase to make land available if there is any sign of development being impeded by the asking of exorbitant prices. Should these powers prove inadequate, the Government will not hesitate to strengthen them.
The second main proposition of the Government—that there should be no general pay-out of the £300 million fund—has, I think, commanded general acceptance. The Government recognise that this will bear hardly on many owners of land—and owners of land are by no means all millionaires—particularly those
256
who have had their land acquired by a public authority at existing use value or who have been restricted in the enjoyment of their land and have been counting on payment of their claims on the £300 million fund being made this summer. It would have been a happy solution had it been possible to provide for early payment in urgent cases, but the changes which the Government are introducing are so far-reaching that it would be quite impossible to make any payments until the main scheme has been enacted. For Parliamentary and other reasons well known to your Lordships, that cannot be until next Session. I can therefore only ask for the patience of those concerned and hope that it may be some consolation that the limit for payment under the Government's scheme will be the full agreed value of the claim, or appropriate part of the claim, and not some arbitrary percentage.
Some good friends of planning have expressed the fear that the effect of paying compensation as and when permission to develop land is refused will be to centralise all decisions in Whitehall and to hamstring planning by making it the servant of the purse. The Government certainly intend that the financial consequences of a decision should take their proper place in influencing that decision. It is a legitimate criticism of the 1947 Act that it encouraged irresponsibility and waste of land by taking values out of planning. But the Government have no intention of changing the whole approach to planning and making Exchequer liability the dominant consideration. Those who fear this should remember that planning is not something concerned merely with "amenity frills" but is the instrument on which we rely to conserve our agricultural land and other resources. The broad pattern of land use will be set by the development plans which are prepared by the local planning authorities and approved by the Ministers concerned.
Before I leave this point, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to a feature of the Government's proposals which represents an attempt to build on the practice of the 1932 and earlier Planning Acts. It is proposed that some forms of planning restriction should not qualify for compensation at all—for example restrictions on the size and

257
design of buildings and on the use to which existing buildings should be put. The principle underlying these exclusions from compensation is that an owner is not entitled as of right to exploit his land to the full, irrespective of the effect on his neighbours or the community, and that there is some degree of restriction to which he may reasonably be subjected without compensation. It may be said that any restriction may prove unreasonable in some circumstances. True: but the remedy for an unreasonable restriction is to remove it, not to compensate for it.
The third, and probably the most controversial, feature of the Government's scheme is the proposal to use the claims admitted for payment from the £300 million fund to set a limit to the compensation payable in respect of development value, whether on a refusal of planning permission or on the compulsory purchase of the land. The Government are adhering to the principle on which the 1947 Act was founded: that compensation should be paid for loss of development value which accrued before that Act became effective, but not for loss of any development value which might accrue in the future. This is essential if effective control over the use of land is to be maintained, because if compensation had always to be paid at the peak value the cost would be absolutely crippling. I have already drawn attention to the floating character of development value, and to the fact that if the prospect of development on one piece of land is extinguished, it merely bobs up elsewhere. Some will say that, even though the compensation payable in respect of planning restrictions is to be limited in this way, compensation in respect of the acquisition of land should none the less be assessed on the basis of current market value. I would agree at once that this question of what compensation should be paid on a compulsory acquisition is in some ways the most difficult of all the problems we have to face; and it is a matter to which the Government have given long and careful consideration.
There are, in effect, only two possible solutions: compensation on the basis of market value, and compensation on the basis of the current value of the land for its existing use, together with the
258
relevant claim on the £300 million fund. Both have their strong points and, unfortunately, their weak. The attractions of payment on the basis of market value are obvious. Technically, it is very much more simple to apply. But we are entering into a time in which the whole country will be covered by a series of published plans, which will show the broad pattern of land use which is proposed. We have yet to see the effect of these plans on values, but obviously it will be profound. Where the plan reveals a prospect of profitable development—where land is reserved for shops or factories—values will tend to rise. Where land is earmarked for less profitable purposes or for public development, values will tend to fall. Payment on the basis of market value would, therefore, be fair neither to the owner nor to the acquiring authority. It would also expose local authorities to the risk of paying for values created by their own improvements—their own roads, sewers and open spaces. Acquisition on the basis proposed by the Government avoids these difficulties. I admit at once that it means that in some cases the owner who is free to sell privately will fare better than the owner whose land is required for some public purpose. But I do not consider it unreasonable that an owner's freedom to make the most of his land should be subject to there being no prior public claim. It is not, I think, saying too much to say that some measure of inequality is the price of getting rid of this hated development it charge, though the equality of the 1947 Act was, I should have thought, theoretical rather than real.
My Lords, at long list I come now to the Bill to which this House is asked to give a Second Reading. I apologise for having dallied so long by the wayside, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is only against the background of the Government's proposals that we can give the Bill proper scrutiny. The Bill itself which, I may here remark, applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales, is a modest affair. It has two main purposes. The first is to abolish development charge; the second is to remove the obligation to distribute the £300 million fund by the end of next June. The remaining provisions are, in a broad sense of the term, consequential

259
in character, but I should like to say a brief word on the two main points.
Clause 1 proposes to abolish development charge in respect of all schemes of development commenced on or after November 18 last, when the Bill was introduced in another place. It has, of course, no effect unless and until it is passed, but in the meantime arrangements have been made whereby the Central Land Board will give their consent to development proceeding without the development charge having been paid or security given. The Government have taken this step to prevent the risk of a general hold-up in development pending the passing of the Bill. The effect of the clause is that if a determination of development charge has been made before November 18, and any part of the development has been started before that date, the whole of the development covered by that determination will remain liable to development charge. Where no determination of development charge has been made but application has been made for a determination, the whole of the development covered by the application will be treated as a unit in the same way. This gives a clear line and is as fair, I think, as in the circumstances it is possible to be. It avoids the difficulty—in some cases one might almost say the impossibility—of trying to apportion the charge between that part of the development carried out before November 18, and that remaining to be done between, it may well be, the walls of a house and the roof. This principle will need some modification in the field of mineral working where development charge is commonly paid by royalties: otherwise, in some cases it might leave a liability stretching into the 1970s. The Government are proposing to meet this difficulty in next Session's legislation by limiting the liability to a set term of years.
Clause 2 cancels the pay-out of the £300 million fund, but provides that claims on the fund shall be satisfied as may be determined afterwards by Act of Parliament. As I have explained, these claims will form the basis of the new compensation scheme. The Government recognise their obligations to those whose land has been acquired by local planning authorities or restricted against development, although it will, regrettably,
260
not be possible to pay them until the main legislation has been passed next Session. With that explanation I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I apologise for having taken such an unconscionable time in doing so. I am sure that there is much which I have left dark, but I am confident and happy in the knowledge that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will be winding up this debate. All further inquiries should be addressed to him. I am confident that even in the Bill, and I hope in my explanation, there is sufficient to convince your Lordships that this is a very important topic, and that the measure is, in fact, a vitally important and necessary Bill. It is certainly one which, with confidence, I commend to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, in concluding his remarks, referred to this Bill as a vitally important and necessary Bill. I would agree that it is an important Bill; but I would not agree about the other two adjectives. At the outset of his remarks, the noble Lord disclaimed any knowledge or great understanding of what was involved in this matter. I do not complain at all; but what he told us was very much what was in the White Paper, and very little else. I agree, of course, that the White Paper is the basis of the Bill. There is little to be said upon the Bill; it is the White Paper which is the foundation of the Bill and which is necessary for its understanding, and it is right that the noble Lord should have devoted most of his speech to explaining the White Paper. The White Paper was not born in 1941. It did not even originate with the Uthwatt Report. Ever since we have been concerned with planning, we have found that there were serious deterrents to the carrying out of effective planning in this country. Before the war, the Barlow Commission was set up in order to find out what was wrong with planning and why it was not working.
I think most of us who have been interested in this subject have understood what we meant when we talked about planning not working. We have only to go to the outskirts of some of our large

261
towns in order to be made to realise what is meant by the failure of planning to work. We see miles of ribbon development, great numbers of areas which have been taken from agriculture and built on, and large towns that have gradually become bigger and bigger. We see how access to the countryside has become more and more difficult, and how areas which should have been dedicated for the purpose of open spaces in the populated and congested parts of towns have been built upon. All these things have happened because planning—however well-intentioned it may have been and however much legislation has been passed—has failed to work. And it failed to work in the end—and this is a matter of general agreement—because we did not solve the twin problems of compensation and betterment. Naturally, and, I think, rightly, there was art obligation on the part of local planning authorities to compensate owners of land when, as a result of planning requirements, they were not allowed to build on their land and to develop it as they would wish. On the other hand, when, as a result of the activity of the community, the value of land appreciated, there was no effective way by which the community were enabled to get the benefit of that increase in value. It is that problem which has occupied the minds of a great many people for a great many years—the problem not necessarily of how we can equate these factors but of how we can, on the one hand, limit compensation to what is reasonable and, on the other hand, secure for the community some part, at any rate, of the value of the efforts of the community which have been expended in connection with the creation of these values.
One of the most remarkable things in the war, in my opinion, was the amount of time which men in high positions devoted, at the height of our peril and in the darkest days, to considering this problem. The House is glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, back here again, apparently—and I hope very much that it is the case—in perfect health once more. He knows about this subject, because he was Chairman of a Committee which gave a great deal of time to studying the problem during the war. The matter would not have taken up the time of the noble Lord and of eminent mem-
262
bers of the Government like the late Mr. Ernest Bevin and the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, who were also on a Committee to study the problem, if it had not been regarded as of vital importance. Right through the war this question of compensation and betterment was kept in mind. We had the Barlow Report, the Uthwatt Report and the Scott Report taking up the attention of important members of the Government. It was a great act of faith; it showed immense confidence in our future. But it was also an indication of how important it was regarded to ensure that in the years after the war we did not return to the same kind of conditions as had existed before the war; that we did not allow what was left of our beautiful country to be destroyed, and large areas of open spaces to be taken up again for building purposes. It was an indication of our keen desire to ensure that in the future building development should take place in the right places in the right conditions.
We were fortunate in having the benefit of the Uthwatt Report, which I fear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rather wrote down as an academic exercise. It was not. We have only to look at the names of the members of the Uthwatt Committee, which were set up as a body of experts. There was the honourable Mr. Justice Uthwatt himself; Mr. James Barr, a Vice-President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; Mr. C. Gerald Eve, a past President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Mr. Raymond Ever shed, K.C., and Mr. James Wylie, barrister-at-law. The names of these men are the guarantee that the Committee were not indulging in a purely academic exercise.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I do not think I used the word "academic." If did so, it was not meant and I should like to apologise. I never intended to cast aspersions on the Uthwatt Report and only suggested that some of the factors governing their considerations then are now a little out of date.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord did not say so in terms, but I got the impression that he regarded the Report of the Uthwatt Committee to-day as somewhat academic—something which was all right

263
at the time but which just has not worked. I think it right to give the names of the Committee's eminent members to establish that they were practical people with a considerable understanding of these problems, who devoted a large amount of time to a study of them and produced a Report which, whatever may be the position to-day, was at the time generally accepted, as the noble Lord said. The Coalition Government produced a White Paper on the Uthwatt Report—and I am afraid that there are going to be a large number of White Papers published before this problem is settled. The present White Paper will certainly not be the last one. The Government of 1944 published a White Paper in which they set out their solution to the problem. I am not going to take the House through the White Paper, but it is interesting to note that where it differed substantially from the Uthwatt Report it agreed with the Bill which was put forward by the Labour Government in 1947. There were minor differences, but the major difference between the Uthwatt Report and the Coalition Government's White Paper was that the Uthwatt Report distinguished between urban and rural land and tried to deal with the two types of land in two different ways, while the Coalition Government came to the conclusion that that was not practicable. The Labour Government came to the same conclusion and dealt with both types of land in exactly the same way.
There was this other difference between the Uthwatt Report and the Coalition White Paper. All Parties agreed that compensation for loss of development value had to be paid, but there was a difference in the method of arriving at the amount of compensation. The Uthwatt Committee recommended the payment of a global sum. The Coalition Government did not favour a global sum. They came to the conclusion that it was wrong to fix any sum at the time and thought we ought to wait five years, by which time experience would have been gained of the way in which the Bill was working and the Government could then decide what was the right method of dealing with compensation. The 1947 Bill came back to the idea of a global sum. I cannot help feeling slightly
264
triumphant about this global sum, because the Uthwatt Committee, making an intelligent guess, thought that £400 million would be about right, but only for the development value of rural land; they left out altogether the development value of urban land, so that if the two had been taken together the amount would have been much greater. We came to the conclusion that that sum was too high. At the time we were told that our figure was not even an intelligent guess, but I can assure your Lordships that it was a little more than a guess. We came to the conclusion that £300 million for the whole of the compensation was about right, and we were not far out.
Although there were differences in certain respects and resemblances in others, by and large the three schemes set out in the Uthwatt Report, the Coalition White Paper and the 1947 Bill were not very different. They represented—and I want to emphasise this—the results of many years consideration by some of the best and most qualified brains in the country, and it was thought that a settlement of this question had been arrived at. It necessitates very strong reasons indeed to set aside such a settlement. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was quite right in saying that there were criticisms of the 1947 Bill as it passed through Parliament; there were criticisms of the global sum, but it was an agreed measure. There was very little dispute about the planning provisions and there was not so much dispute as I had anticipated upon the financial provisions, especially having regard to the fact that the Bill had to be carried through another place under the guillotine. I think I can say that so far as a measure of this kind can be an agreed measure and so far as a policy can be generally accepted in this country of intense political controversy, town planning had been taken out of the field of political controversy. Therefore it requires very strong reasons to depart from this agreed settlement.
I listened to the noble Lord to hear his reasons for departing from this agreement, and I have read the White Paper. The noble Lord gave the reasons stated in the White Paper and I did not expect him to do otherwise; but when one comes to look at these reasons and see why the Government are throwing the whole of the problem into the melting pot once more—because that is what they are

265
doing—one cannot help feeling that the reasons are singularly inadequate and certainly uncompelling. I can see the reason why the Government dislikes the issue of £300 million of stock at any one time, and I can even understand the argument about inflation, although I do not accept the view that it would have had an inflationary effect. It would have had an inflationary effect only if people had taken the script and tried to use it for the purpose of increasing their personal expenditure; therefore the only way in which more money could have been spent by them would be by other people, who already had the cash, buying the script. It would not have increased the amount of cash available for expenditure. The script could have been transferred only from one person to another. Therefore I do not think there is anything in the point about inflation.
The noble Lord also pointed out, as, indeed, is mentioned in the White Paper, that a number of undeserving or unnecessary claims have been passed, and so people have been receiving an unexpected bonus for which they have not asked. I do not believe that is true. I have seen something of the working of the assessment of these claims, and I can assure your Lordships that, where there was no desire on the part of the owner to develop his land, few claims passed through the district valuers. There was, of course, Section 63 of the Act, containing the de minimis provisions, which in any case wiped out large numbers of claims where the development value was less than a certain amount an acre, or represented less than 10 per cent. of the value of the land. All that went out automatically. These claims were assessed by the district valuer with a fine toothcomb, and I think it will be found that few which were actually passed through were accepted. There is, for instance, the type of claim in which an owner of land alleges that his land has developed in value, but where in all probability he would not have developed his land for many years. The district valuers introduced a term known as the deferment factor. They took the view that, if land was not going to be developed for twenty years, then the current development value had to be discounted by this deferment factor; and in many cases, as a result of the operation of the deferment factor, the actual
266
amount of the claim vanished almost to zero. All kinds of means were adopted by the district valuers to keep the claims down. I doubt very much whether many people obtained claims which were not justified.
The noble Lord may have forgotten that there is a prevision in the Act under which the Treasury were required, in the last year before payment out, to make a scheme for the payment out of the £300 million. In that scheme they could, if they had so chosen, have eliminated the undeserving people: the owners of golf courses—they are always quoted as the least deserving—or those people who bought land in order to preserve their garden. The scheme could have provided that such cases should not participate in the £300 million. If the Government, as a result of that, had come to the conclusion that £300 million was too much, nobody would have seriously complained if they had brought in a two or three clause measure, such as they are doing now, for the reduction of the £300 million. But I submit that no reason has been shown for throwing the whole thing overboard
We now come to the development charge. I am not going to examine the White Paper meticulously on the question of the effects of claims for compensation, the development value, and so on. I am not going to try to establish that there will be great anomalies as between one type of person and another. From the White Paper as it stands there will be; but I recognise that one of the objects of this debate is to discuss the White Paper and to point out such anomalies as will exist, in order to help the Government to deal with them in their Bill. I should prefer, therefore, to reserve my detailed criticisms of the White Paper until I see what the actual proposals are. As the White Paper stands, on the question of compensation it is full of anomalies as between me land-owner and another. For instance, the land-owner whose land has been taken over by the local authority will get the existing use value, plus the amount of his claim, based on 1947 values. The land-owner whose land is not taken over is free to sell his land at the market price. The probabilities are that the market price will be considerably higher than the 1947 development value plus the existing use. There-

267
fore, possibly as between two adjoining land-owners, the one whose land is, quite fortuitously, perhaps, chosen as land to be acquired for public purposes, is going to suffer considerably.
There is a further point that I should like to mention on this aspect of the question before I leave it. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—and it is clear from the White Paper that it is the intention—rather pinned his hope on the fact that a settlement had been made, once and for all, on the amount of development value, based upon 1947 values; that the Government were never going to pay more than the 1947 development value by way of compensation, whenever compensation fell due to be paid. If an owner of land desired to develop in ten, fifteen or twenty years' time, and he was refused, and it was not a case of unneighbourly development, then there it was, all ticketed up, and he would get his 1947 development value as compensation. Of course, that was made the basis of the argument that here was a ceiling and it could never cost the community more than the £350 million, which is the aggregate of all the development claims. But does the noble Lord really believe that in ten or fifteen years' time, or perhaps even in five years' time, you will be able to hold the 1947 values?
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will remember that an attempt was made in the Coalition White Paper, and by the Labour Government, to hold values down to 1939 values. We did not get very far with that. There was such an outcry against the 1939 values, even with the addition of 40 per cent. and 60 per cent.—and quite rightly—that in the 1947 Bill we had to abandon 1939 values. The same sort of arguments will arise about the 1947 development claims. If the local authority sought to acquire land compulsorily, and to pay compensation in part on the basis of 1947 values, the owner could quite legitimately argue: "This is all very fine, but what am I to do with the money? I want enough money to enable me to buy a similar piece of land elsewhere, and I shall have to pay the market value for it. You ought to compensate me on the market value." Therefore, the Government seem to me to be living in a fool's paradise in imagining that they can hold
268
compensation down for all time, or even in the relatively near future, to 1947 values.
Now I wish to say a word or two about the development charge. I think the Government have been rather hasty in abandoning this very valuable weapon. I admit that the public relations of the Labour Government might not have been all that they should have been; they were not as good at blowing their trumpets as they might have been or in explaining the effects of the 1947 Act as well as they could. Perhaps they had a very bad exponent of the Act. It may be that the present Government will find themselves in much the same difficulty in trying to explain the transport levy. I wonder whether the "C" licence holders will be very impressed with the reasons that will be given for their having to pay a levy in respect of vehicles which they have always had and which they have now. There is no change at all in their circumstances, but they are being charged the levy. These things do not affect the rightness of the question, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would be the last to say that because a thing is difficult to explain, therefore it must be abandoned. I wish I had thought of that argument in connection with the levy on the "C" licence holders.
But the question is: Is a development charge right, and is it the solution to the problem? For many years all Parties thought that it was. I admit that it is an unpopular charge—all charges are unpopular. I do not know that it is any more unpopular than the levy on companies among people who have to pay it—of course, it is only unpopular among people who pay it—or whether it is more unpopular than the surtax. No charge is a popular charge, and one cannot settle these things on the basis of whether they are clearly explained, as I think they should be, or whether they are popular. The question is: Is a development charge a solution to the problem, and is it right? Over and over again members of the Government have said that they accept the principle as right. They said so in the 1944 White Paper. They accepted the principle, and thought it was right that people should contribute towards the increases in the value of their land brought about by public improvements. The Government have to explain why they

269
have departed from what they thought for many years was the right principle. Frankly, what I fear is that there will be nothing to put in the place of the development charge (because, however much the noble Lord may say that the two are not connected, there is a very close connection between income and expenditure; if one balances the other it has a very good effect) with the result that, as time goes on, all Governments, and not necessarily the present one, will become increasingly reluctant to pay compensation without getting anything in return.
This compensation may amount to big figures. I believe the noble Lord and the Government are fooling themselves if they think that they are going to get away with small figures by way of compensation. I believe they are going to be fairly substantial, and this Bill and the Bill that is coming next Session will be a direct incitement to people to put in claims for development which they might not otherwise have done, and which it will be very difficult to resist. Then, I fear, the Treasury will take a hand. The Treasury has not changed its characteristics since this White Paper was introduced. The business of the Treasury—and I do not complain—is to see that expenditure is reduced as much as possible. It is not going to give the local planning authorities anything like a free hand in deciding upon whether development is desirable or not merely from the point of view of the public interest as they see it. There will be pressure put upon the local planning authorities; they will be given instructions how to act, and when there is a particularly costly piece of development which they want to turn down they will be told that they have to take into consideration the fact that this places a burden upon the Exchequer.
What is going to be the result? Take the areas around the large towns. A person may want to develop land in an area which the local planning authority desire to preserve as a green belt. The local planning authority may be disposed to reject the application. I fear that they will have pressure put upon them to allow it. I fear that, if the developer appeals, the question of compensation will become an important factor in the decision on the appeal. It will not be decided purely on planning grounds, and we shall get an accentuation of the bad development
270
which we saw in the inter-war years to a constantly growing extent. We shall find our green belts going; we shall not be able to preserve open spaces, and generally we shall have the negation of planning which existed before. In any case, I believe it is a bad system that one authority should be responsible for making a decision without any financial responsibility for that decision. In any case it is bad from an administrative point of view. I remember the days during the war when local authorities were in certain instances given a 100 per cent. grant. One saw a certain amount of irresponsibility when the local authority had no financial responsibility for its actions. The Exchequer footed the bill, and I fear that this is going to be much the same thing and that we shall find to an increasing extent that the Treasury are going to be the masters of planning and decide it.
I apologise for the amount of time that I have taken. I am afraid that I have not anything like covered the White Paper, but noble Lords will have gathered from what I save said that I do not like it. I think it is unnecessary. I do not consider that the Government have given the Act a fair trial. Many of the defects which they allege exist could have been cured by administration or by a certain amount of legislation. I think the unevenness—which I do not dispute—in the administration of the assessment of development charge could have been cured by giving developers an appeal against the amount of development charge. One might have reduced the percentile to 80 per cent., as the Coalition White Paper recommended. One could have done a great many things before abandoning the structure. It is because I believe the Government have been hasty and premature in abandoning this great structure, which has grown up as the result of an immerse amount of good will and hard work and thought, that I feel the Government are making a very great mistake. I believe that this is by no means the last word that will be said on this subject. We have not by any means settled the question by issuing a White Paper; and I am afraid that this House will be troubled frequently in the future with an endeavour to find an answer to this problem until eventually we arrive at a satisfactory solution.

SHOOTING DOWN OF BRITISH BOMBER
4.1 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, by leave of the House I should like to make a statement similar to one which has been made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place, in answer to a Question on the Order Paper. It relates to the shooting down of the Lincoln aircraft. The statement is as follows:
"No new facts about the shooting down of the Lincoln aircraft in Germany on March 12 have been revealed since I described this matter to the House a week ago. The House will have noted, however, that General Chuikov, the head of the Soviet Control Commission in Germany, has sent a Note to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in which the Russian authorities have expressed regret at the death of the Lincoln's crew. But they have not yet replied to Her Majesty's Government's request for the punishment of those responsible for this outrage and for due reparation to be made for the loss of life and property. General Chuikov has also proposed a conference of Russian and British representatives to discuss measures to avoid further events of this kind. Her Majesty's Government are giving urgent consideration to this proposal in consultation with the United States and French authorities, to whom General Chuikov sent copies of his Note."
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord for the statement which he has just made. I think he will agree with me that the Note sent by General Chuikov to the British High Commissioner was couched in very conciliatory terms. There are two points which I should like to put to the noble and gallant Lord, arising out of his statement. The first is this. There still appears to be a discrepancy between the evidence advanced by the British Government and that advanced by the Soviet authorities.
272
General Chuikov, in his Note to Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, refers to the aircraft in question as a York. I imagine that he is referring to the other 'plane concerned. I understand from the noble and gallant Lord, however, that the second 'plane was also a Lincoln. Is he in a position to answer that particular point?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. General Chuikov's Note to Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick referred to an aircraft of the York type, but we know of no York aircraft in the vicinity of the zonal border on that date. On the other hand, there was a second Lincoln aircraft of Flying Training Command which, as the noble Lord says, was "buzzed" soon afterwards. I have no doubt that there was some confusion over the identity of this aircraft.
LORD HENDERSON: The second question I should like to put to the noble and gallant Lord is this. His statement deals with two quite separate points, the first being the question of reparations, and so on, in respect of the Lincoln bomber which was shot down. This, I take it, will continue to be dealt with as a separate issue. The second point is the Russian suggestion of a conference to discuss measures to avoid further events of this kind. I can well understand the need for consultations to take place between the British authorities and the authorities of the United States and France. I hope that there will be no doubt that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go into the conference.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, again the noble Lord is right; there are two separate points. We are quite clear about our claim for compensation or reparations. Clearly, too, it is a matter of the highest importance that we should try to achieve a viable system to prevent any repetition of infringement of frontiers. I am not going to say any more about the matter at the moment, except to repeat that we are giving it urgent consideration, in consultation with the United States and France.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
4.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft went pretty wide in his speech and discussed the White Paper as well as the Bill. In fact, he did not get on to the Bill until a quarter past three. I make no complaint about that, because I think this is a subject which ought to be seen against the background of events as they have occurred in the last few years. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in a powerful and valuable speech, delivered with all his great knowledge and experience, also went wide in his consideration of this matter. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will excuse me if I, too, go a little wide and deal very shortly with a special aspect of the matter—I refer to the effect of this Bill upon blitzed towns.
I have been visiting Swansea and I was asked by responsible people there to bring before your Lordships some of their difficulties—difficulties which have not been altogether met by the legislation now in force and which are likely. I think, to be greatly increased as a result of the legislation now proposed. Your Lordships may know that Swansea was very badly damaged in two air raids that were made in quick succession during the early part of the war. Practically the whole of the central part of the shopping part of the town was destroyed, with the result that merchants and traders had to go to the suburbs, as it were, and take dwelling-houses there in order to carry on their business. Anyone who knew Swansea in the old days and who saw it again after the blitz would be heartbroken at the sight of the great devastation in the town. I was glad to note, on my recent visit, that a good deal of building has now been done and that shops are getting back into business. Business generally is being restored. This business centre is in the heart of a big industrial area and it will again become a busy centre.
Swansea, however, like other blitzed towns, will not only be faced with the difficulties confronting other towns, as instanced so clearly by my noble friend Lord Silkin—that is to say, they will have the common difficulties of development
274
that all towns will have to face—butwill also have all the additional difficulties which blitzed towns will have to face. And perhaps with Swansea the difficulties will be exceptionally great. Quite apart from the loss of life and property, one of the first impacts felt by a town which is blitzed is the loss of its rateable value, in the form of its rate yield. In order to overcome this loss, the Government of the time made cash advances or provided interest-tree loans. In Swansea's case, it was contended, on the cessation of hostilities, that the productivity of the penny rate had restored itself and that the town had not exceeded its balance during the period of war. The whole of the money advanced to the town was therefore reclaimed by the Government, so that, in effect, Swansea received no financial assistance whatsoever. By adopting the yardstick of the productivity of the penny rate, sight is lost of the fact that Swansea's productivity was restored only as a result of a vast outlay of money on housing estates. Whilst the product of the penny rate did, in fact, become greater than that of pre-war days, the cost of the restoration completely outweighed the benefits of the increased productivity.
As your Lordships know, corporation assets are by no means assets without liabilities. They demand new services—roads, sewers, schools, clinics, police and so on; and, on top of that, the corporation are bound to find a subsidy from rates towards the capital cost of the houses. So that housing is only one instance of the additional burdens placed upon a blitzed town such as Swansea, for which no special financial assistance is available. The total loss of rateable value in Swansea cost them about £120,000, and until the recent reconstruction Swansea lost the product of rates varying from 20s. to 23s. in the £ on a rateable value of £120,000 for a period of twelve years. Under the existing Act, the annual grant bears no relation to the needs of the local authority. It is constructed in relation to capital spending on an hypothetical basis. According to public statements made immediately after the war, blitzed towns were to receive 90 per cent. of their expenditure. The regulations have been so framed that in Swansea the total expenditure from April, 1946, to March, 1953, of £99,002 has been met by a grant of £38,135 and rates of £60,867.

275
The debt charges amount to £108,382, and instead of a grant of 90 per cent., the grant received is only £38,135, as I have mentioned.
I do not think there is any need for me to stress this case further. It will be clearly seen that towns such as Swansea are already in considerable difficulties. There is a great burden on their ratepayers to meet the existing requirements, owing to their special position, and I am very much afraid that Swansea will not only have to bear these disabilities, which it has borne courageously all through, but in addition will have to meet the further disabilities so clearly foreseen by my noble friend Lord Silkin this afternoon.
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I wish to say a few words from the point of view of those who are trying to administer town planning schemes. It is natural for anyone in that position to try to estimate the effect of any new Bill on what they are trying to do. For one reason or another, it has not been easy to carry out even the simplest plans in recent years. Like everybody else, we have suffered from restrictions on building and on capital development. We have to contend with Government Departments who are not under local planning control, who ask for land for every kind of purpose, very often at short notice. Then we have had changes in legislation. The Act of 1947 has itself been changed a good deal since it came into being. It seems to me that planning calls for all those British characteristics of dogged and cheerful perseverance on which we so rightly pride ourselves as a nation.
Without detailed knowledge of the Government's proposals it is difficult to say exactly what the effect of this Bill and White Paper will be. The most obvious query, which has already been mentioned, I might broadly describe as the question of Treasury control. Under the 1932 Act, local authorities had to pay all the compensation themselves, and therefore money became the single most important consideration in planning. We had to cut our coat very much according to our cloth. Then, under the Act of 1947, all that was changed. We were told to plan without any regard to compensation; and that is, indeed, what we
276
did. Now the Government propose a sort of half-way house: we have got to have some regard to compensation costs, but from the White Paper alone it is difficult to see how much. We have, however, been given assurances by the Ministers—I think they were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to-day—that we shall not have to start all over again with our development plan, and I gather that the economy that we have to effect will be in regard more to detail than to general principle: that is to say, if there is a green belt drawn up in our development plan, that green belt will remain, but there may be some odd corners knocked off. We are grateful for these assurances, which we accept entirely. I cannot quite see how the Minister can bind any other Minister, still less any other Government, but we can hope that by the time our present Minister has finished his term of office the majority of the development plans will have been approved by him and will thereafter be much more difficult to alter.
Another point on which I am somewhat alarmed is the question of procedure, because, however wisely the Minister exercises his discretion, there must be some machinery to exercise it to deal with cases, possibly a large number of cases, coming from all over the country. Let us consider what he has to decide. Is the planning authority right in refusing consent to build? If they are right and if he backs them up, is compensation payable, or is it to be excluded on the grounds of unneighbourliness, or because the application is a bogus application, or because it is a premature application? What is the meaning of the somewhat cryptic proviso to Clause 2 which says that compensation will be payable
"in such manner, in such cases, to such extent, at such times and with such interest"
as Parliament may hereafter determine. That seems to me almost a masterpiece of Civil Service self-restraint. I fear we shall have a situation where the Government will be apprehensive about being exploited by unscrupulous owners, and the owners will be equally alarmed at the prospect, if I may put it vulgarly, of "being done out of" their legitimate compensation by a grasping Government. This situation will give great scope for litigation or, at least, argument, with a

277
good deal of expense and delay. As the only non-lawyer who has so far taken part in this discussion, I find that an alarming prospect, though others may not.
I should like to put forward one suggestion which is not my own but is one which I have heard and which seems to me to contain the possibility of reducing the great numbers of cases which I fear will otherwise arise. The suggestion is that if an owner claims compensation, the Government should grant it readily, but on the condition that the owner thereby sells his building right in that land to the State: and if thereafter he wants to develop, he must buy back the building right on the State's own terms. It would really amount to a reintroduction of the development charge, but on an optional or voluntary basis. The owner really would be exercising an option. He would have to decide whether to sell his rights or keep them, knowing that, unless his land was to be sterilised for all time, if he did keep his rights he might at some future date enjoy the full market value. Speaking as an owner myself, I should certainly Clink several times before claiming compensation in such circumstances, except in a very clear-cut case. I would respectfully ask Her Majesty's Government to consider that suggestion.
Now I want to turn to compulsory acquisition, a subject which has been gone into by Lord Silkin and which has been described by my noble friend Lord Mancroft as a very difficult matter. The proposal in the White Paper really amounts to the conclusion that henceforth there are to be two values in land, according to whether it is to be bought by private individuals or by public authorities. I agree with Lord Silkin in thinking that that will lead to some very anomalous situations, because in the course of years A will sell to B and B will sell to C—all quite legitimate transactions at market value; then suddenly, perhaps the British Electricity Authority will decide to establish a transformer station on C's land, and the price they will pay for it may have no relationship whatsoever to what the owner may just have paid. I suppose the price might conceivably be more, but it would much more likely be less; and in the case of land to which there had been attached no claim it would be considerably less.
278
I know that in general principle the House agrees with town and country planning, but I have noticed that noble Lords are inclined to attribute to planning authorities a good deal of callousness about owners' rights. I myself served on a deputation to the Ministry on this particular point. I can assure your Lordships that most local authorities very much dislike having to single out a particular owner for harsh treatment—in fact, they may easily be tempted to look around for other land, although it might be less suitable, so as to avoid giving rise to these difficulties. I do not see how the development plan can really give a great deal of information to an intending purchaser. A great deal of the development plan, particularly in rural areas, is not sufficiently exact or defined to give that degree of information and, as I said before, Government Departments often act in quite unpredictable ways. Whatever abstract logic there may be behind this suggestion, the Government ought really to think several times before setting off on an entirely new series of anomalies which may seem to the public at large to be ridiculous. It will seem ridiculous to the public if one plot of land is to be sold at possibly one quarter of the value of the next plot of land, by reason of a sort of combination of chances. For other technical reasons I think there is a strong case for asking that all public purchases of land should be at assessed market value. If political expediency does not permit this, I think that local authorities ought to be given some discretion to buy by agreement if they think fit. After all, they are responsible to their own ratepayers for the money they spend.
This leads me to my last point—namely, the prospect of profiteering in land and the Government's proposals to counteract it. Under the plans building will be restricted for a certain number of years to certain areas, but apart from compulsory acquisition prices will be left to the market. Will this tend to put up the price of land? I do not suppose that even the greatest expert would stake his reputation on prophesying exactly what will happen to land values as a result of this Bill; but the Government are clearly nervous about it and, as I understand it, they propose to put local authorities rather in the position of umpires, to see fair play. If there is profiteering in land, the local

279
authorities are to step in and buy compulsorily for resale. I do not believe that this scheme will work any better than a similar scheme worked under the 1947 Act. That Act is now being repealed, one reason for that being that land did not readily change hands. Yet the Central Land Board and the local authorities had a similar power, and were charged to prevent this sort of thing happening, by stepping in and buying if land did not come naturally on to the market. Now the Act is being repealed. But it remains true that the Central Land Board and the local authorities used their powers only in an infinitesimal number of cases—and one wonders why.
This question requires analysing. What is profiteering? It may interest the House to know that, in the eyes of some local authorities, the worst culprits to-day are to be found in the New Towns Corporations. This matter is now under discussion. I have no doubt that the Corporations will be found to have good reasons for charging astronomical amounts for their land—so will a number of other people when it comes to examining the matter. I suggest that for one clear-cut case of profiteering there will be ninety-nine borderline cases. When this difficulty is surmounted, at what price do local authorities sell their land? To whom should they sell it? Will they sell on some selective basis below market value? Will not that give rise to a great deal of suspicion of favouritism and "jiggery-pokery"? Is it suggested that they should sell the land for as much as they can get for it? The latter course may indeed help the rates, but should local authorities be encouraged to speculate in land? I believe there are other reasons why local authorities would be quite as ready as any private individual to profiteer in land. There are many local authorities to-day who are not at all keen on selling land for the purpose of its being developed for small building, in relation to which the owners are likely to take more out of the rates than they put in through their rate contributions. In any case, I do not believe that a policy of vague threats will work. I do not think it would be fair, either to the local authority or to the owner. It may be that the solution will be found in the time programme. If the authorities really feel that the develop-
280
ment is not proceeding according to the programme laid down in their programme maps, they may, under careful safeguard, seek powers to auction the land over the owner's head; but I think that would be conceivable only in very difficult cases—it should be applied only in rare and glaring cases.
In conclusion, may I say that I hope I have not given an impression of hostility or even of undue criticism of this Bill? Candidly, I believe that everyone—including noble Lords opposite—is rather groping in the dark for a solution of this extremely complicated problem. All I have been trying to do is to put a few modest ideas into the pool. It may be that, with all the excellent advice which the Government are receiving—notwithstanding that much of it is in contrary directions—they will be enabled to produce a kind of final Bill, a Bill to end all Bills. I should be very pleased, but also very surprised, if they did.
4.30 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords. I am pleased to be able to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Gage who has just sat down, for he has raised several interesting points of which I hope the Government, in their turn, will take cognisance. When we do get to the promised Bill in the autumn, I hope it will deal comprehensively with the subject, and then—as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said—we on this side of the House shall be able to examine carefully the proposals which the Government put forward. I now wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, for the interesting speech which he made on what he described as a rather dull and humdrum subject. He kept us fully interested and alive to the difficulties which he had to face. Having an interest in the same county as that in which the noble Lord is also interested. I think it is right that I should congratulate him from this side of the House. He dealt very fairly with the position of the Government, but that position at the moment is, in my view, a rather invidious one. I consider that the Bill is a little slipshod, and that it bears the marks of haste. I think it would have been far better if it had been made possible for us to deal now with the whole subject.
The noble Lord said that the Bill covered three specific points which arose

281
from the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. I think that this is—I will not use the word improper, but rather a hasty way of dealing with something which the Government are hoping, perhaps, to put right. I think we shall all agree that some amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, are necessary. It is within the knowledge of all of us that complaints have been received that irksome regulations or irksome practices have had to be endured. It is certain, also, as has already been remarked, that the public were not fully alive to the implications of that particular Act. But those matters which called for some alteration could, I think, have been dealt with in company with other matters which the Government might wish to have changed.
The points with which we are to deal this afternoon are important in themselves—I do not hesitate for one moment to say that. But I think it is not irrelevant for me, at this stage, to quote what the Minister said in another place. Speaking during the Second Reading debate he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 508, col. 1124):
"I must recognise frankly that it is a serious thing for one Government to interfere with the obligations of a former Government."
I think that is what the Government are, in fact, trying to do in the Bill which is now before the House. I believe it would have been better for them to come forward with some new legislation if necessary, but not legislation such as we have had to deal with during the last few weeks and are dealing with to-day, legislation designed simply with a view to setting aside something which a former Government brought into operation. I hope, therefore, that this may be an end of what I call piecemeal legislation. Planning is a difficult problem. The noble Viscount who has just sat down has outlined various anomalies which may arise, and I am not at all sure that plans which the Government envisage under the present will work. They may deal with a present emergency, but in the long run I am sure—and in this I am backed up by the opinion of specialists—it will not be possible to operate their plans; for very many reasons they will not work. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said that the development charge is to go, that the
282
compensation fund is to be operated to present figures, the rest is to remain in abeyance, and that future purchases of land by local authorities will not call for any contribution from the compensation fund unless a claim has already been lodged or unless that land is subject to a claim.
I can foresee that in the future there will be a good deal of unfairness in dealing with the purchase of land, either by the local authorities or by people who are given permission to develop, in regard to the price which is to be paid and on the question of whether or not any compensation is to come from the compensation fund. People who are concerned at that time will think it very unfair—mention has already been made of this—that one person, by being allowed to sell his or her land in an open free market, should be put in a more advantageous position than a person who has suffered restriction of his or her land, or whose land has been purchased by the local authority, either at use value or at that value plus compensation from the fund. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was wondering whether the price of land would rise. The belief is widely held that directly this Bill becomes an Act the price of land will automatically rise, and that people will hold out for increased value. That increased value of land will be detrimental to those who wish to develop. I can foresee that those who wish to develop their estates will be at a greater disadvantage through the operation of this Fill, although that perhaps is not within the intention of the Government.
There is another point, touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, which I think worthy of consideration—that is, the unfairness which may be created in years to come when new areas are developed for housing and new towns. Some of the land will be purchased at the then use value, which may be the agricultural value. The land around the area which is to be developed will thus acquire a value far in excess of agricultural land; but whereas the land required for development may be purchased at a comparatively low value, the land held by other owners outside the area of development, which eventually would become ripe for development, will have to be purchased at a much higher price. There is also the position of local

283
councils to be taken into consideration. Under this Bill it is within their power to purchase land either for themselves or for anyone else who wishes to develop, to the detriment possibly of owners or sellers of land. I do not think it is the proper province of local corporations to enter into purchases of land which is required either for private small development or private large development. I can foresee that there will be many disputes in local councils about whether land should be purchased or not, and it may be detrimental to the interests of local government if these powers are allowed to operate.
The question of the payment of interest on claims met from the compensation fund has been mentioned, and possibly the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack may be able to give me some information about this. I believe it is proposed by the Government that these claims should bear interest at 2½ per cent. from 1948, when the Act came into operation. About five years have passed and the land of the recipients of that interest will have increased in value by one-eighth. I wonder whether the interest will be treated as tax-bearing interest or as capital appreciation. That point was mentioned in another place, but I do not think the Government have made an announcement in that respect. My own view is that the provisions of any planning Act should be fair as between owners and fair as between the State and private owners. I am not at all certain that this Bill in its essence is fair, either as between owners or as between the State and private owners. I want to finish on a point mentioned by the Minister in another place during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill there. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, vol. 508, col. 1116):
"Now, of course, it might be argued that values should be paid for as they accrue—in other words, compensation should not be fixed to 1947 value. That is a fair point, but there are two answers to that. First, in many cases these values will have to be created by the efforts of the community, and secondly, the land owners have had no expectation of receiving more than the 1947 claim."
Certain owners, of course, will receive compensation on the basis of their 1947 claims. But I believe that all values which have been created essentially by the efforts of the community should remain
284
with the community and not be handed over in any form to private owners of land.
4.49 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble your Lordships for long this afternoon. I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Silkin, are not in the House at the moment, because I was going to make some comments on their speeches, certainly on that of Lord Ogmore. I thought the way he put forward the difficulties of Swansea was delightful but, wide though the subject of town and country planning is, I could not see how Swansea's difficulties either arose under the 1947 Act or would be affected by the Bill we are discussing. I wonder whether it was because he found so little to complain of in the Bill, that he adopted the method of the advocate who has not a good case and talks about something completely outside it. We had interesting speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Wise. Lord Silkin spoke in a restrained way, considering that a part of his own particular baby, as it were, is up for slaughter—if you can slaughter part and not the whole of a baby: I am afraid that my metaphor is getting slightly mixed.
Clearly, it would have been difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce £300 million, at any rate all in one year, to pay compensation. I have grave doubt whether, if the late Socialist Government had continued in office, they would have found it easy to do that. One of the attributes of the Socialist Government was that they did not mind spending money, and a great many of our difficulties to-day have been caused by that very fact. They did not seem to mind spending money—true, it was other people's money; and the £300 million rather came into that category at that time. I thought it was rather naive of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when he said: "Our global estimate, after all, did not prove to be far out." It was £50 million out. Although in these days we are used to talking in millions, to me £50 million still seems quite a substantial sum. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also said that he thought the Government had been too hasty in abolishing the development charge, and he felt that it may have been due to the fact that he, or others, had not been very good at publicity. That is not

285
why people disliked the development charge. It was because it was a bad scheme. First of all, it covered far too many kinds of development. In regard to claims, the de minimis claims were cut out, but there was a lot of de minimis about development charge; and development charge was levied on all sorts of small developments, such as changing the front room of a house in a village from a sitting room into a shop. In the case that I have in mind the charge did not alter the size or shape of the house at all, yet a development charge was levied. What people disliked about the development charge was that it has haphazard; that it was decided behind closed doors, and that there was no appeal from the amount decided behind those closed doors. Those were the main reasons why people disliked the development charge, and I must say, quite contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I think it is a good thing that we have largely dispensed with it.
The whole scheme under which the financial parts of the 1947 Act were supposed to work did not work in practice. It was supposed that if the land-owner had been compensated for his development rights, he would ask only for present user value for his land, and would be prepared to sell his land for development at present user value. From the point of view of any land-owner who lives in the neighbourhood of the land he is selling, it is far preferable to have it as agricultural land than to have it built upon. The inducement that some landlords have to develop their land is the additional price they can obtain for it. But if, under the terms of the Act, they have already been paid compensation—the difference between present user and the development value of the land—then there is no inducement for them to sell the land for development when it is preferable to see it either still under grass or used for arable farming, as the case may be. So the incentive for people to sell, unless they had to sell up in the case of bankruptcy, to meet death duties, or something of that sort, had literally gone, and the land was thus entirely withdrawn from the market for development purposes. That is where the scheme, as a scheme, failed.
There is a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about Governments being increasingly inclined to avoid
286
paying compensation. That is something which will obviously have to be guarded against under the now scheme that the Government have brought forward. If the Treasury allow, say, only £5 million or £10 million a year, then somebody will have to bring pressure on the planning authority to allow a development to take place, for the simple reason that there will be no funds in the kitty to pay compensation if they stick to their original planning ideas. That is a risk that must be guarded against. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also referred to the fact that, unlike the Uthwatt Committee, both the Coalition White Paper on planning and that issued by the Socialist Government before the 1947 Act was brought in, treated urban and rural land differently. I am not sure that those two White Papers are right. I myself should like to see a scheme whereby, even if some form of development charge were retained for rural areas—not including the petty provisions of the old one, but some general form—anybody would be allowed to develop anywhere where there had been a building without any sort of development charge. That would give encouragement to builders to rebuild in built-up areas, to rebuild some of the single-storey slum dwellings, and to get more density per acre by building modern flats in those places. Such flats would be very useful, particularly if provided with lifts, as I think they should be, and they would help to prevent the spread of urban development over a lot of agricultural land.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that before planning was undertaken there had been a deplorable spread of ribbon development—a statement with which I fully agree—and urban development over some of the best agricultural land. But I cannot free from that accusation some of the new towns of which the noble Lord himself was the founder. They have often been put on sites of good agricultural land when they should have gone on the lighter heath lands, of which we have a great deal in this country. Be that as it may, I think we should try to get some encouragement to redevelop built-up sites and so prevent this large spread of towns. Toe noble Lord, Lord Wise, and I (and he was a very good companion, if I may say so) went on a tour of New Zealand together. They will have exactly the same problem there.

287
They have a very pleasant idea that everybody should have his house in a nice piece of ground which can be cultivated. But the cities of New Zealand are spreading over quite valuable tracts of good agricultural land, and because of this spread, people have to travel further to their work. I should like to see all planning authorities trying to make the best use of land that is already built upon before they stretch it further and grasp more of our agricultural land for building development.
This Bill is, of course, only a temporary measure. It is a measure to save the Treasury from having to put its hand into the till and producing £300 million this year. I fancy that any Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he came to the point, would have put forward, or got his Minister of Town and Country Planning to put forward, a very similar measure. This is the interim measure. Later on in the year we shall have the main one, and I hope that in it we shall have, if possible, some provision to encourage the rebuilding of town areas and the sparing of as much agricultural land as possible.
5.4 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Lord who has just spoken, and to whose speech we have listened with great interest, that my noble friend asked me to apologise to him for not being present. As a matter of fact, he rose out of a sick bed to take part in this debate, and he regrets that he was having a little rest and was not actually present to hear the criticism which the noble Lord has just made about his absence.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for saying that. I was not making any personal criticism of the noble Lord. I was only saying that in the course of the debate I was going to comment upon points made by the noble Lord, and I was sorry from my own personal point of view that he was not here. I know how assiduous he is in his attendance at the House but, of course, he had a right to be away.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: With regard to some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, it seemed to me that he was criticising one of my noble friends for not dealing very much
288
with the subject under discussion. He seems to warrant a good deal of criticism himself, because he devoted most of his time to attacking the 1947 Act, and what we are discussing to-day is not the merits of the 1947 Act, but the merits of the Government White Paper and general policy. On that, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, gave us very little of his wise advice.
In common with the majority of Members of your Lordships' House, I ought first to declare at the outset a direct personal interest in the subject matter of this Bill and the Government White Paper. My interest is exceedingly small, but I have a claim on the compensation fund and I have bought an additional tiny plot of land since the passing of the 1947 Act. In common with noble Lords, I also share the opinion which has been put forward on all sides that this is an exceedingly complicated subject, and I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, himself would claim that the super-imposition of the Government scheme on the 1947 Act has made the subject simpler and has reduced it to more limited proportions. That is true, whatever view we take of the merits of the Government's scheme. I could not help thinking that on that question of merits, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rather soft pedalled the difference between the 1947 Act and the Government proposal to-day. I think that one who did not understand the subject at all might even have supposed that the Government proposals were merely modifications of the 1947 Act, whereas I should say that, broadly speaking, they throw the baby out with the bath—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—and that what is left is a very small part of the baby when the bathwater and most of the baby has been thrown out.
I suppose we all agree that the 1947 Act has not worked as most people who sponsored it expected it would. Those people, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has frankly admitted, were not merely the Labour Government; they were people on both sides of politics who were carrying out broadly the proposals of the Uthwatt Committee. Those proposals have not worked for the reasons which have been given on both sides of the House, and on that there is very little divergence of opinion. But whether there should have been, or whether the present

289
Government should have made, certain modifications, or whether it should have taken the drastic course it proposes to take according to the White Paper and according to the accounts of its policy given by the noble Lord who initiated this debate, is really the issue between us at the present time. What are the big changes? They are that it abolishes the compensation fund as such; it abolishes the development charge, and it completely divorces betterment from compensation.
What is the origin of the whole of this matter? I re-state it in only slightly different words from those used already in the course of this debate. For many years people have exercised their minds over certain aspects in which land differs essentially from other forms of property. The four principal differences are these: first, that land partakes of the nature of a monopoly—it can be neither added to nor subtracted from. Secondly, it has use value, positional value, development value and—what I think is often forgotten in this connection or not allowed for—also amenity value. Thirdly, some of these values it acquires quite independently of any action taken by the owner: they arise out of the activities of his neighbours. Fourthly, an arbitrary flat of his local authority or of the Slate itself may greatly enhance these values or seriously diminish them. In consequence of these facts, most fair-minded people have wanted to do something to iron out the inequalities and injustices existing between land-owners and other owners of property and between one land-owner and another. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, suggested that there was no direct connection between betterment and compensation. I confess it would seem to me that there are several essential connections, because, first of all, there are two sides of the action of the community on the individual landlord—either to enhance or to diminish his property; and the fact that the local authority, whoever they may be, produce that effect, is surely a reason why the gain and loss should be set against one another, and not the reverse.
Let me give an illustration of this particular process by which gain and loss are set off. The noble Lord will net be ignorant of some of the wise, generous and
290
liberal schemes undertaken in certain parts of the country by big landlords who have sterilised a large part of their property and prevented it from being developed or built over, and who frankly admit that, apart from the public-spirited side of their action, they do not often lose very much in consequence, because the enhancement of the value of that portion of the property which is outside the sterilised area makes up to a large extent for the loss on the portion which they have sterilised. The intention of the land reformers has been that what can be done only by large land-owners in some cases, can be done in some measure by small land-owners through the action of the community. Some of them would benefit and some would lose through a scheme of planning.
Lord Mancroft said that not only was there no connection between compensation and betterment, but that betterment was a question of taxation and that compensation had to be met out of taxation. What the Government scheme really means is this: that all the compensation which has to be paid—and it may be quite considerable: I think it may well reach £50 million to £100 million within the next four or fire years—should fall on the ordinary taxpayer. Therefore the Government proposal really is to compensate the land-owning class out of the pockets of the ordinary taxpayer. It seems to me that if that is seriously the view of the Government—and that is the interpretation which I personally put on the noble Lord's remarks—it is a matter which the direct and indirect taxpayers should have very clearly in their minds. They should realise that by getting rid of the betterment side of the 1947 proposals, what the Government are doing is to throw on the general taxpayer the reimbursing of the landlords in the shape of compensation which was to have been met, by common agreement of both sides of Parliament, from the charges proposed under the development scheme.
I quite understand that the Government want to do something; that they want to avoid having to meet this £300 million. It has been suggested that this is a very prudent provision of the Treasury, because they will avoid having to find such a large amount. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, suggested that a Socialist Government did not mind about spending

291
such large sums of money and that the present wise and thrifty Government would be much more careful and would not be prepared to be so large-hearted and generous. But what was really proposed under the 1947 Act—which was largely supported on all sides—was this. Under that scheme the full amount might have fallen due this year, but that provision was an investment which would come back over the years. What are the Government substituting for that? They are substituting a charge which, as I have suggested, may well reach £100 million in four or five years' time. That, it is true, is a much smaller sum. But this is not an investment: there is nothing coming in to repay it. I should have thought that of two schemes, one of £300 million for which you were going to be repaid, and the other for £100 million for which you were not going to be repaid, the former would have been more deserving of praise from a financial point of view.
I do not propose to take up any further time, except to say this. The Government scheme seems to me to fail in four respects. In the first place it has divorced betterment from compensation. In the second place it imposes a new burden on the general taxpayer for which I see no ground, considering that what we were endeavouring to do was to straighten out the difference as between one land-owner and another by the actions of the public authorities. In the third place it recreates unfairness between adjacent landlords, one of whom sells privately at one price while the other is compelled to sell to the local authority at a much lower price. It differentiates, and produces new unfair nesses between different developers according to the date and the circumstances in which they set out to develop their property. Finally, it creates a number of transitional anomalies, which we shall hear more about as the scheme develops. For all these reasons it seems to me the scheme in its present form cannot be the final word in planning. I regard it as financially injurious, placing an entirely new additional burden on the taxpayers of this country. I feel sure that the Government will have to modify it, and that they will have to go on modifying it for many years to come.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships heard, I venture to think, a very able speech from my noble friend Lord Mancroft introducing this Bill. He dealt, I will not say exhaustively but quite elaborately, not only with the problem which the White Paper seeks to deal with but also with the smaller immediate aspects of the Bill now before the House. Your Lordships, too, have had the advantage, I am sure, of reading and studying the White Paper, and I think that it would be superfluous for me either to repeat what the noble Lord has said or to remind your Lordships, except perhaps in one or two cases, of what is said in the White Paper. I propose to deal almost entirely with the two broad aspects in this Bill now before the House, which is admittedly nothing but a stop-gap measure and part only of the scheme which Her Majesty's Government will introduce in their endeavour to deal with this baffling problem. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and with other noble Lords who have spoken, that it is very unlikely that a final solution of this problem will ever be reached. Having said that, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, how much I appreciate his being here to-day? He has for this subject an almost pathological affection, and it would have been, I know, a great grief to him not to be here. Nevertheless, I must give him my meed of admiration for the gallantry with which he overcame his physical weakness; not only has he spoken with great cogency to your Lordships, but he has stayed here to hear my feeble words.
The two things which this Bill proposes to do are, first of all, to do away with the payment of £300 million by July 1, and, secondly, to do away with the development charge. Let me deal with the £300 million first, and shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the Bill was an important one, but he said that it was not a necessary one. When he said that it was not a necessary one he referred, I think, in particular, to that provision which abolishes the necessity for paying out £300 million; and to my profound astonishment he said that he did not accept the view that the payment of £300 million by July 1 would have an inflationary effect. I am not

293
sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, was in the house at that moment, but I think, if he had heard that, he would have shuddered; for the sudden creation of £300 million, be it in stock or in any other form, at this moment could not but have a grave inflationary effect. I venture to say that no Chancellor of the Exchequer of any Government. whether a Socialist Government or another, could possibly have faced the evil of the creation of such a vast amount of currency at one blow in July of this year. Therefore, it was not only important but necessary to provide that the £300 million should not be paid.
Then what was to be done? Was it merely to be deferred or what was to be done? Surely the appropriate way of dealing with it is this: not only to say that it shall not be paid by July 1, 1953, but that it shall not be paid at all until the persons who have a claim can satisfy the proper authority that they have suffered a loss of that development value, in respect of which their claim stands. Why should a man be paid before he has suffered a loss? Why should he be paid if he has suffered no loss at all? So the way we deal with the £300 million is to defer payment of it until the particular claimant who alleges that he has a claim satisfies the authority that he has suffered a loss. Why should the man be paid until he has suffered a loss? That is what we have done, and the curious thing is that, although the claims upon the fund are necessarily many and by no means very small ones (the smallest claims were eliminated under the de minims rule), so far as I know, no one has complained of the deferment of the payment of this sum.
There must be many of your Lordships present in this House to-day, certainly many noble Lords, who have large claims which have been deferred, perhaps for all time; yet not a word of dissent has been heard. This first point is most important. I wonder how many noble Lords here present have put in a claim. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence has, and his statement of his personal interest reminds me that I, too, ought to state a personal interest, because I believe that I put in a claim—I really do not know what the result of it was but, at any rate, I certainly did have a claim and I did not dissent from the deferment of payment. The position which I accept is a position which every reasonable-minded
294
man accepts: that the payment of a claim on this fund ought not to be made until the claimant has suffered a loss. That is the first and, I think, essential point. The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I have not heard anybody suggest that the £300 million should be paid out by July; and if it cannot be paid out, something must be done. I have heard of no better suggestion than that which is embodied in the present Bill. That is the first point.
The second feature of our Bill is the abolition of the development charge. I see, of course, as any man must, the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said about that. In a sense, compensation and betterment are allied, and he speaks of the divorce. But I think, upon examination, it was a very uneasy union, and the relation between the compensation and the betterment was so difficult to determine that I doubt whether any harm comes from a final and absolute divorce.
Another point that I want to make, in particular, because several of your Lordships referred to it, is this. It is not strictly upon the development charge, but I want to mention it because I know that it has affected the minds of some of your Lordships. It is a fear that, as a result of this Bill, Treasury control will be too rigid and tight, and will unnecessarily hamper the development which local authorities would otherwise attempt. With great respect to your Lordships, I do not think that you have any right to make such an assumption. As you know, under the 1947 Act, local authorities are under an obligation, which for the most part they have already satisfied, to produce development schemes which have to be approved by the central authority.
Why should it be assumed that, if a local authority puts forward a scheme to which the Treasury do not assent, there will not be the necessary criticism in this House or in another place? Who can doubt that if some scheme were put forward by, we will say, the local authority of Swansea, some doughty champion such as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would at once rise and say, "Swansea is a fair city. Why should not the development plan proposed by the local authority of Swansea be approved by the Treasury? "So it will be that strong local feeling

295
will, as we believe, be quite adequate to preserve the balance between the natural and proper desire of the Treasury to keep expenditure within proper control and the local patriotism of the local authorities who will naturally desire to effect their development as properly as they can. I venture to think that that is a false point and ought not to weigh with your Lordships.
Now I come to the question of the development charge. As I think Dr. Johnson said of the Excise Tax, this is an odious tax. It does not work. I think that Lord Pethick-Lawrence himself said it had not worked. I ask myself, and I invite your Lordships to ask yourselves, if it has not worked in the five years during which it has been in force, is it likely to work in the future? I say, No. I think it will continue to impede, as it has impeded in the past, the proper processes of development. Is it not quite clear that if a man, having bought a plot of land at what he thinks is a fair price, finds himself then faced with a development charge, he will consider himself to be labouring under a serious grievance? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, nods his head, and I am very glad to see it. I think this is the common experience of noble Lords on both sides of the House. The White Paper states this point so well that I venture to read the passage. It is as follows:
"The real effect of development charge on the cost of development varies. As already explained, land for development has not, generally speaking, changed hands at or near its value for its existing use, and to the extent that it does not do so, the charge represents a burden on development."
That means that the development charge impedes and is a burden on development unless land changes hands at the so-called existing use value. Does it? It does not; and there is no reason why it should. Unless the last Government had gone so far (of course, they did not) as to say that the land should not change hands except at the existing use value, the development charge was bound to be a grievous imposition upon whomsoever wished to develop. So the development charge must be got rid of, and that is accomplished by Clause 1 of the Bill. That is the other purpose of the Bill, to get rid of the development charge, in order that in due course and in proper
296
process the land may be developed according to the way in which the planing authorities prescribe.
There was some reference to the "baby in the bath" which I did not quite follow. It seems to me that the substantial part of the Act of 1947, for which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, deserves the greatest credit, remains, and will, I believe, be a boon and a blessing. So that comfort he may take to himself, though he sees this particular baby thrown out of its bath. Something was said about compulsory acquisition, which, I think, amounts to this: that where there is compulsory acquisition there is no doubt that the vendor, the landowner, will get only the existing use value, plus the compensation for the development value as at 1947. I think that the fact that the Conservative Party make themselves responsible for such a measure as that, is, in a way, rather remarkable, for they tell all those landowners, who are supposed to be their pillars of support, that they are to lose all the increment of value resulting from the prospect of development after 1947 where the land is taken by a local authority. I think that is a good compromise. But there is no reason why they should not sell in the market at the full competitive value, in those cases where the local authority does not buy.
I agree, of course, that that means a dual value. The man who sells to a private individual can bargain and get what price he will; the man who sells under compulsion to the local authority will get only the existing use plus the development value at 1947. I do not mind inequality. Inequality runs through life, and particularly in this sort of thing it is absolutely hopeless to try to get complete equality for all persons. Anomalies there are, and anomalies there will be. I myself do not regard it as in any way a defect that there will always be anomalies in any scheme which you choose to adopt dealing with town and country planning. I do not mind. Inequalities and anomalies are inevitable in life. I have already spoken rather longer than I intended. There was one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, on interest—a purely factual point. I am afraid that I must tell him that the question of interest is still under consideration. I am not in a

297
position to tell him more. If I were, I should.
In the course of this discussion, a good many other points have been raised. Lord Ogmore dealt with the effect on blitzed towns. I must say in his absence, which he was good enough to explain to me, that I did not see exactly what the relevance of that was to the Bill before the House. But I can assure him, in the familiar words, that what he has said will be taken into full consideration by my right honourable friend, The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, made, if I may say so, a most thoughtful and useful speech on this subject. He raised one point in particular which necessarily is causing us a good deal of concern, namely, the possibility of claims being put forward which are really fictitious. The solution which he suggests for that will, together with other solutions, be considered. I would assure him that it is a matter that we have by no means forgotten; it is rather a problem. Other speakers have raised other points. I do not expect that I have covered all the points that have been raised in the short time that I have been speaking. But I think I have dealt with the main points arising from this Bill. With those words I venture to commend the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIOCESAN STIPENDS FUNDS MEASURE, 1953
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, t his House do direct that the Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure, 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944, and the Pastoral Reorganisation Measure, 1949, provided between them that there should be established in every diocese—with the exception of Sodor and Man—a diocesan stipends fund to be held by the Church Commissioners. Into these funds
298
are paid monies arising under schemes and orders made under these Measures, and also donations, legacies and other contributions received by the Commissioners for the purposes for which the funds were created. The general purpose of the funds under the existing Measures is stated to be:
"such purpose connected with the cure of souls"
within the diocese as the Bishop, with the concurrence of the diocesan board of finance, may from time to time direct. Doubt has been expressed as to the exact meaning of the words:
"such purpose connected with the cure of souls,"
and it is clear that, whatever it is, the meaning might be interpreted much more widely than was intended when the original Measure was passed. The real purpose of the diocesan stipends funds is to provide or augment the stipends of incumbents, curates and others, such as lay readers, actively engaged in the cure of souls.
One object of this Measure is, therefore, to restrict the use of the funds to these purposes only. The second object of the Measure is to provide for a proper differentiation between capital and income; and the third object is to enable the Commissioners themselves to hold the actual stocks or property representing the funds on their general account, and to credit the funds themselves in the dioceses with an equivalent cash value. This is to provide a measure of stability, and also to safeguard the various stipends funds from fluctuations in value. This Measure is, I submit, entirely uncontroversial. It passed through tile Church Assembly without a Division at any stage and, as your Lordships are well aware, it has been reported upon favourably by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I therefore beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure, 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INCUMBENTS (DISCIPLINE) AND CHURCH DIGNITARIES (RETIREMENT) AMENDMENT MEASURE, 1953
5.43 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) and Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Amendment Measure, 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure is rather more technical in its details, but I hope that I shall be able to make it perfectly clear. During the years 1947 to 1951, the Church Assembly passed three Measures which subsequently received the Royal Assent, and which provided for action when charges of misbehaviour or neglect which did not fall within the operation of the then existing law were made against an incumbent, a church dignitary or a Bishop. It will be seen from the relevant provisions of these three Measures—they are quoted in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee; your Lordships will find them on pages 5 and 6 of the Report—that in so far as they relate to social or political opinions or activities there is at present a difference between them. Briefly, this difference is as follows.
The Incumbents (Discipline) Measure precludes proceedings under the heading of either unbecoming conduct or neglect of duty in respect of social or political opinions, but it does not mention activities. The Church Dignitaries Measure precludes proceedings under either head in respect of either opinions or activities. The Bishops' Retirement Measure precludes proceedings under the head of
300
unbecoming conduct in respect of either opinions or activities, although proceedings under the heading of neglect of duty can be brought in respect of social or political activities, but not in respect of opinions. The reason for this distinction is that a man may devote so much time to his social or political activities that he is unable to perform his duties properly. I hope that I have made it clear that the object of the Measure now before your Lordships, which is revisionary in character, is to bring the relevant portions of those three Measures into conformity with one another in this respect. Putting it bluntly, the Bishops are treated on exactly the same lines as Church dignitaries and parish priests. This Measure has been favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and was passed by the Church Assembly without any Division at all. I therefore beg to move that it be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) and Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Amendment Measure, 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY (CREMATORIUM) BILL [H.L.]
Committed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before six o'clock