HL Deb 12 November 1975 vol 365 cc1920-7

[Nos. 4 to 7]

After Clause 3, page 4, line 8, at end insert the following new Clause A:

Outstanding material interests

("A.—(1) A material interest in land shall be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act unless—

  1. (a) it is owned by an authority, a local or new town authority, a parish or community council or, in Scotland, the council of a district within the area of a general planning authority, or
  2. (b) it is owned by a charity, or
  3. (c) it is of a description specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a material interest in land shall be treated as owned by any person mentioned in that subsection at any time if, at that time, that person—

  1. (a) has entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or
  2. (b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate, is entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.

(3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments thereto:

In paragraph (b) of subsection (1), leave out ("it is owned by a charity") and insert ("during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the relevant time, it has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout)")

In paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after ("has") insert ("or had")

(In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after ("is") insert ("or was").

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the Lords Amendment No. 4, and it may be convenient in discussing those numbers also to speak to Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 19A. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has no objection to this discussion in that way.

The Amendments which were made by your Lordships were returned to us as unacceptable by another place. Amend- ment No. 4 to Clause 3A would provide that all charity land, irrespective of when it came into the ownership of a charity, would be exempt from the acquisition duty of authorities and from the consequential suspension of planning permission. Your Lordships' Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 to Clause 25 would provide in addition that charities would receive compensation at market value for all their land in perpetuity, irrespective of when it was acquired by a charity. Secondly, they would reduce to one year the qualifying period during which land must have been in charitable ownership and use in order to qualify for the assessment of compensation at prevailing use value. Thirdly, your Lordships' Amendment No. 19 would allow charities the option on the second appointed day of assessment for compensation at whichever may produce the greater amount as between market value and prevailing use value, even where, apart from the provision in Clause 25, a lesser amount would be payable under the Land Compensation Acts.

As has been said more than once in our debates on this matter, these Amendments do not agree with the Government's stated aim that, while special provision should—as has been done—be made for charities, that must be consistent with the basic principles of the Bill. That view has now been taken in another place. I do not believe that at this stage and at the end of long discussion of these matters I should detain the House by repeating in detail an account of the special treatment which the Government have given to charities. However, I should like to make one point and I believe it to be an important one. A great deal has been said by noble Lords about the damaging effects which they believe—the Government think wrongly —the community land scheme will have on the work of our charities. They believe, for example, that the effect of the provisions of the Bill will prevent the charities from undertaking their work and from ever introducing innovatory schemes. That I do not believe to be the case. In most instances, charities will be able to continue their activities as before, simply because land is not a factor in their operations or, if it is, it by no means follows that it will be required for development. I repeat that this Bill is concerned with development land. It is only in that context that any land—not just charity land—will be affected by the scheme.

This is not a Bill to bring all land into public ownership, only development land. What the Government have sought to do is to give extensive protection to land owned by Churches and charities on White Paper day. The Government's objective is to ensure that the change from the present to the new land system in relation to development land is made as easy for the Churches and charities as is possible within the principles of the scheme. May I remind your Lordships that there will also be complete exemption from development land tax for land owned by a charity on White Paper day, which is to be provided for in the separate Development Land Tax Bill?

I therefore ask the House to accept the Commons Amendments to your Lordships' Amendments No. 4, which will include in the definition of a material interest in land which will not be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Bill, a material interest which was owned by a charity on White Paper day and has continued to be owned by a charity until the date of acquisition. As your Lordships will know, this will have the effect that such material interests will not be subject to the acquisition duty on authorities nor to the consequential suspension of planning permission.

The Commons Amendment to your Lordships' Amendment No. 17 will allow charities to receive prevailing use value rather than market value for their land after 11 years or after the second appointed day, whichever period ends later. This rate of compensation will apply to land which they owned on White Paper day and to land which has been acquired after White Paper day where, in each case, it has been in continuous charitable ownership and use (though not necessarily that of the same charity) for a minimum period of seven years. The Commons agree with your Lordships that the qualifying period should be reduced from the 10-year period which was originally proposed. It is reduced to seven years. No doubt the right reverend Prelate will compare this concession to the pea which the Devil is said to have set before St. Anthony for his supper, when the Saint said that it was good so far as it went. I am sorry that the morsel—which will possibly be the language of the right reverend Prelate—will not be more substantial. But, at any rate, it moves somewhat in the direction which he proposed, which was to reduce the period to one year. The Government cannot accept that, because they do not think that a period as short as that would be enough to make sure of establishing the bona fides of charitable use.

Charities will thus have the option, in the circumstances I have explained, after second appointed day, of receiving compensation at either prevailing use value or current use value. The rules on equivalent reinstatement value will of course continue to apply where appropriate. The Commons Amendment to your Lordships' Amendment No. 19 introduces a provision which will ensure that compensation payable under this section will not be payable if, apart from this section, compensation would be for a lesser amount. This is necessary in order to avoid the possibility of a landowner receiving a larger amount in compensation as a consequence of this Bill than that to which he would have been entitled under existing legislation.

I invite the House to accept these Amendments which give effect to, and indeed go further than, the special provisions for Churches and other charities which were announced by the Minister in another place on 15th July. The Government are confident that these provisions will be sufficient to ensure that the transition to the full stage of the land scheme will not only be as easy as possible for charities, but will, in recognition of the unique service which we recognise they provide to the community, place them in what will be indeed a favourable position compared to that of other owners of land. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the Lords Amendment No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

5.38 p.m.

The LORD BISHOP of LONDON

My Lords, I was much mystified by the reasons which are given for the Government's action on Amendment No. 4. First, I was delighted to read that the Commons agreed to this Amendment, and then I was much surprised to discover that they were immediately proposing an Amendment which completely defeated the object of the Amendment to which they told us they had given their agreement. This seems to me to be another instance of the old Alice in Wonderland principle that a word has the meaning which one attaches to it. We have already had an example of this in what is meant by a "tax", and now we have another example regarding what "agreement" is.

In fact, the Amendment which the Government are proposing is a deletion of the Amendment which your Lordships passed with such an overwhelming majority when we recommitted this Bill. I am sure that the Government will appreciate that their action will have caused very bitter disappointment to the Churches and to the charities, for whom I have had the privilege to speak. As I have thought about, discussed and examined this situation more and more, it has come to my mind that the Government have completely forgotten the existence of the Churches and charities. There is no reference to them in the White Paper on land; there were very serious disabilities to their interests when the Bill was originally published; and it has been only as a result of representations persistently made from the highest quarters that the Government have made a certain number of concessions.

We have not been asking for privileges under this Bill. What we have been doing is seeking to amend the Bill—not in any way to destroy it, but to amend the Bill —so as to make provision for the Churches and the charities, which had obviously been forgotten in the original thinking about and planning of this Bill. I would remind your Lordships that my Amendment had the fullest all-Party support in this House, and was passed by an overwhelming majority. It is in no way a wrecking Amendment. It has sought to strengthen the Bill; and I observe from the Hansard of another place that, with all the Whips on, the Government's action in this respect was sustained by a majority of only eight. If the Whips had not been on, there can be no doubt that our Amendment would have received the support of another place.

It is true, of course, that concessions have been made; and there is also, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has told us, a further concession about this business where prevailing use value will apply to land which came into the ownership of a charity after White Paper day. Instead of "ten", we may now read "seven". I have been much mystified by the logic, such as there may be, which has decided that one is wrong, ten is too much and seven is right. I can only presume that Her Majesty's Government accept the old legend that the number seven is the perfect number, and therefore, possibly, on some future occasion, perfection may be seen in the lessening of this period.

My Lords, one of the things which has worried me during the debate on my Amendment is that I have heard no proper answer to the argument which I have put forward, which is that the treatment of charities under this Bill is a reversal of the traditional treatment by successive Governments of the rights of charities. They have, in the past, been protected—protected for 400 years; protected by the creation of the Charity Commissioners, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and so on—and left to get on with their own job. How much easier it would have been in the whole of this matter simply to have accepted my Amendment, and to have taken them out. It would have done no harm; it would not have upset the working of the Bill in any way; and it would have achieved the object which I think most of us wish.

I believe that the Government have missed a great opportunity to gain the confidence and support of the charities, and that, instead, they have left a legacy of dismay and disgruntlement, and fear for the future. I should have been greatly tempted to divide the House again on this matter, because I believe my Amendment represents the mind of Parliament and of the country, but I understand I should not receive the same kind of support as I did when I first moved my Amendment. So I shall not press my point of view to a Division again, but look for the time when justice can be restored to the interests of the Churches and the charities.

Lord GORE-BOOTH

My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order—no doubt I shall be told if I am not—but I should like to express both admiration for the way in which the right reverend Prelate has handled this matter and appreciation of the courtesy of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack in his difficult task of trying to sell the Government's policy in detail. I should also like to say a special word of appreciation to those Members of your Lordships' House who, knowing a good deal about the subject of charities, rose to speak in favour of the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.

There was one remark made by the noble and learned Prelate who sits on the Woolsack on which I should like to comment; and as he strayed into metaphor, to stray into it myself. He expressed regret that the morsel was not big enough. I venture to suggest that that is not quite the right metaphor. It is that if you have fallen off a ship and are swimming in the water and ask for a lifeboat, you no doubt express real appreciation for a sandwich; but it is not what you asked for.

My last comment is that where the Government seem to have fallen into a double error was, first, to forget about Churches and charities—and one could expand on that a great deal, no doubt to the embarrassment of the Government —and, second, that they were unquestionably seized by a doctrine which even they did not fully understand. Perhaps we could devote one of these long evenings to a short debate on the subject of "What is the community?" The result has been that, somehow, the Churches and charities, people who save the community some money and do it voluntarily themselves, have been "defined out" of the community.

I associate myself wholeheartedly with the right reverend Prelate in what he said at the end of his speech. This legislation will no doubt be revised and a piece of reactionary legislation will, ultimately at least, be modified and, we hope, completely changed.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

My Lords, I thought I would be in order to say just one thing. I want only to say that I can speak for my own part of the country and I know that the decision of the Government against the Churches and charities will be received with dismay and anger. As I now feel, after 38 years in the House of Commons, that I can speak for my own part of the world, I should like that put on the record—and I believe in speaking my mind in things I know that my own part of the world believe. I have got to be fairly polite in this place, and although I have very strong language myself, I will refrain from using it; but at the same time I know that my part of the world will be dismayed and angered. I hope that one of these days we shall be able to show this Government, who appear to have little regard for the Churches and charities, what we in the North of England think of their decision.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I was about to congratulate the noble Baroness on her restraint until she came to her final words; but I should like to express my admiration of the way in which the right reverend Prelate presented his case. May I also say, "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, for describing me as a noble and learned Prelate. Several of my eminent predecessors were so and, as a result, four of them were canonised as saints. Several of my predecessors were not saints.