LAND VALUES (Hansard, 22 June 1961)

§ LORD AMWELL
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, what my right honourable friend said on this topic at the conference of the Rural 717 District Councils Association was that the continuing increase in the number of separate households and the rising standard of living must result in increased demands on land. We cannot ignore this or prevent it; we must look ahead and plan for it. His purpose in saying this was to seek the co-operation of the rural district councils in making sufficient land available for development, because, as with any other commodity, an adequate supply is the only way to prevent the sharp increases in price which result from scarcity.
In saying this he was following up the circular sent to local planning authorities in August, 1960, asking them to allocate more land for development and also to secure more intensive use of urban land. The second is as important as the first; and my right honourable friend intends to do all he can to see that the fullest use is made of land which is developed.
Sterilisation (I think the noble Lord may mean stabilisation) of land values is wholly impracticable. As land becomes ripe for development, and as demand changes, nothing can prevent the value of land changing. For example, industrial development in an area of underemployment will increase land values, and in such circumstances we all welcome it. The important things are to ensure that development is properly planned, that so far as is possible in this overcrowded island sufficient land is made available to meet the demands, and that no land is wasted or under-used. My right honourable friend is working, in collaboration with the responsible local authorities, on all these matters; and I am sure that in doing so he has the support of your Lordships.

§ LORD AMWELL
My Lords, is the Minister suggesting in this over-crowded island, as he said, it is right that the land "sharks" should hold the nation up to ransom to this extent? And if the Minister is so concerned about toning down Mr. Brooke's words, will he have something to say about the difference between speeches to the nation by Ministers, and the real case that is put in the House in answer to a Question?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords. I was not toning down what my right honourable friend said in his speech. I was trying to explain to the noble Lord what he in fact said.

§ LORD AMWELL
May I point out that what Mr. Brooke said was that these "sharks" would "burn their fingers", and that the Government were looking closely at the question. Did he mean that or did he not?

EARL JELLICOE
I think the noble Lord is confusing two statements. He is confusing what my right honourable friend said in his speech, to which the noble Lord referred in his Question, and what was said in an interview which was reported in the Daily Mail last Monday. I find it myself a little difficult to see how a shark burns its fingers.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in his first answer to my noble friend, he did not say—I think he did—that there was no means of controlling the upward value of land? Surely that is not so. If there is something going on which interferes with the whole social life and welfare of the nation it is open to any Government to see that there is proper control of the land required for the nation's purposes.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, without referring to the text, and paraphrasing it, I think that what I said was that the only way of preventing values from rising is to increase supply; and that is what my right honourable friend intends to do. There can, of course, be argument about who should take the value of land—the old familiar argument that since it is society that creates land values, society should reap the betterment. But that is quite a different thing from saying that values should be pegged, which is quite impracticable.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, I could not possibly accept that argument. If you already have, as you have in many cases, powers of compulsory purchase at a fair price, you already exercise control in certain cases. To say that you cannot peg the value of land, with some reference to the common demand, in relation to what is the real value at compulsory purchase price, I do not understand.

VISCOUNT HATLSHAM
My Lords, I think this is almost becoming.a debate.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
I think we are entitled to raise points on the Minister's answers.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, the noble Viscount is, of course, entitled to raise a point, but I was suggesting to the House that this was the time for questions, and not for a debate.

§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH
My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl's original Answer does not indicate that the Government are pursuing largely a policy of laissez faire—of "let things rip"? Does it not mean that land prices are going up and scandalous profits are being made? And is he aware that, owing to the policy of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the green areas of Britain are gradually going? We are getting to the point now that a motor journey from London to St. Albans is nearly all through a built-up area. What are the Government doing to stop this?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I would certainly agree that my right honourable friend's policy is not to modify the policy of a free market in land. It is to stimulate development; and without that free market, development would, if I may borrow the noble Lord's expression, be sterilised, as under the Labour Government.

§ LORD LATHAM
My Lords, the noble Earl said that it was impossible to peg the price of land. Is he aware that during the war, and for some years after, the price of land was pegged at 1939 values?

EARL JELLICOE
I did not say that. I said that it was not possible to peg land values.

§ LORD AMWELL
So nothing is going to be done.