§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy 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 (1) on what date they decided that agricultural land, in respect of which a local planning authority had indicated that it would be prepared to grant planning permission for a different use, should not be offered back, in accordance with the principle announced by the then Minister of Agriculture on July 20, 1954, to the former owner from whom it had been acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion; (2) on what date they informed Parliament of this decision.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, it was decided, in February, 1966, that land surplus to the requirements of Government Departments should not be regarded as agricultural in character if the local planning authority had given, or indicated that it would be prepared to give, planning permission for the land to be developed for non-agricultural use. Ministers have made it known in Parliament and else-where, whenever explanation has been sought, that this consideration has entered into their decisions on particular cases.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, and ask him two questions? Why should the former owner be denied the right to have his agricultural land offered back to him simply because another person, with no title to the land, has been informed by a planning authority that a nonagricultural use might be permitted? Secondly, can the noble Lord point to any Answer given in Parliament since 1966 that informed Parliament of this decision before the Answer given on January 19 of this year?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I think the principle running through this problem—and it is a problem—is that each case should be considered on its merits; and if land can be put to the best use from a national point of view, then that fact should be 596 taken into account when a particular case comes up for decision. This was so, and was intended to be so, right from the beginning of the Crichel Down case. As to the second question, I cannot point to any Parliamentary Answer before the particular one, which was stated in some detail, in January of this year, although I understand that the facts have been set out in letters to Members of Parliament. They were also, of course, given to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if this land had been offered back to Mr. Henly's successors, the Government would not then have made almost as good a bargain as they have already done by acquiring land at £41 a acre and selling it at auction the other day at £500 an acre; because Mr. Henly's successor would surely have been liable for either a development charge or the capital gains tax? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord what his noble friend Lord Winterbottom meant in the exchanges on February 24 when he said that these instructions had to be interpreted in a way so as to make things easier to operate—or something to that effect? Is it true that this instruction is contained in a Treasury Minute to the Government Departments, and, if so, why was it not made public?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, as I understand it, the successor to the former owner of the particular land in which the noble Lord and others have been interested was able to make a bid for this land. He attended the auction and did in fact bid, but apparently he did not want to pay the current market price. As to why it was not offered to him separately and before the auction, I think this instance illustrates the doctrine that each case should be considered separately. I understand that there are six owners involved for an area of 106 acres: five of the owners have not made any complaint about the procedure which was followed in this case.
As to the answer which was given by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, it is conceivable that it might have been worded in a way which would have explained more clearly to the noble Lord what in fact happened. There was the statement in 1954, after the famous Crichel Down case, which was open to 597 a number of different interpretations. It needed to be clarified. There were administrative clarifications in 1957 and again in 1958. In neither case was the departmental discussion made public, nor should it have been made public. No great principle was involved; it was only a clarification. Similary in 1966, in order to clarify what was intended some note was made, but no great principle that required publication was set out.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, may I go back to the general issue? Is the noble Lord aware that the Crichel Down procedure of 1954 was enunciated to stop Government Departments from hawking land round to other Government Departments before selling it, and that it worked successfully? Can he explain why the Government should now have adopted a new procedure which appears to empower the Government Department concerned to avoid its responsibility under the Crichel Down procedure to offer the land back to its original owner, if that Department is able to hawk it around to a developer who may be willing to put in a planning application for its development? This seems to frustrate the original Crichel Down procedure.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, that was the impression that I had until I came to look at what was actually said in 1954. It is the impression that a number of people received at that time, but I do not think it is borne out by the words of the Statement which was made on July 20, 1954. There is no prescriptive right on the part of the owner to have back his land in that doctrine, which was set out by a Conservative Minister (who I do not think was treated very fairly) and by a Conservative Government. I would invite the noble Lord to look at that statement of July 20, 1954, and I would also invite the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to look at it. I shall be interested to discuss it with him afterwards.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, it is a pity my noble friend did not answer on February 25 last, but I wonder whether I could ask him to look again at the question as to whether or not there was a confidential minute. Is he aware that it is this aspect of the matter which is concerning most of us?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, as I have said, a Statement was made in 1954. With all the respect I can muster for the Government of that day, the statement was not all that clear, and subsequently clarification was necessary. The Conservative administrators in 1957 and again in 1958 sent out a minute clarifying certain parts of that procedure. They were not minutes which I think ought to have been published but at the same time there has been no disposition to hide them.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the Statement made by my noble friend Lord Crathorne on July 20, 1954, really needs what he calls "clarification" when, after reference to the merits of the case, my noble friend said:
…where circumstances show that the land can properly be offered to a former owner or his successor who can establish his claim, this will be done at a price assessed by the district valuer as being the current market price."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 530. col. 1192.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, that is quite so. That bears out what I have been saying, that each case will be considered separately and on its merits, and where the land is not to be continued in agricultural use, a different set of circumstances will arise.
§ LORD MOLSONMy Lords, is not the whole purpose of the Crichel Down decision to see that things are not dealt with on the merits of the individual case but that a general principle of equity of compensation is laid down which is to be applied in all cases?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, with respect the final paragraph says:
Nevertheless, the Government will in future consider each case on its merits"—and then it goes on to say—with the desire that, where circumstances show that the land can properly be offered to a former owner or his successor who can establish his claim, this will be done at a price to be assessed by the district valuer as being the current market price.They were talking here first of agricultural land and saying that in any event each case should be considered on its merits. This case was considered on its merits. It was thought that the land should not go back to agricultural use. There were, as I have said, six owners 599 concerned in an area of 106 acres and in the circumstances it was felt that to leave it open to general tender was the most satisfactory way of dealing with the case.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, is the Minister aware that of course I read the whole Statement of July, 1954, before I put down my Question. I hope he will accept it from me that I, and I think, any other lawyer reading that whole Statement, would regard this as a complete breach of what was then promised.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to ask a question? This is rapidly turning into a debate.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I was going on to ask this question. Does the noble Lord realise that he is begging the question when he says that this new principle can be adopted without making a leap in the dark? He said that this is not to remain agricultural land. How does he know that from the simple fact that somebody has applied to know whether another use would be permitted? Is not the owner deprived of having the land offered back to him with nobody knowing whether another use will eventuate or not?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the reason I say that this land was not to be returned to agricultural use, if for no other reason, is the price which persons were prepared to pay for it. It was not an agricultural price. Indeed, I am given to understand that when the land first changed hands it was known that sand was there, and that fact was borne in mind when the compensation was paid to the original owner.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, will the noble Lord recognise, regarding what he said in an earlier answer, that in fact the 36-odd acres of land which belonged to the Henly family were consolidated for auction purposes with another 70 acres, making 106 acres, and that the final price was well beyond the means of the Henly family? It was not that they were unwilling to buy.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I can understand that there was a difficulty, in that the land was offered in one parcel. 600 I confess that this point had not occurred to me. At the same time, if it was intended that the land should be put to the best use in the national interest, it was perhaps thought better to treat it as one whole. However, there is nothing here that is under the counter at all. Procedures were laid down. The matter was referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Ombudsman (I think it was last year), to see whether the procedures had been followed, and his report confirmed that the procedures had been followed.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, would the Minister consider that in future cases where such land is offered to public tender it might be offered in the same lots of ownership as it was acquired, so that owners might be able to put in a bid for what they had previously had without having to buy extra land?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, it is a point which might be considered, though I am inclined to think the answer would be that this is further justification for treating each case on its merits.