HL Deb 23 April 1959 vol 215 cc927-33

3.15 p.m.

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

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

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, before we approve this Motion, as I promise the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor we will do, I hope that I may have the indulgence of the House to say a few words on the course of business that we shall follow on this long and complex Bill. As your Lordships will have seen, there are something approaching 200 Amendments, of varying degrees of importance. I cannot pretend that more than a fraction of them will require lengthy consideration, but at best it is likely to he a lengthy procedure. This is a very technical Bill. I am not complaining of that, but it is given to few of us to be able to concentrate for more than limited periods on a technical measure of this kind. I know that there are honourable exceptions. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount is one whose capacity for unlimited absorption in a subject—or perhaps I should say unrestricted absorption —is well known. But others find that after one or two hours of concentration on a measure of this kind their usefulness is exhausted for the time being. Therefore, I would suggest that we do not sit to discuss this measure for more than a limited period at a time.

That would, I appreciate, mean a number of sittings. I should not like to forecast, but I can assure the noble Earl, who is looking at me apprehensively, that there is no intention of deliberately prolonging the proceedings. On the contrary. I think that everybody would like to get this Bill through with the least possible delay. But if we could agree to have sittings of two to two and a half hours at a time on convenient days, my guess would be that we should probably get through in three or four sittings. I would put that suggestion forward for serious consideration. That leaves the question of the Business for to-day. The noble Earl said yesterday that we might sit until seven to seven-thirty. To me it is a horrible thought to have to concentrate for over four hours on this question, and I would suggest that we might try to rise at about six o'clock to-day. If the noble Earl can find any other Business he can squeeze in, we shall be happy to co-operate.

Finally, may I say to the noble and learned Viscount (I hope he will take this in a friendly spirit) that there are a large number of Amendments of a drafting character, and I should be prepared to take it from him that an Amendment is drafting and to accept that without any explanation at all, if that course commends itself to your Lordships. Even so, there will be some which may require further explanation and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will be only too ready to give it; but, by and large, I suggest that it would be a saving of time if we could accept drafting and technical Amendments as such. We have only to take two minutes on each one and we have taken three to four hours on what many of us might regard as unnecessary explanation. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will accept this suggestion.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord's rather unconventional suggestion. There is one point he made that I would elaborate. If we are able to concentrate on this measure with fresh minds at short intervals, it may be that the whole time taken on the Bill will be shortened, rather than if the Bill were dealt with by jaded Peers.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because my absorptive capacity on a Bill of this kind is almost nil; and therefore I approach this matter with a desire to help him if we possibly can. So far as to-day is concerned, there is to be a statement soon after half-past three, and that, together with the supplementary questions, will probably take twenty minutes. We shall not really get down to the Bill much before ten to four, and I think perhaps the noble Lord could last out until half-past six. If that is agreeable to the noble Lord, then we can consider. through the usual channels, how best to handle this Committee stage and the sort of length of session at which we should aim. I agree with him that if not many people are expert on these matters and only a few have to concentrate on them, it is difficult. But I would ask him to accept, as he knows to be true, that at this time of year we have a difficult time with a large number of important Bills arriving from the other place which it is the duty of the Government to get through this House. I hope that we shall be able to arrange a programme satisfactory to the noble Lord.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I can assure him that we shall not seek to hamper this measure in any way.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

General provisions as to measure of compensation

(2)This section applies to every compulsory acquisition of an interest in land in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.

LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (2), to omit "in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the twenty-ninth" and to substitute: when the compensation has not been agreed between the acquiring authority and the owner or (in default of agreement) determined by the Lands Tribunal before the thirtieth".

The noble Lord said: I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said on the Second reading of the Bill about the undesirability of alter-in; the date mentioned in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill. However, the matter is one of pressing importance, and I hope the Government may be good enough to look at it again. Passing from the general to the particular, I have made a number of inquiries in Dover, Kent. As your Lordships know, Dover, which has a population of about 30,000 people, was badly bombed and shelled during the war, and considerable redevelopment has taken place and is still going on there. My informant, who is a leading auctioneer and surveyor in the district, tells me that numerous owners have already suffered through what is almost confiscation of their property. There are forty or fifty such cases, where owners are likely to receive only about one-third of what they would be entitled to if the notice to treat had been served after October 29, 1958. These cases range between small acquisitions involving less than £100 to substantial acquisitions in which claims amount to £1,000 or more. I can only say that if Dover is an example of what has happened in other parts of the country, and if the statement I have made is approximately correct, then there is indeed some thing at which the Government might care to look a second time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, leave out from ("land") to ("day") in line 11 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Meston.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned, I dealt with this point at some length in my answer to his speech during the debate on Second Reading, and I do not want to repeat myself. As he will also appreciate, I cannot be briefed at one moment with regard to the special position in Dover, but I will look into that point. Perhaps I might summarise the difficulties that we found in the way of accepting an Amendment which would provide that the market value basis should apply retrospectively to all unsettled transactions. As I told your Lordships, my right honourable friend the Minister had a full inquiry made into all the compulsory purchase negotiations within his purview which were in hand on October 29, and, as shortly as I can, I would remind your Lordships of the result of that. In some 1,500 compulsory purchase orders investigated, 22,000 cases had been settled and 9,000 cases were still unsettled. In some 6,500 of the unsettled cases the new basis would make little difference in the compensation. In over 2,000 cases it would mean an increase, and in between 300 and 400 cases it would mean a decrease.

The position in which that leaves us is that there are still considerable difficulties. The first is the importance of the date of the notice to treat. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is well aware. the reply to a notice to treat is a notice to claim which sets out the particulars of the ownership of the person claiming and the amount of his claim. That can be only in respect of the circumstances at the date of a notice to treat. Therefore a notice to treat is not a formal document but represents a necessary stage in the negotiations. The second point which I urged was that there had been a large number of settlements during the relevant period, and a considerable number more have been negotiated since Captain Corfield's Bill in another place which raised this issue in a legislative form. There will be a great sense of injustice among those people who have settled if they find that those of whom Lord Meston is speaking have gained, although they were dispossessed by the same compulsory purchase order as dispossessed the people who have made settlements.

The noble Lord will also appreciate that it would put in a difficult position the professional advisers of those people, in many walks of life. There is the further point, which follows from the figures I have mentioned, that in a proportion of cases adoption of the new basis would provide less compensation than the old basis. The change suggested by the Amendment would not therefore be acceptable to all owners. I think the Committee will find difficulty in appreciating the logic that the new basis should apply only where it means more money in the pockets of the owners. That is the difficulty. I have considered this matter carefully. As every noble Lord will appreciate, and as every legislative body appreciates, when you draw a dividing line you are bound to get hard cases and anomalies close to the line, on one side or the other. I believe that if one were to make this alteration it would lead to greater anomalies which could not be justified on the grounds of principle and reason.

Therefore, may I leave it in this way? I ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment to-day, but in the meantime I will ask those who will advise me to look into the particular case which he has drawn to my attention and have it examined. I promise him that, but I must be quite frank with the Committee. Unless that shows a bouleversement which I certainly do not anticipate, I doubt whether I shall be able to help the noble Lord on this point. But I will certainly look into his particular case and see whether that makes any difference.

LORD SILKIN

I do not have much sympathy with the reply of the noble and learned Viscount, because my natural reactions are in favour of drawing a line somewhere, and I think that, on the whole, a line can be drawn. With regard to the two arguments he used, one was about reopening a transaction which has been concluded. That is certainly what the Government are doing under Clause 17 of the Bill. I do not want to discuss Clause 17 now, but I feel very strongly that it does mean giving a vendor, in certain circumstances, the opportunity of reopening within five years a transaction that has been settled. Therefore, I should not have thought that that presents itself as a real difficulty in the minds of Her Majesty's Government.

The other argument is that they object to a person having it both ways. That again is exactly what they are doing under Clause 17. Under that clause, where a person would benefit as a result of a new planning permission, he is enabled within five years to claim more money. But where he would suffer as a result of a new planning permission he is not expected to refund any part of the money he has received. I do not think either of those is good argument for refusing this Amendment. Furthermore, I think there was a strong view expressed in another place that the vendor should have the option of claiming either under the old conditions or under the new. I think that would commend itself to a great many people if the Government were prepared to give way in principle. I would not myself see the same objection. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that there are cases where people would suffer greatly as a result of being put on this basis rather than on the existing basis. Therefore, on balance, while I do not accept the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, I think he is right in not holding out much hope that this Amendment can be accepted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I say that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his legal experience, will agree with me that it is not the first time that the case is strong and the advocate is bad.

LORD MESTON

May I respectfully point out that there are two cases where existing use value, plus unexpended development charge, is greater than the new market value basis? In those cases, the owner whose land has been compulsorily acquired should have the option of which type of compensation he will accept. There are only a few such cases. I would point out that the Amendment is a very mild one. It refers only to those cases where the compensation has not been agreed or determined by the Lands Tribunal before October 29, 1958. In all those thousands of cases where there has been agreement there will be no grounds for disturbing it. I feel that I cannot pursue the matter much further, and if the noble and learned Viscount will tell all the local authorities of the country to take a sympathetic view of the matter, and to assess the compensation on the new basis where agreement has not yet been arrived at, I will withdraw this Amendment, without prejudice to my right to revive it on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move that this House do now resume for the purpose of hearing the statement on cotton to which I referred in reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.