HL Deb 29 June 1959 vol 217 cc325-44

2.46 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we took the Third Reading formally. If so, I could then move the Amendments which I have put down to meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Gage, and we could have a discussion on the merits of the Bill on the Motion that this Bill do now pass. If that course suits noble Lords, I will proceed on that basis.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I am sure that that would be right, because we should then be discussing the Bill in its final form.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.

Clause 41 [Reference of objection to Lands Tribunal]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this Amendment is concerned with a minor matter. Your Lordships may have in mind that, during the proceedings on the Bill, I hoped to deal with this point, which is the time limit within which a person who has served a "blight" notice under Clause 39 may refer a counter-notice to the Lands Tribunal by making use of the rules of the Lands Tribunal. We have reconsidered this matter, and it now seems better to do it in the Bill itself; and therefore I have put down this Amendment. I do not think that the point is of any importance, except as to this change of procedure, which some of your Lordships always think more satisfactory. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 3, after ("claimant") insert ("at any time before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of service of the counter-notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51 [Recovery of certain sums from acquiring authorities]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, perhaps we could consider the next two Amendments together, because the second is merely the Scottish application of the first. Your Lordships will remember that we had a most interesting discussion on this point on Report stage, on an Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Gage. I felt a certain amount of difficulty on the matter, which I stated to your Lordships, but I promised that I would discuss it with my right honourable friend the Minister. We have discussed it, and have considered the arguments in favour of the exemptions which were developed by several noble Lords in all parts of the House on Report. As a result of that further consideration it has been possible to agree in principle. I have put down an Amendment slightly different from that of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, but it carries out the purpose he had in mind.

There is one point which may have occurred to your Lordships—that is that the Amendment refers only to "public open space" and not to "recreation ground". I have gone into that point and I am satisfied that the words "public open space" are wide enough to cover recreation grounds. In fact the words are already used in the 1954 Act with that connotation. Those noble Lords who care to follow the matter will find them used in Sections 50 (4) and 51 (2). As I said, the second Amendment deals with the Scottish application and does the same thing. Therefore, it may be convenient if I move them together. I beg to move the two Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 73, line 29, at end insert— (b) no sum shall be recoverable under this subsection in the case of a compulsory acquisition or sale where the Minister is satisfied that the interest in question is being acquired for the purposes of the use of the land as a public open space.")

Page 75, line 12, at end insert— ("(b) no sum shall be recoverable under this subsection in the case of a compulsory acquisition or sale where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the interest in question is being acquired for the purposes of the use of the land as a public open space.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I am sure that not only many of your Lordships but also many other humble people up and down the country will be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his good offices in this matter. We all respect the sheer logic and reasoning of our Government Departments, but on this occasion I think that the logic is just as much in favour of the course they have now taken as it was previously in another sense. Again I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, on the success he has achieved at the very last moment, which is due in large measure to his advocacy and persistence. This is an Amendment about which he succeeded in convincing the Government after two attempts. He was not satisfied with their refusal on the first occasion; he had another go and I am very glad that he has succeeded. I cannot resist saying that he was strongly supported from this side of the House, and possibly the effect of the combined pressure was such that the Government found it impossible to resist any longer. I would congratulate the Government, too, on making this concession. It is one of the few concessions that they have made on this Bill, and it will be greatly appreciated by local authorities.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I detain your Lordships for only a brief moment in moving that this Bill do now pass because I am very conscious of the great help that I have had, as Minister in charge of this Bill, from all quarters of the House. It is a long and complicated Bill and our discussions have involved a number of important issues, as well as others of a technical nature, not perhaps so important but complex and difficult to follow. I am really grateful, and this is no mere facile remark, for the close attention which noble Lords in all parts of the House have given to these matters. If I may say so—and I hope the noble Lord will not think I am being fulsome, because I am sincere—we are extremely fortunate in having the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with us on a measure of this kind, because of his acknowledged mastery of the subject.

As I said the other day, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I am sorry that it has been necessary to burden your Lordships with so many Government Amendments on Report stage, but I am afraid that that was inevitable in a Bill of this kind, because many defects come to light in the course of discussion and as a result of representations by specialist bodies outside Parliament. It may be some consolation to your Lordships that, in my view at any rate, this House does great service in putting the Bill in a more perfect form.

The most important change we have made is undoubtedly the extension of the planning blight provisions to cover small business premises and farms, as well as houses. I think that I can say that these proposals command fairly general agreement. In the course of a very full discussion we had on Committee stage, contributions and suggestions were made from all parts of the House, and as a result of the rearrangement which I made before Report stage, Part IV of the Bill and the Fifth Schedule will be much easier to follow and understand, and make a useful improvement on the Bill. I do not single out any other Amendments for special comment. It is enough to say that, as a result of them, the Bill will leave this House in a much better shape than when it came in, and I should like to thank again all noble Lords in all parts of the House who have contributed to this happy result. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

2.58 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, it falls to me once more to say a few final words before the passing of one more Town and Country Planning Bill. If my health continues, I have no doubt that I shall be making a number of similar speeches in future, because I am sure that we have not come to the end of town and country planning legislation. But this Bill marks a stage. I should like first to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his kind references to noble Lords throughout the House who have made their contributions to the Bill, and especially for his kind remarks about myself. The noble and learned Viscount will not think I am saying this merely by way of return of the compliment, but we are greatly indebted to him for his unfailing courtesy, sometimes under trying conditions, and for the thoroughness with which he has gone into the various points that have been raised, particularly for his application in honouring every obligation and undertaking that he made to consider matters. It is indeed remarkable. I cannot remember a single promise to give consideration that the noble and learned Viscount has given on this measure—or on any other—where he has not given the fullest possible consideration. I am bound to say, on the other hand, that the results of that consideration have not always been satisfactory I would say that, on balance, there is a twenty to one chance that the result of the consideration will be negative. At least, all of us in this House are grateful for the consideration which the noble and learned Viscount gives to any point that is raised.

I agree that the Bill is a far better Bill in its arrangement, and easier to follow than when it was first introduced in your Lordships' House. I am not sure that the Amendments which have been introduced from time to time have been very far-reaching, but in so far as Amendments of substance have been produced, and not the least that with which we have been favoured at the very last moment, the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, I would say that they have definitely made for an improvement of the Bill. This Bill will be a great advantage to many people who have had their land acquired compulsorily; they will certainly get a more just deal than they have had in the past.

On the occasion of the Report stage I made some complaint about the large number of Amendments that had been introduced at various stages in this House; and I think that that complaint was justified. After all, this Bill had twenty-five days in Committee in another place and certainly more than one day was devoted to Report stage. We here have been content with (I think it is) two days in Committee and two days on Report, but we have had the bulk of Amendments. It seems rather strange that many of the Amendments could not have been made in another place. I know that a number of them were consequential on discussions that took place here on the Committee stage, but a number were not. I hope that in future when we come to consider complicated measures of this kind more thought will be given at the outset to the arrangement of various clauses. It should not be necessary to take out three or four clauses and two Schedules and to re-arrange them on the Report stage of the Bill in this House; all of this surely could have been done at a much earlier stage.

I want to say a few words about the content of the Bill. As I have said, it is an improvement and I think it provides a fair market price where land is compulsorily acquired. However, it removes one anomaly, but still leaves a major anomaly. The major anomaly is that a far disproportionate importance is now attached to the planning consent. A piece of land which can get a planning consent, for one purpose becomes, possibly, enormously valuable, especially in certain parts of London and in other big cities. If planning consent is refused, as it might be, to an adjoining piece of land similar in all respects, then that land immediately depreciates in value to a large extent. Often it is quite fortuitous as to which land will get a planning consent and which will not. Moreover, when a local planning authority makes a new development plan it virtually starts afresh and, so to speak, churns up all existing development: development which has been in existence for perhaps fifty years might become inappropriate and nonconforming in its user; other land becomes increased in value, and the whole thing is largely a lottery.

I am quite sure that before long pressure will be put upon whichever Government is in office to remove this kind of anomaly. This was an anomaly which bedevilled town planning before the war. It was for that very reason that local planning authorities felt themselves inhibited from planning their areas in the most efficient and satisfactory manner. They always had to bear in mind the possible hardship that would be inflicted on owners of land by zoning their land for a purpose which was less beneficial than its existing use. On the other hand, other pieces of land, as I have said, fortuitously acquired an enormous additional value. This problem was so great as to cause the Government of the day to set up a number of Committees to consider what should be done. Your Lordships will remember the series of Committees—the Barlow, the Uthwatt and the Scott Committees—which applied their minds to the problem.

The matter was regarded as so important that it was considered during the war, and these Committees eventually pro- duced their Reports. The House will remember that the Uthwatt Committee, in particular, made certain recommendations which would even out the advantages to one owner and the disadvantages to another of the effects of planning. The result of that was the White Paper issued by the Coalition Government, and its virtual implementation in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I do not say that the 1947 Act implemented in every detail the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee, but it went a long way towards doing so. I think I am right in saying that such modifications as were made at the time were generally acceptable both in another place and in this House.

Time indicated that there were certain defects in the financial provisions of the 1947 Act, which, in my view, could have been remedied either by regulation or by further legislation. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by setting out what those defects were, but they were not of a major character and, as I say, in my view they could well have been remedied so as to make the financial provisions suite workable and generally acceptable. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Government of the day decided in effect to discontinue these financial provisions entirely, and to put something in their place which has proved to be even more unsatisfactory and which we are today engaged in trying to remedy in part. I am satisfied that this piecemeal dealing with the financial side of planning will continue to be unsatisfactory until we have dealt with the problem quite drastically. I am sure that compensation of those whose land is rendered less valuable because of planning restrictions, and some form of betterment from those whose land is rendered more valuable as the result of planning consent, so that the one can be set off against the other, will be essential, and that we shall come back at some time to something like the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee. I do not want to enlarge on this matter. My noble friend Lord Latham will be saying a word in some greater detail on this subject. I want to conclude by warning the House that until the time comes when it is in the mood to deal with this subject, quite radically and drastically, and to come back to something like the Uthwatt Report, we shall not be rid of continuing legislation on the lines of this Town and Country Planning Bill.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I think this Bill has produced some useful results. With regard to the matters about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken. I agree that there are anomalies in the present legislation to which we are getting accustomed. I have not yet seen any proposals set forth by the noble Lord's Party as to what they would do if they were returned to power, and I am most interested that we should be given some indication of this important matter. In the administration of this Bill I think there will be a number of difficult questions to deal with. I think there will be occasions when planning committees will have to exercise a great deal of thought and imagination. However, as I have said, they are accustomed to doing that. Although this may not be the last Bill, I am considerably happier, now that it has been passed in your Lordships' House, than I was before, and I shall hope for the best.

3.12 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I should like to join in the commendatory and appreciative words which my noble friend Lord Silkin addressed to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his magnificent conduct of this complicated and growing Bill dealing with a complicated subject. I think this must he a sad occasion for all those who still cherish the proper and attractive planning of our cities, towns and countryside. Ostensibly the purpose of this Bill was to remedy a two-price system. It arose as a result of a Private Member's Bill in another place, which was withdrawn on the assurance that the Government would deal with that particular matter. In the course of its formulation and gestation this Bill not only has become a major town and country planning measure, but is the third step in the abandonment of the process of recovery for the nation of the betterment and increased values arising from community activity and community expenditure. In addition, it imposes further restrictions upon planning authorities, and it will add to the national expenditure, whether by the central Government or by local government, to the tune of £12½ million a year.

This process of jettisoning the recommendations of the Uthwatt Report began with the Act of 1953, was continued by the Act of 1954, and is now more or less finalised by this Bill. In three stages the principles of Barlow, Scott and Uthwatt have been jettisoned, and the provisions of the 1947 Act, to which my noble friend Lord Silkin referred, dealing with compensation and betterment, have been wiped out. We are, in fact, back to the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. Indeed, the situation as regards local authorities under this Bill will be worse than it was under that Act; because under that Act there was no power for a private vendor to reopen the transaction within five years if the development land in question, or the land adjacent to it, had led to an increase in value.

The twin problems which have always bedevilled town planning, compensation and betterment, have been restored by these three legislative actions. The nation is to he denied what it creates by the efforts of the community; indeed, in many cases it will have to pay for the increased value arising from such activity. As the present Prime Minister said on December 1, 1952, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 508, col. 1116]: … in many cases these values will have been created by the efforts of the community … And yet local authorities and public authorities have to pay the increased values which are thus created. Moreover, anyone who has been associated with town and country planning knows that proper and desirable planning will again be distorted by financial considerations. Planning and development which local authorities know ought to be carried out will not be carried out because of the financial cost.

In support of that, I should like to quote the opinion of the Barlow Commission which was appointed in 1937, and reported in 1940. They said: Evidence placed before the Commission revealed that the difficulties that are encountered by planning authorities under the existing system of compensation and betterment are so great as seriously to hamper the progress of planning throughout the country.' It was clear to the Commission that their inquiry and their Recommendations would be of little effective value if these difficulties were not removed. Lord Reith, who was at that time Minister of Reconstruction, said in this House on January 29, 1941 [OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 259]: In the debate of November 13 there was a reference to the difficulties of compensation and betterment. Existing conditions have not worked satisfactorily. They have proved an obstruction to planning throughout the country. The Barlow Commission recommended that the subject should be remitted for expert examination. If it was important then, it is imperative now, with post-war reconstruction in view. As a result of that statement, a Committee was appointed, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Uthwatt, in January, 1941. In April, 1941, so urgent was the question, the Committee issued an Interim Report in which they said that March, 1939, values should be the ceiling for acquisition of land for public purposes by public authorities.

In July, 1941, the then Coalition Government accepted that, both as regards the public acquisition of land and also (and this is very important) as regards public control: that means, of course, as regards planning restrictions. Lord Reith said in this House on July 17, 1941, as regards the suggested March, 1939, ceiling in relation to compensation payable on the public acquisition or control of land: The detailed application of the principle requires consideration. Adjustments may need to be made to meet particular cases, and the principle must be open to review … Then as regards the prejudicial development, pending reconstruction and so on, he said: The Government think that any further safeguards necessary for the time being can be provided by strengthening the provisions of the Planning Acts … And so from a ceiling of 1939 values we have gone back a long way: we have gone back to the Lands Clauses Act. I suppose this is an example of Conservative progress striding manfully backwards into the nineteenth century.

The Uthwatt Committee reported in full in September, 1942, and recommended as the main principle that the nation should acquire and pool development values at fair compensation, and, secondly, that it should recover betterment by way of a development charge. The report and recommendations were acclaimed on all sides by all Parties, and nowhere with more enthusiasm than in this House. As I have said before, it was regarded as almost blasphemous in 1942–43 to question the proposals of the Uthwatt Committee. They did, in fact, arouse the social conscience of the people, because related to planning is also the question of housing; and as a part of housing there is the problem, still facing us, of slums, of which we were told recently by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that one in every fifteen dwellings is unfit for human habitation. I shall make some reference to that matter later.

The years 1941–42, when Barlow, Scott and Uthwatt were accepted, when the Beveridge Report was in formulation, were the years when the people of this nation were walking the valley of the shadow, cherishing as best they might the symbols of liberty and freedom. In those days our people were giving of life and limb, work and effort, courage and faith, to defend our land and to maintain the liberties of mankind. Nothing was too good for them—and properly and rightly so. In the presence of their heroism, and the damage and havoc created by enemy action, the injustice and savageries of the pre-war years put us all to shame; and many a public person went to the penitential stool and did at least verbal penance, sometimes in public, for the wrongs of those unworthy days between the two wars. The land the people were defending with their lives, it was then decided, should be used for the benefit of the community, and the values created by the community should belong to the community. Government speakers repeatedly approved the Uthwatt proposals. Few there were in fact who dissented. In reliance upon legislative effect being given to these principles cities which were damaged by enemy action prepared schemes and plans for reconstruction. I have in mind the important, almost unique, plan for the County of London prepared by the late Professor Abercrombie and Mr. Forshaw for the London County Council.

The Government White Paper of 1944, The Control of Land Use (Command 6537), issued by the Coalition Government, says on page 3, in paragraph 2: The use of land has long been subject to some form of control in the public interest … Nevertheless wrong use of land continued to result in much loss both to individuals and to the nation of wellbeing, of time and of money. Good agricultural land was unnecessarily wasted and the appearance of the country spoiled by sporadic and unsightly building. Public authorities were put to undue expense by the need of supplying water and other services to households strung out along the principal highways. Road accidents (especially among children) were multiplied; valuable hours were lost each working day and the traffic of great cities congested, because of the distance at which workers lived from their work; the standard of health was affected, and decency of living impaired, by overcrowding. My Lords, if that was a proper and fair description of conditions then, are they not in almost every respect very much worse now than in 1944?

The Coalition Government accepted the Uthwatt recommendations in principle, with a reservation that the development charge should be 80 per cent., and the reservation as regards the proposed annual levy. That was the position at the end of the war, and also at the end of the Coalition Government. Both Parties were committed to the principle of compensation and betterment as recommended by the Uthwatt Committee. Both were under a promise to give effect to the proposals. The country expected that they would go into effect. The Labour Government redeemed its pledge and kept its promise through the Act of 1947, for which my noble friend Lord Silkin is entitled to great and undying credit. It was one of the boldest and most imaginative pieces of legislation dealing with land and its use ever to be put on the Statute Book. My noble friend said that that Act had some defects. It would have been strange if it had not. After all, it was dealing with a fundamental change, an almost revolutionary approach to these problems of compensation and betterment. Nevertheless, it made town planning a reality, a realisable reality unimpeded by financial considerations; it freed town planning from frustration and restriction. It was designed to recover for the nation a proper and fair measure of what the nation created.

What did the Tory Government do? Within about twelve months they decided not to keep the promise given as the dominant part of the Coalition Government. They decided to dismantle the provisions for dealing with compensation and betterment. In November, 1952, they published an egregious White Paper (Command 8699) to explain this action, to explain, if you please, why they were scrapping the betterment charge and why compensation was to be put on the footing of current use value plus 1947 development value. What was the excuse for this—not the reason but the excuse? In this White Paper to which I have referred, and in the statements made on behalf of the Government, the excuse was that the proposals were difficult to apply and had resulted in putting a brake on development—a pretty tenuous excuse, I submit. There was a falling off in development, but it was not due to the 1947 Act; it was due to a variety of considerations and of circumstances.

I suppose that first one could put the shortage of materials and of labour, and the need for concentrating on housing, including, and especially so, repair of bombed houses and dwellings and/or temporary construction in badly bombed cities and towns. There was also, of course, as the nation's interests demanded, a restriction and control upon building which was subject to licence. There was also—and this is very important—the fact that local authorities had not yet produced their development plans required under the 1947 Act, and it would have been idle for development to take place except within the development plan for the city or town which was in course of formulation. And if those considerations were not enough, there was a legal decision which held up the exercise of the powers under the 1947 Act for a quite considerable time. One can add this comment: that for such a fundamental change it was necessary to get experience in the application of these new provisions. I in fact understand, and I have no reason to question it, that the planning authorities were finding that the provisions were working satisfactorily wherever the conditions were such that they could be operated.

In November, 1952, a White Paper appeared and there followed the Act of 1953, which destroyed the elements of the 1947 Act. The Act of 1954 was a consequential second step which was ineluctable; the Government were on the slide and they could not stop; therefore we had the 1954 Act. Then it was discovered that there would have to be another Act, and that this present Bill, in order that finally the Uthwatt proposals could be buried. In the past enormous values have been created by public expenditure. I reflect upon the enormous increase of land values in and around the Watling Estate when the London County Council built 4,000 houses there. The same was the case with other big estates which the London County Council built. The increased values radiated for miles almost from the actual original development of the London County Council, who spent millions of pounds inside and outside the County of London, and according to the Uthwatt Report the total amount of betterment recovered from 1902 to 1936 was £25,000. I believe that most of that was recovered in connection with the improvement of Kingsway.

As I have said, this is a sad day for planning. It is almost a day of shame when one remembers the promises that were made and the hopes and expectations which were fostered during the war years. This Bill consummates, in my submission, a betrayal. There have been two betrayals arising from two wars. One was the "homes fit for heroes"; and forty years after we have 800,000 slums in this country. Now there is this, in my submission, betrayal in connection with the Uthwatt Report. I do not for one moment want to appear to adopt the principle that I am "holier than thou", but in this House I heard these proposals, which are now forsaken and forsworn, acclaimed with enthusiasm and accepted with vigour and, as I thought at the time, with confidence and honesty. Now they are scrapped; they are torn up. Planning will once again be restricted and distorted by financial considerations. The benefits of community activity and expenditure will be denied to the community. Injustice will triumph once again over social justice.

I referred on the Report stage, in discussing one of the Amendments, to the fact that the proposal in the Bill to which that Amendment related disregarded social justice. Social justice is an attribute of a civilised nation. It ought not to be disregarded. I can only conclude by saying that, with regard to compensation, betterment and planning, I can only hope that those responsible since 1952 for this failure to keep faith will search their hearts and examine their consciences, for in my view posterity will surely judge them and their works. In my opinion, this is a bad Bill and it ought not to pass your Lordships' House.

3.40 p.m.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, with the permission of the House and of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, might I for one moment reply to the eloquent speech just delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and say for those of us who do not agree with his view that our withers are entirely unwrung? I have watched in my lifetime many efforts to obtain for the community what is called betterment or development value or site valuation taxation, starting with the late Mr. Lloyd George in 1909 or 1910. I think we must all accept, in regard to present day town or country planning, that none of us would wish to see, for instance, the coasts of England entirely lined by bungalows or roads of ribbon development. But surely the short answer to the most eloquent peroration of the noble Lord opposite is that none of these schemes would work and that Parliament, in its wisdom, has repealed all the various attempts that have been made in regard to taxation of land values.

That is the case with the development charge which was repealed four or five years ago. It reached a most absurd pitch and it was actually holding up development. I know of a case where old colliery heaps had vegetation on them. There was to be a development charge placed on them before they could be levelled to be prepared as sites for houses. It just did not work. I think that the noble Lord's speech should not go unchallenged from this side of the House. We are just as concerned for the orderly development of the land of England in the interest of the community, but we shall not get it by putting an extra penal taxation on one form of property but not on another.

3.45 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has spoken, as I think he will agree, with considerable width of subject matter and has tempted me to follow him over a field which would be slightly outside the reply at this stage of the Bill. Therefore, with the greatest reluctance and self-restraint, I am going to hold myself in and deal with one or two points only.

The first point is this. With regard to the effect of the Act of 1947, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has done sufficient justice to the effect, on its planning side, of that measure for which Lord Silkin was so largely responsible. As I said when I introduced this Bill into this House, I think that that measure has been successful on planning. On the financial side, I do not think the noble Lord. Lord Latham, has laid sufficient emphasis on the difference in the problem in the two periods with which he dealt. Before the war there were difficulties in the way of planning from the point of compensation. But the noble Lord, Lord Latham, overlooked and certainly did not mention—I followed every word of his speech with the utmost care—that the system of compensation for planning restrictions is now entirely different. Before the war full compensation had to be paid; now compensation is limited to the established 1947 development value. And, as I pointed out on Second Reading, and I point it out again, the Government have no intention of altering this. It is, in my respectful submission to Lord Latham, fallacious to say that a measure providing for the payment of market value on acquisition will restore the pre-war difficulties to planning control.

The only other point in that special regard that I should like to mention is this: that on the other side of the picture Lord Latham did not give enough effect to the way in which the development charge operated in practice. It had a stultifying and frustrating effect on development in this country, and I always understood the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to be that that was a state of things which required alteration, although alteration on a different line from what has been subsequently adopted.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I quite agree. I thought that the case could have been met by a reduction in the amount of the development charge from 100 per cent. to, say, 75 per cent. or 80 per cent.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I understood that the noble Lord thought that the position ought to be altered. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, made one or two more general remarks, and, as I say, while I must restrain myself I think that they ought to be mentioned. Until the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition entered the Chamber I found myself the only survivor in the present assembly of the Government who produced the White Paper of 1944—I was a junior member and the noble Viscount was a senior and most important member. But I strongly repudiate the allegations that we have departed from the spirit and intention of that document to which I was a party fifteen years ago.

The second point, which I am not going into but I must mention as Lord Latham has mentioned it, is that if he will compare the record on housing and slum clearance in the last eight years with what was done in the preceding six years, I think that he will be bound to agree that the position is one in which almost unexpected improvements have taken place. Certainly, sitting as I did for nearly twenty years for one of the poorer parts of Liverpool, and having had literally thousands of housing problems brought to me between 1945 and 1951, if I could take the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and show him the difference I think he would be pleasantly surprised.

There is only one other point—this is the last of my general points. I am not at all sure that he and I, who think of Henry George as one of the authors of the great problems of to-day, are not in danger of taking another road back to the nineteenth century. The Noble Lord accused us of going back—a sort of return to laissez faire. There is another and even more dangerous red light which faces all politicians, namely, that the problems which enthral them in their youth are going to be the problems of their sons and grandchildren. I say no more, but I very much doubt whether the problem that Henry George envisaged so clearly is going to arise in the same way in the remaining forty years of the twentieth century.

That was very tempting. The noble Lord tempted me in what has already been called (and I subscribe to it) a very eloquent speech. At the end of that we have to come back to the task in front of your Lordships' House, which is the Bill that is before us. In my view that Bill does four useful things. Part I remedies what has now come to be regarded as an injustice by providing that when local authorities and Government Departments buy land for public purposes they must pay the fair market value; and it sets out the rules by which that will be assessed. The extraordinary feature of this Bill is that, with all the labour we have had through its process, we have had remarkably little criticism of that principle. It has been almost universally accepted that there was an injustice and that we were right in remedying it.

Part III of the Bill gives statutory effect to some of the recommendations of the Franks Committee relating to town and country planning. Your Lordships might care to note that, taken with the reforms already made by the Act of last Session and by the administrative measures put in force by Departments, nearly all the recommendations of the Franks Committee have now been put into effect—and these recommendations were approved and commended from every part of your Lordships' House. That is the result of Part III of the Bill, and its provisions will substantially improve the rights of the individual in his dealings with local planning authorities and Ministers in planning matters.

Part IV gives valuable new rights to owner occupiers whose property is blighted by the prospect of compulsory acquisition for a road scheme or some other public project. In future, if they cannot sell except at a reduced price they will be able to make the authority concerned buy them out at once and at the full price. That, again, removes what was a great hardship. Part II deals with a less fundamental question but one which is nevertheless of great importance—the relationship between central and local government—and continues the path which I have already had the honour of charting before your Lordships by which greater freedom and responsibility is given to local authorities.

What is perfectly certain is that so long as free discussion remains the heritage of our country, there will always be a realm of dispute as to the true balance of the rights of the individual and of the State. In different times the balance of equity and advantage may change from one to the other. But if we are to maintain our position as a serious representative Assembly we must always be vigilant to apply our minds to that problem, and I believe that in the four points which I have mentioned this Bill gets nearer the true balance of fairness between the individual and the action of the State. I do not undervalue the action of the State. It is the duty of the State to create the conditions under which free men can live free and good lives. But I do say to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in all seriousness, that social justice must have two implications. It implies justice, and that means justice for the small man as well as for the State; and I profoundly hope it will also always imply freedom, because without freedom I do not believe that any justice worthy of the name can continue to live. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as steps in that double direction, and as such I ask you now to allow it to pass.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.