§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the 36¾ acres of agricultural land near Compton Bassett, Wiltshire, acquired by the Air Ministry during the war from the late Mr. Henly under threat of compulsion, was ever offered back at the present market price to his son.]
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (Lord Winterbottom)My Lords, the land formerly owned by Mr. Henly's father has not been offered back to his son. This is because the local planning authority have indicated that they are prepared to grant planning permission for sand extraction at Compton Bassett. Land with such development potential is unlikely to remain in agricultural use and it was not considered appropriate for return to Mr. Henly. The noble Lord may find it helpful to refer to the Written Answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in 48 the Official Report of another place for January 19, 1970, which deals with the circumstances in which consideration is given to the claims of former owners in disposing of agricultural land surplus to the requirements of a Government Department.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and also for being kind enough to send me a copy of the Written Answer to which he referred. May I ask the noble Lord, to start with, is it not obvious that Mr. Henly's son qualifies under the principles enunciated in this particular Answer? Secondly, as regards the land itself, does this not also qualify, in that it is agricultural land and, according to my information, is being used for agriculture? Ought not this land to have been offered back to Mr. Henly's son? Has not a pretty serious injustice been done here?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, this is a difficult subject and, somewhat naturally, all Governments are sensitive to the interests of owners whose land was obtained either by compulsory purchase or threat of compulsory purchase during the last war. But the hard fact of the case is that under the regulations the land must still be predominantly agricultural in nature when it becomes surplus to the requirements of the Government Department. The definition as to whether it is agricultural in nature or not depends upon the planning permission which covers it. In this particular case the local planning authority have said that they are prepared to give planning permission for sand to be extracted from this piece of land, and indeed from the neighbouring land with which it was lumped together. This makes the sand extraction an immediate commercial proposition, and the value of the land when it was sold by public auction reflected this potential. The Ministry of Defence are forced, when selling land, to sell it at the current market value, and since the value of this land with planning permission for sand extraction was so much greater than that for its use as agricultural land the course of action followed by my Department took the course it did.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord again for that further answer. May I ask whether it is 49 not the case that the existence of sand in this farm was already known at the time of the original acquisition by the Air Ministry; that the name of the farm is "Sands Farm"; that sand was then being extracted from there; that the proposed rate of extraction is only about five acres a year, so that the land could easily be made usable for agricultural purposes by a simple annual reseeding of that five acres?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, !he noble Lord is correct in saying that the existence of the sand was known at the time the land was bought and this influenced the price at which the land was bought by the Government during the war. Admittedly the price was a very great deal lower then than it is now, but unfortunately, as we all know, there is no legislation to ensure automatically that the land is restored to its original condition after the extraction of sand, as for instance in the case of the extraction of iron ore. Therefore it could not be said at this stage that the restoration of the land to agricultural use was a certainty or even a probability.
§ Lord BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, can the noble Lord inform us when this departure from the practice that was made known after the Crichel Down case was announced to Parliament? Is it not the case that the practice was that if the land was predominantly of agricultural character it should be offered back to the owner or his heir or successor without regard to what planning permission had been or might be given? Is the noble Lord aware that although that might affect the price it certainly should not have affected the right to receive an offer back?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, perhaps the clearest statement of the present policy is the statement made by my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on January 19 this year.
LORD HENLEYMy Lords, has the noble Lord answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Cumnor? The question was: why was the law altered by an instruction—a private and confidential instruction to the Government Departments—changing the practice which was agreed upon after 50 Crichel Down? The noble Lord has not answered that question.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the law has not been altered. We have at all times been talking about the use of land for agriculture. This land will not be used for agriculture; and when a Government Department disposes of land it has to be sold at the current market value. The current market value in this case depended on the right to extract sand from it.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the difference between a private landLord getting the advantage of increased land value and the Government getting the advantage of increased land value?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMThat, my Lords, is an interesting point and rather illustrates the reason why the Government act as they do.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what was the price at which the land was taken from Mr. Henly, and what is the price at which it is being sold now?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the final price of the land, after negotiation reflecting the fact that there was extractable sand under it, was £1,500. I am not in a position to inform the noble Marquess of the exact price paid for it recently but I will write to him.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, I am sorry if I am making a mistake, but may I ask my noble friend whether I understood from him that the law had been changed since Crichel Down? If that is the case, could he tell me in what respect it has been changed?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I have already said that the law has not been changed.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, first, whether in this case the Government make any distinction between land acquired compulsorily and land acquired under threat of compulsion? Secondly, the noble Lord referred from time to time to present regulations. Even though they may not imply any change in the law since 1953 51 (of which I have the clearest recollection), can he say whether what he calls the present regulations differ in any respect from the procedure which was made clear in Parliament after the incident that goes by the name of Crichel Down?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the Crichel Down procedure was laid down some susbtantial time ago. Since then legislation has been brought into being which has had to be interpreted in terms of administrative instructions to Departments on how to operate the Crichel Down procedure in the light of new legislation. That is why procedures are redefined from time to time. The clearest statement of the present way in which these procedures are interpreted was given by my honourable friend in another place on January 19.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I think that there are a great many confidential instructions, but the principle was made clear in my honourable friend's statement.
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this land is in my old constituency? I know the Henly family very well, and the trouble this is causing in Calne and round about is very severe. Surely the Government ought to take into account the fact that all the people down there think that this is a most high-handed and arbitrary action.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, Governments are often accused of being high-handed and arbitrary, but I think that on balance the Crichel Down procedure has been fairly applied and has kept a proper balance between the interests of the Government and the interests of the individual.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, as Chairman of the Council on Tribunals, may I ask my noble friend whether he would be kind enough to send to my Council details of the interpretation of this procedure?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I presume that my noble friend reads Hansard.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy noble friend is quite correct; but will he please send the information to my Council?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I have noted what my noble friend has said.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, I am afraid that that is not enough. I think that is important. I am asking my noble friend whether he will kindly send to the Council on Tribunals the interpretation of the Crichel Down procedure which has led to this matter and to which he has just referred.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I will consult my right honourable friend and let my noble friend know.
§ LORD BROOKE of CUMNORMy Lords, that answer is not really satisfactory. Is the noble Lord not aware that this is clearly a matter within the sphere of interest of the Council on Tribunals? There should be absolutely no question whatever about a Minister responding favourably to a request of that sort.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shackleton)My Lords, I think that this discussion is going a little far. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that I am not interfering on behalf of the Government. I realise that noble Lords are on to something which they regard as of considerable importance, but the last few questions, though relevant, did not bear directly on the original Question. It may be that noble Lords want to consider the information or, as they may believe, the lack of information that they have had. This is something about which we need to think a little more. I am not trying to stop my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry. Her remarks have been noted and my noble friend who is replying for the Government clearly has to consult his right honourable friend on the subject. I am sure that he will try to meet my noble friend's wishes.