1923 Petition 21 MAY 1965 Complai111 of Privilege 1924 Journals of the House, together with a certi­ ficate that the copy is true and authentic, and HOUSE OF COMMONS to give the aforesaid copy and certificate to your Petitioner. Friday, 21st May, 1965 And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. The House met at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to move that leave be given in the PRAYERS ordinary way?

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair] Sir B. Janner : Yes, Sir. I beg to move, That leave be given to the proper Officer to produce a certificate PETITION accordingly. Question put and agreed to. Journal Entries (Copy) Sir : I beg to present a Petition to this House on behalf of John COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE Michael Beharrell, a partner in the firm Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. of Clifford-Turner and Company, Solici­ Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank tors for the Hazeltine Research Incor­ Al1aun) made a complaint to me founded porated. The Petitioner seeks the leave on a letter and some documents. The of the House for the proper officer of material parts of the letter were read to the House to prepare a copy of certain the House. In my opinion the hon. entries in the Journals relevant to court Member's complaint does disclose prima proceedings in the United States of facie a breach of privilege, and I so America to which the Hazeltine Research declare. Incorporated are a party. The Lord President of the Council The Petition concludes with the follow­ (Mr. Herbert Bowden) : I beg to move, ing Prayer: That the matter of the complaint be re­ Wherefore your Petitioner prays that leave ferred to the Committee of Privileges. be given to the proper Officer of the House to prepare a copy of the relevant entries in the Question put and agreed to. 1925 Highways (Amendment) Bill 21 MAY 1965 Highways (Amendment) Bill 1926 borough. After retiring, the chairman of ORDERS OF THE DAY the bench said that Section 129 appeared to them mandatory and that it was the HIGHWAYS (AMENDMENT) duty of the bench to comply with the BILL Section and serve notice on the highway authority. At the same time, he said, the Not amended (in the Standing Com­ difficulties of the highway authority in mittee), considered. fulfilling their responsibilities were 11.8 a.m. obvious and the bench did not wish to Mr. Oscar Murton (Poole): I beg to contemplate the situation which could move, That the Bill be now read the arise if all those who were similarly en­ Third time. titled were also to make application to the court. The purpose of this modest Bill is to retain the duty which the existing law The point of this short incursion into lays upon a highway authority to remove the past troubles of the borough engineer an obstruction arising in a highway from of Barnes is to illustrate how serious the an accumulation of snow or any other situation could be in future if the exist­ cause, but changes the law by giving ing Section 129 were not amended. There magistrates more discretion in enforcing could well be a scandalous waste of the that duty. ratepayers money, because snow clearance is a rate-borne expenditure, and a serious On current interpretation, if a resident dispersion of manpower and equipment of a district applies -to a justice of uhe and a wastage of a vital commodity such peace for a notice requi,ring the highway as salt, which is so often in short supply a-u~horirty to clear an obstruction, the during a severe and protracted winter. justice has no option but to serve tJh,e notice requiring tihe obstruction to be The Amendment proposed to the exist­ cleared, within 24 hours, even though he ing Section 129 of the Highways Act, may know thart to do so wou'1d not be 1959, would remove from the magistrates in the best interes·ts of the public at large. the possible dilemma of having to satisfy the complaint of an individual at the The classic case is that which occurred expense of others' rights, by preventing a in the Borough of Barnes in January 1963 diversion of the resources of manpower, towards the end of that extremely hard vehicles and equipment available to a winter. That authority had managed to highway authority for work on highways, keep the main traffic roads and shop­ in any case where the highway authority ping centres reasonably clear, but the side could establish that a higher priority roads could not be touched. At that point existed for their utilisation elsewhere. The in time the corporation's manpower and Bill also substitutes a magistrates' court equipment were at full stretch and sup­ for a single justice and provides for the plies of salt were also running low. On 25th January, a local resident made appli­ issue to be brought before the court by the usual procedure for order. cation before the local justices for the an issue of a notice under Section 129 of the There is no provision in the new Highways Act, 1959, "which, as the House Clause I for specific penalty as there is is probably aware, reproduces almost in subsection (3) of the existing Section. word for word a siimilar provision in the When the Section was first enacted in Highways Act of 1835. 1835, the authority responsible for clear­ ing obstructions was the parish surveyor. The court was clearly uncertain of the Highway authorities are now more sub­ position. The justices heard the com­ stantial bodies and it was felt that it plainant and required him to indicate would be invidious suggest that a which accumulation of snow was the sub­ to penalty was needed to make ,1Jbemcarry ject of the application. They went to view it and found it to be a pile of snow out a court order. In any case, Section 54 of tihe Magistrates Court Act, 1952, in a side road cleared from the pavement and lying in a gully on the opposite side would apply automatically in the event of default. The Bill makes no change of the road from the complainant's house. in the position of persons liable to main­ The justices returned and invited the tain a highway by reason of tenure, en­ borough engineer to state what was being closure or prescription. The number of done about snow clearance in the these persons is very small, but, as the 1927 Shops (Early Closing 21 MAY 1965 Days) Bill 1928 [MR. MURTON.] general law still places obligations on SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING DAYS) them, there seems to be no reason to BILL modify their duty in regard to obstruc­ Not amended (in the Standing Com­ tions on the highway. It is of interest mittee) considered. that this provision does not absolve the highway authority, whose obligation Clause 1.- (SELECTION OF SHOP'S EARLY under Section 129 extends to highways CLOSING DAY BY ITS OCCUPIER.) not maintainable by the authority. 11.15 a.m. The House will note that no funda­ Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, mental change in the law is proposed. Brightside): I beg to move, in page 1, The right of a private citizen to com­ lioe 18, after "s hop", to insert: plain to the magistrates' court is main­ " so as to be visible from outside the shop tained and it will still be the duty of the at an entrance used by its customers" . highway a uthority to remove obstruc­ During the very short passage of the tions. Bill through its Committee stage, there 11.14 a.m. was an Amendment in connection with The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the notices which had to be displayed the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen relative to the early closing day. Un­ Swingler) : I rise to commend the Bill fortunately, the Amendment was not of to the House and to thank the hon. the nature which could be accepted, be­ Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) for cause technically there were flaws in the the way in which he has piloted it wording, but the force of the argument through. We did not think that this was clearly seen and appreciated and Measure would set the House aflame, agreed to by the whole Committee. In but it is, nevertheless, a useful and busi­ consequence, we agreed that an Amend­ nesslike improvement of the highway ment should be brought forward at this law. stage to give effect to this publication I should like to emphasise two things of a notice. wh~cih have been menrtioned by the hon. This Amendment is the result of that Member. First of all, this Measure in consideration. It is introduced in order no way lessens the duty of the highway to assist customers and enforcement au:tJhorities to remove obstructions. That officers to ascertain when a shop will be duty is quite olea-r and we hope at all open or closed. The Amendment makes times for a hi•g,h s·tandard of competence it clear that this notice specifying the o,f highway au~borities in carry,ing it out. day which the occupier has selected as Secondly, it in no way diminishes the right the early closing day must be clearly dis­ of

I hope that the House will forgive me permitted hour's extension. Because this 1 if I use some teohnica1I terms, even provision has fallen into desuetude, we 1 though I am not a lawyer. I have a feel that the time has come for it to rather flexible mind, which does not, per- be removed. It is not being used and, haps, make it any easier to understand therefore, we might as well remove it the type of interpretation of Bills which from the Jaw. This means, in effect, that is given by lawyers. Nevertheless, I will an occupier must close his shop not later do my best to explain simply, in ordinary than 1 p.m. He need not open it at all layman's language, what the Bill does. on early closing day if he wishes to The Bill repeals subsections (2) and (3) operate a five-day working week. of Section 1 of the Shops Act, 1950. That The re'levall't words in Section 1(4) of is the Section which requires the closing the Shops Act, 1950, giving the local of shops not later than 1 o'clock on one authorities their power are being repealed. weekday each week. With the repeal of For the benefit of chambers of com­ subsections (2) and (3) of Section 1 of merce and chambers of trade which are th~ 1950 Act, it will no longer be possible somewhat puzzled about the effect of the for a local authority to make an order Bill upon certain practices, I should like fixing the early closing day. My Bill to make clear the effect of the Bill upon preserves the right to have an early clos- certain practices that have developed ing day, but the right of fixing the early during the last two or three years, nota­ cl05;ing day is transferred from the local bly in the big centres of population. In 1931 Shops (Early Closing 21 MAY 1965 Days) Bill 1932 [MR. WINTERBOTTOM.] Although the local authority had power six of our main cities, as a result of a to fix ,the half day under the Act, the decision by the traders in the centres of trader has always been able, if he desired, those cities the half-day early closing to close on, say, Saturday afternoon. Most period has been abrogated. Two-thirds traders choose ei,bher SaJturday or Monday of the traders have accepted that prin­ as their half days, firsrt for economic ciple. It has been accepted by the local reasons and secondly because one or the authorities, but a quid pro quo has been other is the most appropri:aJte day on given. which to give a full day's holiday to their assistants. Mosrt assistants would prefer The shops in the centres of those six to ihave tihe halrf day on Saturday or main cities open six days a week within Monday because iit means a long week­ the limits of the hours prescribed by law, end for them. Although this has been but as a quid pro quo they have guaran­ done by volUJlJtary agreement in many teed to the local authorities to give a day parits of ,the coUJJJtry, this will be the firnt off to all their assistants. Th2s arrange­ time in the hi,story of the distributive trade ment will not be affected by the Bill. that shop assisitanits will get vhese sort of Even though certain of the existing statrntory days off. lit is something tiha,t powers of local authorities are being w:ais not dreamt of 40 years ago. abrogated, others of the powers given by the Shops Act are being retained. The distribrntion industiry provides a service to the ooun:try and fears have been Subsection (2) of Clause 4 provides expressed about at which shops that when the Bill comes into operation, will be open and whether the public will a local authority shall no longer have have sufficienrt opporturuties to do their power to make shops which are otherwise shopping. I assure uhe House thait the exempt from it subject to the require­ Bill does noit affecrt the shop hours from ment to obsea-ve an earJy closing day by tJhe point O!f view of the general public. reason of carrying on only a trade or It mere;ly makes provision for shop ass1st­ business as specified in the First Schedule ants to have ,tJhe sort of days off thait apply to the 1950 Act. throughout industry in these days of pro­ Certain sections of the distributive gress. Tlhis could be achieved by s,hops trade are exempted from giving an early sitaggering the times ait which they close closing day under the 1950 Act. They w enable their assistants to have days will continue to be exempted, but there off. Because the Bill represents a real will be no increase in their numbers. It step forward I commend it to the House. will not be within the power of a local 11.34 a.m. authority to extend those exemptions. Mr. Marcus Lipton (BriX

[MR. McBRIDE.] I wish to dispe1l the idea that we are LocaI solicitors, as agents of building deaiing only wiuh slum property here, socie:,t-ies, have tllheiir ears to the ground and I shall give examples to prove my in these ma,tters and are always seeking point. 11he tirouble starts wi,bh Section 4 informa,tion. of the 1957 Act, which describes the The hon. Member spoke of Rach­ s

1961 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (A mend men I) Bill 1962 since I have been a Member of this proper emotional flavour, one should refer House I have taken a keen interest in the to these properties not as houses but as whole question of compensation for com­ homes. They are homes on which owners pulsory purchase. My continuing view have spent money on improvements and has been thait a fair markeit value should devoted their own labour and provided be paid as compensation to those whose their own modifications. I could show pmperty or livelihood is acquired com­ hon. Members one or two properties in pulsorily. I have greait sympaithy wi,th the my constituency which are threatened at cases which were referred rto by ,the hon. the present time where a great deal of Member for Attercliffe. We could discuss artistic imagination has been shown by the the problems of shopkeepers wiith very owners. sho1it tenancies who have occupied the These houses are owner-occupied. I premises concerned for many years. Their do not come am sure that my hon. right by law to compensation is limited here-I Friends do not plead for more com­ because their tenancy from a legal point -to of view is only short, alrthough they know pensation for slum landlords. I plead first thait the landlord will renew the tenancy for the owner-occupiers of well-maintained been con­ every year, and ,~be whole community is houses whose property has aware that these people will remain in the demned as unfit under the provisions of premises unrtil rthe time when they reitire. Section 4 of the 1957 Act. My hon. Friends the Members for Selly Oak and The Town and Country Planning Act for Crosby discussed the current state of of 1959 went a long way to achieve the the law about the amount of compensation provision of fair compensation which I paid in these cases. wish to see, although as I said at the time Without, I hope, being repetitious, I when it was introduced, the Private should like to make a few comments on Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the the present state of the law. The general Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. rule, as the House will know, is that Corfield) contained a simpler and a more compensation for houses included in a just approach. The major grievances clearance area and condemned as unfit remaining regarding the treatment of pro­ is the value at the time the valuation is perties which are subject to compulsory made of the land cleared of building and purchase lie in the clearance areas. When available for development. I understand we refer to a house as being in a clear­ that this provision goes a long way back ance area it connotes a slum in the minds in the housing legislation, it was not of many people. From memories of the introduced for the first time in the 1957 pre-war years we all have a clear image of Act. It had been for many years the what is a slum. Therefore, to suggest that view of Parliament of what would be the a slum property should receive more than appropriate compensation. I have tried to site value seems on the face of it slightly look up earlier debates, but I have not outrageous. succeeded in tracing sufficiently far back As was pointed out by my hon. Friend to find a full debate on this, but I guess the Member for Crosby, some houses that the reason behind the action of which are involved are not slums in the our predecessors in Parliament in decid­ popular sense of the word. It is true that ing this was the right approach was that they will have been condemned as unfit they had in mind the sort of old back­ under Section 4 of the 1957 Act. It is to-back property on which, it was felt, also true that if there is a public inquiry, the owners had received back many the Ministry's inspector has to confirm times over in the form of rent the cost the certification by the local authority that had been originally incurred and that that the property is unfit. If I recall the there was no debt left to be paid off. provisions of the Act correctly, it must be Mr. Graham Page: P haps I may stated in writing to the owner of the pro­ er assist my hon. Friend. This started from perty in what respect the property has the housing legislation of 1936 when the been condemned as unfit. Nevertheless, Conservative Government of those days the occupants of many of the houses­ started a massive slum clearance drive. certainly many in my constituency, I may possibly have a rather higher percentage Mr. Price: I am obliged to my hon. of such houses-feel that their property Friend. In the past this was probably is not unfit. Perhaps, in order to get the a fair approach. r 1963 L and Compe,,sation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 19'64 [MR. PRICE.] would be made and everybody would be There is a second point, which neither in the clear and that Parliament was of my hon. Friends has touched on, in­ giving a caveat emptor to a prospective volving houses included in a clearance buyer of a house on the margin of fitness area simply by reason of geography. The or unfitness. It bas not quite worked out property is not condemned as unfit and that way. full compulsory purchase value is paid. As I shall demonstrate in a number of This refers to the point made by the cases from my constituency, searches have hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. been made of the local authority, and Richard) in his intervention during the after the local authority has given out speech of my hon. Fr iend. The difference its pronouncement a house is suddenly here can turn on a fine point of judg­ the subject of a clearance order. ment on one of the nine factors in Sec­ Another factor is the additional payments tion 4 of the 1957 Act. If the view is for well-maintained houses. I believe that taken by the Ministry's inspector that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly a particular item in respect of which the Oak did not make it clear that under property was condemned is not serious the H ousing (Payments for Well­ and could be put right, the occupier gets Maintained Houses) Order, 1956, the full compulsory purchase value. On the maxinmm which could be paid for an other hand, if the inspector takes the ordinary rented house is three times the view of the local authority that it is rateable value, and, for an owner­ something which cannot easily be put occupied, up to six times. right, the occupier gets only site value plus a well-maintained allowance. As Even so, that in no way compares with was pointed out by my hon. Friend the the market value. It means that after Member for Crosby, this could make a looking at the present state of the law very substantial difference. the most immediate problem is the con­ Thirdly, there is the special provision tinuation of the provisions of Part II of about which we were told by my hon. the Second Schedule, that is, that after Friend the Member for Selly Oak. The December of this year the position of owner-occupier of a house acquired after owner-occupiers will be severely 1st September, 1939, and before 30th prejudiced. Secondly, even under the December, 1955, is eligible for com­ existing law there are, as my hon. F riend pensation at the full market value when the Member for Crosby has illustrated, it is acquired by the local authority. T his great anomalies between the compensa­ is contained in Part II of the Second tion payable for comparable or nearly Schedule of the 1957 Act. If I recall our comparable houses. deliberations correctly this prov1s10n I should like to give the House one appealed to hon. Members because it example from my constituency. A man was argued that this was taking care of with a family who took secondary the housing problem arising from the employment in order to save up enough bombing which was followed by the very money to put down a deposit acquired a acute post-war housing shortage. It was house in December of last year for £2,175 felt that people had acquired property in a terrace in Eastleigh called Cran­ which they might not otherwise have bury Road. He received a mortgage over done because of sheer necessity and that 25 years oE £1,950, with a very reputable unless some special provision had not building society. Of course, the building been put into the 1957 Act the injustice society had sent its surveyor to inspect which my hon. Friends have mentioned the house, because building societies do would have been very much more acute. not give mortgages for 25 years without So the H ouse recognised at that time having a look at the house. A search that there should be a special provision was made by my constituent's solicitor. in the Act for houses acquired before He went into his house in October and on 13th December, 1955. The view then 14th December, six weeks later, he was was that the housing shortage was over. served notice that his house was in a I think that that was a rather optimistic clearance area. view. It was also felt that, in future, if To be fair, when the Minister of Hous­ anyone bad any view as to whether a ing sets up a public inquiry, pursuant house was or was not unfit or was likely to the clearance order which Eastleigh to come under a clearance order, a search Borough Council have proposed, and this 1965 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1966 property is inspected, it is possible that nt1es before you purchased the property­ it will be decided that it is not unfit, but ' Have the Council made any order (whether or not confirmed by the appropriate Minister) or that it should be part of the clearance passed any resolution for the compulsory area, in which case my constituent will get acquisition of the property '?-and the answer the market value. But if the condemna­ given by the Local Authorities is ' No'. tion is upheld by the Minister's inspector, Accordingly we do not think that your solici­ then his compensation will, at best-- tor has been negligent in this matter . . " Of course be had not. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local But I ask hon. Members to look at it Government (Mr. James MacColl): The from the point of view of the official of hon. Member will realise that it is very the local authority when this inquiry was embarrassing for me to discuss this if it made of him. His council had not yet discussed the matter. They had certainly is s11b judice. I must not discuss it at all. He must be clear, however, that it passed no resolution nor put up a draft is not my right hon. Friend's inspector scheme to the M inister. Could that official, with integrity, even if he might who decides, but my right hon. Friend have suspected that his council was likely himself. in the future to bring this into a clearance Mr. Price: Of course. I stand cor­ order, have said, " Yes. I think it will rected by the Joint Parliamentary Secre­ be included in a clearance order"? That tary. The inspection will not be done official would be blighting that area on by the Minister ; it will be done on his his own authority and not on the autho­ behalf by his inspector. I do not think rity of the council whose servant he is. that it would be unfair to say that the This is a serious problem. I do not Minister's decision will be greatly pretend to know what the answer is, be­ influenced by his inspector's report. Let cause it would be quite wrong if officials us put it no higher than that. were to give advice of this nature with­ Mr. Gmden : Would not my hon. out the authority of a resolution passed Friend agree that it is most unusual for by their council. T hey would be blighting the decisions to be reversed, that in areas and the owners of property would, the majority of cases the orders are I think, have, at least prima facie, the confirmed? ri2:ht of an action against the council official concerned. It is very unfair on Mr. Pl'ice : I should not care to com­ the purchaser that he is not told, yet ment on my hon. F riend's suggestion. if no council resolution has been passed Good citizens as we are in the borough it is very difficult to see how the council of Eastleigh, we believe the powers which official can give advice of the kind which Parliament has given to Her Majesty's was asked for in this case. The result Ministers to have relevance. Therefore, on the purchaser of the house, in this we are very optimistic that, when the case my constituent, is very severe. public inquiry is held, the Minister of I think that this is the first factor which Housing will judge these things and that adds to the difficulty of the situation. The the greatest equity as well as the best second is principals for clearance will be very -- much in his mind. Mr. R. W. Brown (Shoreditch and Fins­ This is an interesting case. Earlier bury) : The hon. Member is making an on, the hon. Member for Swansea, East interesting point, which I believe is a very (Mr. McBride) told the House that this real problem to people who serve on local is not really a problem because, before author~ties. I have been involved in just a person purchases a house, bis solicitor this sor-t of s-iituwtion. It is often alleged makes a search, and the local authority rhait looal authorit ies deliberntely aot in will tell him, but it is not as easy as this. this way. This is nonsense. Things move In the case which I quoted, my constitu­ so fast these days that a decision can be ent took the matter up and complained made neX!t week, 'Mhen one has. no idea to the Law Society that his solicitor had this week tha1t one would take such a not made a proper search. The Law decision. If the time scale is so short Society replied : and it is known by the officers of the " We have referred to your title deeds, but authority that within a week something see that your solicitor asked the following will be done, I feel that between lawyers question (amongst others) of the Local Autho- a nod or a wink would be sufficient •to 1967 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1968 [MR. BROWN.] reasons of wider consideration, a house indicate that there are grounds for con­ comes into a clearance order area, the sidering that something will be done. I owner occupier should get full market have always felt thart. ~t was rather dis­ value. honest if somebody knows nhait rt.hat will Those are some of the problems that happen. Lt seems to be a J.i

·~ 1969 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (A me11dme111) Bill 1970 was compulsorily acquired and there may be could be set up in the. buying and selling individual hardship which we would be pre­ of slum properties and, as a result, people pared to consider, but we believe in the prin­ ciple of paying only site value and no more would be getting ahead of clearance for such property."-[OFFJCIAL REPORT, 23rd orders. The way in which that might be March, 1965; Vol. 709, c.c. 313-315.) circumvented would be to limit my hon. The interesting phrase is that Friend's Bill to owner-occupiers. It is difficult to see how the market could be " we would be prepared to consider ". rigged for owner-occupiers on the basis Does that mean that the Government of one person being entitled to only one would contemplate introducing Amend­ house. In default of any proposal by the ments to the current law to deal with the Government to deal with this problem. situation, or do they mean, as I thought which is made urgent by the cessation of that the Parliamentary Secretary meant, the powers specified in Part II of the that the hon. Gentleman has power to Second Schedule of the Housing Act, the allow a local authority to pay more than simple solution offered by my hon. Friend the site value plus certain additions laid must appeal to the Minister. down in the 1957 Act? Undoubtedly, hon. Members can see I have searched the Statutes. I am not deficiencies in my hon. F riend's approach. a lawyer and, therefore, I am sure that For my part, when the Joint Parlia­ my searches have been incomplete and I mentary Secretary replies he can offer cannot find by what legal authority the Government legislation on what, I am Minister could enable a local authority sure, most hon. Members agree is the to pay more than is provided by the real problem concerning us. I for one statutory formula laid down in the 1957 would be well content provided that the Act. I should be grateful if the Joint Government bring in that legislation in, Parliamentary Secretary will tell me say, the next Session of Parliament. whether his Department has some over­ I end with some words which I used riding power in some other Statute that in an earlier debate on this general sub­ would enable the Minister to authorise, ject six years ago at the time of the say, in our case, the Eastleigh Borough introduction of the Town and Country Council in hard luck cases to pay out Planning Bill in 1958. I do not apologise more than the statutory compensation for repeating these words. I believe that which is provided for in the 1957 Act. what I said then is still true. I said: Mr. Richard : Before the hon. Gentle­ " In endeavouring to establish the just price, the margin of error should, in my opinion ... man leaves the question of the Second be in favour of the private citizen, for where Schedule to the 1957 Act, I understand the private citizen receives less than his due that he is talking in terms of extending from the community, the reputation of the the provisions of Part II of that Second Community as the custodian of justice is debased and, therefore, we all suffer."­ Schedule. He will, of course, realise [OFF1c1ALREPORT, 13th November, 1958; Vol. that under the Bill the whole of that 595, C. 625.] Schedule will be repealed. There 1s no That is still my view today. question of extension. 1.41 p.m. Mr. Price: I have been examining Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, some of the ways in which this problem Brightside): I submit that this is not the might be dealt with, but in default of the sort of Bill that should be introduced Government offering to produce legisla­ at present. It seeks to amend the law tion on these lines I believe that the only applying to the compulsory acquisition thing we can do to deal with this prob­ of land as contained in the 1957 Act, lem is to follow the approach taken by which was part of the consolidation my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak Measure passed in 1961. Hon. Members l of paying a fair market value. who supported those two Measures were not, I assure the hon. Member for I believe that the criterion of fair Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), anti the Gov­ market value has one or two difficulties, ernment of the day. A Conservative Gov­ with which we might be able to deal in ernment were responsible for those Committee. Those who are much more Measures and it is an anachronism that a informed than I on these matters tell Bill should be introduced now to amend me that it is conceivable that a market them without sufficient proof having been Vol. 712 21

~ 1971 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1972 [MR. WINTERBOTTOM.] Not long ago traders in a market in provided that the market has changed so Sheffield, many of whom have been trad­ much between 1961 and now that legisla­ ing on the site for many years, were told tion of the type we are discussing is that they would have to move to a newly­ necessary. built market which had all the latest Everything that has been said about modern conveniences and scientific appa­ the Bill by hon. Gentlemen opposite to­ ratus for efficient marketing. They pro­ day could have been said in 1957 and tested because, they said, the goodwill 1961, but it was not. Why the sudden which they had built up over many years change of heart? Why the sudden re­ of trading had not been included in the pentance? Why do we suddenly find compensation arrangements. Every one St. Paul seeing the light on the road to of the traders who moved into the new Damascus? The motive underlying the market in Sheffield now has a much introduction of the Bill is obscure ; that higher goodwill value attached to his is, until one looks at the purpose of premises than he had previously. the Measure. That purpose is, of course, to amend the law relating to the com­ Three days ago I received a letter from pensation payable upon the compulsory my sister who has moved into a new acquisition of land. All the talk about housing estate She had to leave the shop the market value of houses and the good­ and living accommodation which she and will value of shops does not matter at her husband had occupied for a consider­ all in our consideration of this proposed able time because that property was being legislation. What matters is the price demolished to make way for improve­ of the land upon compulsory acquisition. ments. In terms of compensation she has not done at all badly. In fact, she When I was a boy my father said to has done extraordinarily well if one con­ me, " You have an inquiring mind. You siders that, as a result of moving, her ask why the cow jumped over the moon new premises in a new estate have the and why the dish ran away with the goodwill value of about 1,500 potential spoon". I suppose that be could have customers. Her trade and profits in the gone on to tell me, " If you live long first month have exceeded those of an enough you may ask why we must wait average month's takings at her previous for our wings until we die ". All the time, he said, I asked, "Why, why, premises. Let us, therefore, get a sense of reality, and start asking a few ques­ why? " So I ask why about the Bill. tions when we talk of market values Land values and the problem of and goodwill values. housing has become one of the main political issues of our time, particularly As a young man I worked with the during the last five years. So important local co-operative society, and outside my are the problems involved that the Gov­ responsibilities in the shop one of my ernment declared in the Gracious Speech painful jobs was occasionally to examine that they intended to introduce legisla­ houses. The society had a mortgage tion to deal with them. Why is a system for its members only, and the Measure of this type being introduced scheme covered an area of about 10 when it is well known that a comprehen­ square miles. It is rather sad to reflect that sive Measure will be coming forward in those days the amount paid for a very from the Government? I am not saying modern six-roomed house with a bath­ that this is either a small or unimportant room, but with no central heating, was no Bill. It is extremely important in terms more than £400 in any part of that dis­ of its scope and range. trict. Provided that the examiner thought Reference was made by hon. Gentle­ that the market value of the house was men opposite to shopkeepers and, as they £400, the society was prepared to lend pointed out, shopkeepers will be affected £360 on any house in that area. by it if it becomes law. Many shop­ In this way I got friendly with a num­ keepers wonder, when a compulsory pur­ ber of estate agents and a number of chase order is made and when they must house purchasers, especially those pur­ leave their premises after perhaps many chasers who worked in the society. I years of trading there, why the good­ was the secretary of the employers. One will of their shops is not included in of them asked, " Will you examine some the compensation payable. houses for me? There are six of them; 1973 La•d Comp,n.,,,;o" 21 MAY 1965 (Am,rnimen<) BUI 1974 ~\ 1 three good ones, and three not so good The firm said, " We must get rid of these at the back. They are asking £1,000 for tenants. In spite of the house shortage, them, and I am thinking of investing." He we want to demolish these dwellings and insisted on my looking at them because build our new factory." When the local of my knowledge of houses in the dis- authority would not agree to provide trict. In the end, he got those houses for alternative accommodation in order that £850, with a ground rent of 15s. per year. that should be done, English Steel started These are revealing figures. Once be had buying houses in Sheffield in order to got the property, I said, "The first thing transfer to them the tenants from the you want to do, my lad, is to houses on the land where the factory was capitalise on that, and acquire the lease- to be built. hold." He did so-for about £9 10s. There was nothing wrong in that and I did not see that man for years-un ­ I do not grumble about it, but that action til about six months after the Conser­ inflated the market price in Sheffield for vative Government introduced their that type of house-a house with four Housing Act. He told me, " One of rooms, split like an egg box, no bot these houses is for sale, would you like water, no bath, and the only modem to look at it? " I did not want to, but amenity a cold water tap. Those houses for friendship's sake I went with him. sold for fabulous prices, but that deter­ He did not sell the house, but be told mined also the market value of houses in me that he had been making 11½ per the surrounding area. Is that the market cent. on those six houses until the last value which the hon. Member hopes three years, when he had got 5 per cent. will be the standard payment for land True, he had looked after them. He told values if his Bill becomes an Act? me, " I do not want to sell anything. There is a difference in owner-occu­ They will drive a road through there. piers. Some of them own the land as well About 30,000 citizens have gone at the as the house, while in other cases the top, and I think that I will get good value." His houses would about 150 house is on leasehold. The cases cited i be by the hon. Member for Crosby could years old. be duplicated in almost every other area. What about market value in that case? This Measure would not improve the lot He has put in the bank far more than of those owner-occupiers who do not adequate interest on bis money, and has I own the land on which the houses stand. had his capital back twice over as well. It would only improve the value of the He was able to increase bis rents be­ land itself cause of the Tory Housing Act. A few -- months ago be wrote to tell me that the Mr. Gorden : My understanding is that three houses at the back had been con­ under previous Acts the owner-occupier demned, exactly on the lines described of a leasehold house would receive fair by the hon. Member for Crosby. compensation. The 1957 Rent Act, and the amending Mr. Winterbottom: compensa­ Act of 1961 gave him, as they gave The everyone else, the opportunity of con­ tion for the house is totally different when sultations with the local authority. In the house it attached to the land and has all my experience I have never known a a freehold invested in it. When a ground local authority seriously misuse the term landlord is involved there is another party " unfit for human habitation " in order to consider. I suggest that merely in the to get a property cheaply. That man will wording of the hon. Member's Bill it will now get about twice as much for those be seen that there is no provision at all houses as be paid for them in the years which could increase the value given between 1928 and 1930. What are we under compulsory purchase by the muni­ to do about market values there? cipality for the house itself. The only provision which is made is for an increase Part of the division of Attercliffe was in that which can be paid for compulsory once in my division of Brightside. The acquisition of land. The Preamble to the English Steel Corporation wanted to Bill is quite clear. develop there, and it bought up all the houses close to its then works because it Mr. Gorden : I am sure rthe hon. Mem­ wanted the site for a factory. The area ber is ma.king a misrtake. Many of the was scheduled for industrial development. houses we cite are under lease from the Vol. 712 212

~ 1975 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1976 [MR. GURDEN.] them all as they dovetail one wiillh another landowner. Alithough I would not quarrel and fit ,togeither in a comprehensive whole. wiJth any Amendment whioh oould be put The Bill is premaiture, and because of that forward in Committee on :the lines he is it should be rejected. In spilte of ithe fact suggesting, I am absolutely sure that tJhe tJhat I agree in principle with many of leaseholder would get a fair va,lue under the provisions in rtJhe Bill from the point the Bill. of view of fairness ~o those who have invested much money, I believe that this Mr. Winterbottom : I am not suggesting is the wrong way ,to go abouit the problem. thaJt ithe leaseholder would not get a fair value for robe property. I am suggesting 2.5 p.m. tfu.aJtthis is no:t provided for in the Bil1. Mr. John E. Talbot (Brierley Hill): We The Bill is limi,ted, in the Preamble, to have reached a stage in the debate at land and the 1'aw relating :to compensation which little purpose would be served by upon oompulsory acquis,iJtion of land. discussing the workings of compensation law. We should concentrate on the prin­ I am coming to :the poinrt: on which I ciples which underlie the Bill. In that think ,t:here may be some confus,ion be­ sense, we have a difficulty because we are tween the hon. Member amd myself. There simultaneously discussing two entirely is ,t,he question of whetheir the land is different matters. involved with the house. This is ailways a diffi.cu1t problem. I shall use an illus­ One is the payment of compensation to tration. Some few moillths ago ,in my con­ owner-occupiers and their treatment. The stiltuency many houses were demolished. other, which is implicit in the Bill, is The local aUJthori

~ 1977 Land Compensatio11 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1978 whether before 1938 or after 1955- for what my Government did then, be­ usually got fair market value for his cause I was among those who pressed purchase. I have heard all sorts of them strongly to do something about it. reasons advanced for denying that view. Sometimes it is the solicitors who are said Mr. Herbert Butler : How did the hon. to be at fault as the unhappy chap had Gentleman get on? bad advice as a result of which he had Mr. Talbot: I did not get on at all. I been involved in financial loss. Then hope to have better luck with the present people would seek to blame the local Government. As the years have passed, authority-- the problem bas become more apparent, because, instead of dealing with out and Mr. Herbert Butler (Hackney, Central): out slums, things that hon. mbers and I understood the hon. Member to say that Me anyone who is not a surveyor or a sani­ sometimes a person bas been badly tary inspector would instantly condemn advised and the solicitor is to blame. Is as slums, we are now getting to the it suggested that the person who bas been bottom of the barrel, except in a few badly advised bas no action against the large cities. I know that in large cities solicitor? the problem has not been scratched. Mr. Talbot: No. Of course he has an But, in the rest of the country, incor­ action against the solicitor, it it can be porated in clearance areas are not only proved that the solicitor has been negli­ houses which hon. Members would con­ gent. I was not admitting negligence demn out of hand but a great many against the legal profession, of which other houses which fail to comply with I am a member. I was saying that the the statutory requirements which have excuse was given by various spokesmen been quoted. Those requirements are pitched so high that is almost safe of Governm ot the present Govern­ it ents-n to say that any house built before 1914 ment, but former Governments-that the can in some way or other be faulted. solicitor ought to have done something What is happening now is that people more than be did. Very often it is ex­ are being paid site value only for houses pected th solicitors are invested with at which in 1957 when the provision came the gift of prophecy and not merely that in no one would have dreamed would the law. of ever have been dealt with as slums. f is pla in that an officer of the local It The march of time has made it neces­ authority who takes it upon himself to sary for this problem to be re-examined. say something wherein he bas not got I will tell the House the way in which it the backing of his council runs a grave should be re-examined. There is only personal risk. No one can expect an one form of justice for everybody. If it officer of the local authority to say to is fair to give owner-occupiers compen­ an inquirer: " It is all right at the sation at the full rate if they bought in moment, but I beard the chairman of the the charmed years, is it not equally fair health committee say that we would have to give them compensation at that rate to go down there next year" . A local whether they bought before or after 1957 l authority officer cannot talk like that. or will buy next year? Either a thing is on the register and notice of it is given, or officially it is The 1957 Pilgrim concession did not clear. stop people buying houses which became slum houses within a few years. 1 This is where a number of these There was not very much risk, as the troubles have arisen. A man, after hav­ hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. ing taken all due precautions and had Richard) pointed out, that mortgagees bis searches returned, had a clear entry; and local building societies would lose yet within two or three years, or even money, because, generally speaking, they sooner, as my hon. Friend the Member are canny about these matters. Those for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said, who put the money into these houses there is action by the local authority. have paid cash-£300, £400 or £500- This is not a problem which can be and are getting £50 back. The loss in bounced back on local authorities. It most of these cases falls solely and stands fairly and squarely with the Gov­ directly on the man himself and not ernment of the day. I hold no brief on the building society, town council, or Vol. 712 213 1979 Land Compen:,ation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1980 [MR. TALBOT.) Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy­ other money lending organisation, because Speaker. How would the hon. Gentle­ those organisations saw the storm man deal with that problem where social coming a long time before they got amenities have been added and perhaps anywhere near that property and just put a great amount of money expended by a complete block on any type of lending the community? Would you add this of that sort. I will not say that perhaps automatically on to the price? one or two have not been caught, but it is my general local experience that Mr. Deputy-Speaker : Order. these organisations have not been caught. Mr. Buchan: Would the hon. Gentle­ Therefore, the owner-occupier should man add that on to the market value? be dealt with in one way only. There can be no justification for applying a site Mr. Talbot : It is a difficult question value criterion to somebody who has which I cannot answer because I am made a home for himself and who has only a poor lawyer and not a valuer. spent a lot of money on it but who may In broad terms, value takes account of not have a big garden. The houses with everything, public and private. After all, big gardens do not come off too badly. the value of your house rises-no t a They have plenty of site value to be slum, but a nice house in a pleasant paid for. Many of these little houses suburb-because your town is getting occupy a space only about twice the size better. of the Table. When it comes to com­ pensation, the district valuer says, for Mr. Buchan : On a point of order. The example, " Ten square yards at £1 a hon. Gentleman is continually referring yard" . We should assume that as long to your house, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. as houses have a continuing value- I do not mean to say that it is a permanent Mr. Deputy-Speaker : I should have value-it is a value that the market of thought that the last person who would the day will establish. want to raise this point of order was I am not asking, and I do not think lhe hon. Member for Renfrew, West him­ that anybody on this side of the House self after bis own lapses. In this case ~ is asking, for more compensation to be the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. paid than the place is worth. Nobody Talbot) was using " you " impersonally. would want to impose a burden on local authorities which is not fair. There is Mr. Talbot : I have nearly finished the other side of the picture. Local what I have to say about the owner­ authorities and the Government, too, occupier. The dilemma facing the Government-t hey will have to face it ~ ought to assume responsibili ty for justice. If justice requires that the man should because of the temporary nature of the have what is the fair market value of present law- is : what will they decide is t his place, to which be has perhaps added fair compensation for an owner­ by bis work, that ought to be paid and occupier? One must be as broad and as we should not think up theoretical intrinsic as possible and not try to think wangles to diddle the man out of what up special cases of difficulty. We must is fair compensation. try to evolve a criterion which will be fair and applicable to large cities such as Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West): and Birmingham and equally The hon. Gentleman talks about the fair in small country towns and even in market value having been increased by the countryside. I hope that the Govern­ the man's own efforts. Much of the ment will do some thinking about this. market value is created by the public The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will effort. How are you going to deal with agree that there bas been a large measure this? of agreement between the two sides on the Bill, although most hon. Members Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace have had inequities and difficulties King): The hon. Member for Renfrew, brought to their attention by constituents. West (Mr. Buchan) has now been long enough in the House to know that he There is a prejudice against the must put questions to another hon. Mem­ property owner which has exemplified I ber through the Chair. itself in Measures before the House in 1981 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1982 this Session. For the moment I ask you arises in cases where a landlord has to lay your prejudice, if you have any, actually acquired some of this property aside-- on the basis of present-day valuations and would be making a profit if the Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Now the valuations were altered to the form pro­ hon. Gentleman himself is slipping. posed in this Bill? What real justice is When he uses " you " impersonally that there in that? is all right. When he uses " you " other­ wise he is referring to the Chair, and it Mr. Talbot : There would be no jus­ is not in order to accuse the Chair of tice at all except in relation to the fact having any prejudices. that the world is basically unjust and some people make profits and others make Mr. Talbot : Thank you, Dr. King. I losses. do apologise. I am afraid it must have been contagious. The English language An Hon. Member : A shocking answer. would be so nice if one could talk like Mr. Talbot : That would be equally the Italians and the French using 'the applicable in this case, because there impersonal pronoun "on". would be lots of people who would make Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newing­ losses when the law was changed to ton and Hackney, North): On a point their detriment with whom one would of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in have no sympathy, although I am well order for an hon. Member to refer to acquainted with the view, broadly held you by name? Is not the proper thing on the opposite side of the House, that to address you as Mr. Deputy-Speaker it is without honour to make a profit in when you are in occupation of the Chair? your own country. It it is fair for an owner-occupier to be Mr. Deputy-Speaker : It is so. I took paid the fair compensation, it is equally no notice of the error. fair for anyone, because fair compensa­ Mr. Talbot : That again was uninten­ tion on the basis of market value very tional, and again I think I am copying a often will not be any more than site value. What is the market e con­ mistake some other hon. Members have valu in made this afternoon. demned property? Who wants to buy a lawsuit with the Ministry or have To deal with the question of land­ placed on his hands property which will lords, the problem is nothing like so easy cause him trouble with the corporation? because, in the case of a slum, one can­ In many cases, but not all, the market not begin with the easy approach and value and the site value will be the say that what is worthless should not have same, and I can even contemplate the anything paid for it. That is a sensible possibility that market value could be approach as a beginning to the matter, less than site value because there would but it is not the last word. If one could be such a small demand for property of regard a batch of houses as a going con­ this kind. I know the hon. Member for cern, there is the same value in the bricks Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and mortar, apart from the value of the is not one of those on the other side who land, even if it were only worth demolish­ does not know much about valuation. ing and using to fill up a hole. The mar­ Hon. Members can take it that there are ket value of something that is condemned no flies on the district valuer and cases as a residence is often more than the site where too high a price has been paid value, particularly if there is someone for property are almost so small as to else living near who wants to acquire be ignored. it to add it to property which is not in Tih.is needs ,to be emphasised, booause I the clearance area. I have known of those ,11hink:M embers of -this honoura ble House circumstances. 1 are inclined to hold r1:Jheview rtihart:it is In logic and common sense there is no the council w;hiah makes ithese hard deals. case for treating the property owner Lt is nothing of the sort. The council differently from the owner-occupier. itself has no power burt: ito pay wbait the l district valuer £,ranks, and unJtil the dis,trict Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, valuer franks :iJt:the council does not get Northfield): Would the hon. Gentleman a loan on it and the contempt so many give an answer to the problem which people pour on local autihorirtiies and their Vol. 712 214 1983 Land Compe11sation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendm ent) Bill 1984 [MR. TALBOT.] Rent Aot, which brought in its train ~he staffs is quite unjus,ti.fied in many cases. most aJbysmal hardship to people. Whilst There iis always an appeal from ithe dis­ tlhe hon. Member accepts ,thait it.he district trfot valuer .to the Lands Tribunal. Jusiice valuer's price is acceptable ,to him, acting is open and free to all, like tliheRiltz Hotel. on behalf of a client, I am nort so sure I do not ,tlhink it is possible to say very that iJt:has always been so acceptable to much detrimental ,to ithe way in which me acting on behalf of ratepayers in compensation claims are ihaindled, though London. there may be some 11ather hard dealings between ithe surveyor aoting for an owner Mr. Talbot : I have 27 years' and the district v;a,luer. experience in local government and during the time when I was chairman of On ithe whole it.he result is fair. In the finance committee we only once 35 years of professional experience I have rejected the district valuer's report and never bad rto itake a case to it:he Lands then obtained the property more cheaply. Tribunal. The decision of the district afterwards. valuer, after some argument, has nearly always been acceptable. The bmad effect Mr. Brown : I accept that. I was also of ,today's debate must be to exhibiit to chairman of a finance committee and the Minister thait it.here is a pr,oblem, and it is germane to my argument. We had we all have our own ideas how

1985 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1986 he was being deprived of something very therefore begins to look round for the valuable, when in fact a property to be worst of the slum property which is declared a slum must be right at the end classifiable. of its life. But there is another consideration. The other important point to consider This aspect forms a very minute part of when discussing compensation for the any economic development. One can­ owner-occupier is that he is guaranteed not in London, including my own areas, a home. This must be borne in mind. talk about a slum clearance being in itself Before my right hon. Friend will confirm an economic unit. It is much too small. a slum clearance order the local authority One inevitably has to have this nucleus has to guarantee that it will rehouse all to start with, and get rid of it. Then the people displaced under that slum one begins to find an area which is clearance order. Therefore, when one is economic. Because there is slum clear­ talking about compensation one must ance as a nucleus, the areas round about remember that when a person loses his become twilight areas. Some of the home there is an obligation on the local houses are bad and some are not too authority to rehouse him, if that person bad. Others are not quite classifiable. so desires, at a rent that he can afford. There may be bulging walls but no So there is also this aspect of compensa­ sloping floors, so they are not classifi­ tion which is not tangible in terms of able. That is the grey area around money, although it is tangible in terms about. of enabling him to continue to live In a twilight area there are houses somewhere. which, if they were repaired, might be Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I retained. For economic reasons it might be better to take this area into the de­ believe there has been some confusion velopment area and do some first-aid between the words " development " and work to extend the life of the properties "clearance". Hon. Members will see in by 30 years. This is one of the prob­ the third line of the Explanatory Memo­ t randum : lems which we cannot settle in a hurry but which we want to settle as quickly " . . . property within an area of development, 1 clearance, etc " as possible. Hon. Members opposite .... urge us on this side of the House to carry One is brought to the conclusion that out our five-year programme in five the hon. Gentleman did not grasp the months. We are doing our best, but it significance of what he was trying to takes time to develop these things. achieve. I accept that he was en­ Therefore, one thinks, " If I can delay deavouring to see that justice was done the decay of these houses I can get myself to somebody, but there are two separate a good programme." issues. One is development and the This is the way that I think an efficient J other is clearance. I do not know what local authority would begin its work. the " etc." covers, but I know what de­ The slum clearance aspect is an issue ~ velopment is and I know what clearance which stands on its own. It is the is. nucleus. We cannot add development to Let us go through the exercise and see it in the Bill, because when we deal with ~ bow the procedure is conducted. First slum clearance we are obliged by law '\ of all, the local authority surveys an to categorise it, and the payment for the area, usually under the guidance of the property is, as the hon. Gentleman has Minister of Housing. He says, "We said, determined on site value. Then we come to the question of the land to want all your slums cleared by a certain form the economic unit, and for this the time. Tell me your programme." The district valuer's price is paid. local authority then sends to the Minister In my own authority, in order to carry its programme. In order to do this it out economic development we argue that has to survey the area and determine 13} acres is the sort of economic unit those properties which will fulfil the which will provide us with 500 units of slum criterion. Once that has been done accommodation. That is right because and the local authority bas got approval it is a tremendous burden which is just for its plan, it then bas fo determine about what the ratepayers can carry. It bow its plan is to be embodied. One i, right from the point of view of the ·'

1987 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1988 [MR. BROWN.] but he was not interested in the price. building programme and it is right in the It was a happy location for him and his sense that, so far as we are concerned, business. He said that it did not seem the areas beyond that can usually be right that three months previously the maintained for a longer period. There­ council did not know its own intentions, fore, there is no problem here. When yet in that case the council did not the hon. Gentleman tacks these two words know. There had been no attempt at " development " and " clearance " that stage to recast the programme for ~ together be implies something which the following year. I am certain that this does not really exist. One has to take man did not believe me. It was very these words entirely separately. If we difficult to get it across to him. He said, ae talking about slum clearance we are " This is nonsense. You do not make up talking about a minor part of what is the your mind in only three months." general development area. Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, I now come to the question of indicating West): I am sure that my hon. Friend to a solicitor who is making a search that knows well, and I taught there whilst there bas been no decision in the for a number of years. Would he not sense of a resolution of the council, agree that there are thousands of proper­ nothing but a catastrophe can stop that ties in Stepney which are not today decision being made at the next meeting designated as slums but which could be of the council on Wednesday night. so designated under the Act and if they But it is not a resolution of the council were they would be such a burden on and technically it can be overturned at the local authority that it could not the council meeting. cope with the problem? My view is that legally or illegally one should err on the side of justice. I should Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. prefer to say to people that the decision Friend for drawing a,ttention to thiat was to be made the following Wednes­ point which perhaps I should have made day, knowing in my heart that I had not earlier. The question of how to carry led someone to make a· fruitless inquiry. out a slum clearance programme is a I would prefer to give an answer which, very real problem. Urged on by the whilst technically it could not be given, Governments of the day, the burden is it would be unfair to withhold from that so great that in my local authority I person. Some of my hon. Friends who have always tried to get people out of are lawyers will tell me that I am stray­ such property at the earliest opportunity ing beyond the rule of law of which we and even at great expense to the rate­ heard so much in the House last week. payers because I do not think that it is fair that we should expect anybody to Mr. David Price : In that mood of live in such appalling conditions that generosity, would he not cause the local the property can be classified under the government officer to find himself in a criteria required for slum clearance. difficult position if on the following Wed­ nesday the council did not approve the It has been said already in the debate whole of the area and the house about that the local government officer cannot which inquiry was being made turned out give this information in advance because not to be in the approved area? This if he did so this would blight the area. would put the local government officer This is the problem. My own authority vis-a-vis the potential owner in a diffi­ has published its programme because the cult position. Minister asked that it should be pub­ lished and we have illustrated where these Mr. Brown : I agree that it looks like areas are. Here again one is on the t that but the decision depends so much horns of this dilemma. If we know what I on a time scale. If it is three months we are going to do in the next five years, ahead the information cannot be given. even though it is only a planning view We had an example recently in my at that stage, it can be said that we are locality of a very irate person who said dishonest if we do not tell everybody that we were dishonest because within what is intended. Yet we know that if three months of his taking a place the we do tell everybody the problem of area was declared a development area. people moving into the area becomes It is true that he would get his price acute. ---7

1989 Land Compe11sation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1990 One has migration of people into the One can almost see this happening area. One has the shrewd characters now. Someone comes to me and says moving in. Who is to blame them? This that he is in a desperate housing situa­ is life today, and 13 years of" I'm all right tion. I listen, as all hon. Members do, Jack " have taught them to perceive where I discuss his problem, and it is clear they can best get in. They buy property that he is in a distressing plight. I do years in advance of development because the best I can for him with the appro­ they know that eventually that develop­ priate local authority. Sometimes one ment will come. If the information is kept has a bit of good fortune-every now secret one has all the lawyers saying that and then, one has a little good fortune it is dishonest and that it is bole and which makes life worth living- and one corner and there are demands that the is able to do something to help. But Press should be admitted to council then one sees the people back again, committees. very irate and upset, saying, " What do they think we are? We are not going to If the Bill were accepted, the whole live in something like that". One dis­ field would be open for people to select covers that they have been offered a flat their areas and get there as quickly as built in 1935, but they seem to think that they can at whatever price, knowing that what they are being offered is slum pro­ prices would be appreciating over the perty. One gets irate about it-I am years. One would have people advising sure that I lose votes over it sometimes spivs on the best places where they could - and one has to say, "You are very secure capital appreciation in the future. lucky people. Just look at what you are This is the problem. The area is blighted living in now and compare it with what •.1 anyway, if blighted it is, once the infor­ you are offered". But, they say, "What mation is published. about the place round the corner, with ~ My own authority has made it public central heating, a garage, and all the knowledge over the years that it is rest? " That is how people are begin­ intended to complete the redevelopment of ning to think. I do not believe that the the whole borough in 50 years. We have idea of carrying on using houses 100 made no secret of this. The people in the years old will be on 30 years from now, area were happy to know that the autho­ and I am sure that there will be a much rity was vigorous enough to see the need quicker turnover in property as new for this turnover at the earliest standards come to be expected more and . opportunity. more. These were target figures and it may The Bill does not refer specifically to turn out in the end to be 100 years and owner-occupied houses. It relates to all not 50 years, but at least this is the aim. property, apparently. There is a vast I do not believe that people then begin amount of evidence, particularly in to get out. People in London are not so London, to show that the situation to­ much concerned over whether an area is day cannot be dealt with by means of blighted because it is going to be a Private Member's Bill. It is much developed in the future. I know that the too big. It is not just a problem for the area where I have my own house will landowner. There are many problems be developed in 30 years. This knowledge here, and I hope that my right hon. does not drive me to run away. I have Friend will find it possible to deal with paid my money and I hope that I shall them. This is why I agree with my hon. have finished buying my house and have Friend the Member for Sheffield, Bright­ 20 to 30 years to enjoy the living. I have side (Mr. Winterbottom) when he says little doubt that it will then be re­ that we cannot deal with the matter in developed. In any area where the new a small way but it must be tackled on concepts of the twentieth century or the a comprehensive basis. 1 twenty-first century are being followed, Here is an illustration of one of the this must happen. In my view, the old problems. There is a non-conforming idea of still using houses 100 or 150 user in an area and, so long as the pre­ years old is a thing of the past. There will sent owners are there, it is perpetuated. be a much quicker turnover because the Suddenly, unbeknown to anyone, the evolution of society will raise standards owner arranges to sell. The prospective so enormously. new owners buy on speculation, with the t 1991 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1992 [MR. BROWN.] who have done nothing on the site, idea that they will get planning permis­ receive the district valuer's valuation of sion to carry on. It is normally accepted the market price at £32,000. Two years -though I have challenged it many have elapsed, nothing has been done on times- that if ownership changes the the site, the owners have involved them­ same non-conforming user may continue. selves in no expenditure apart from cer­ This hurts me, but I understand that to tain abortive legal costs, but there is be the rule, and I have seen it happen. that sort of appreciation. The sense of The prospective owners who have bought grievance in people's minds when they on speculation apply for planning per­ see that sort of thing happening really mission for an alternative use, but, be­ puts this type of Bill completely out of cause, in the broad sense of the plan­ court. Can any hon. Member justify such ing application, it does not need to come a state of affairs to an angry ratepayer down to the borough council, the plan­ who raises the matter with him? He ning authority deal with the matter with­ knows only what he reads in the Press, out reference to -the borough council. of course ; no one in the general public The matter then goes to the second stage knows the original price, although it is of planning approval and still the borough known to all the people concerned. But council is not aware of what is going on. ratepayers see that the maximum price Things are taking their normal course. has been paid, and they want to know Suddenly, someone in the area discovers what is happening. Can anyone justify what is taking place. In the case I have the difference between £12,000 and in mind, this happened only because £32,000 in such circumstances, merely be­ someone garaged his car in the area of cause the local authority wants to take the non-conforming user, he was turned control of the area where there is a non­ out, and had to put his car on the street, conforming user in order to get industry and, when asked why he did so, he said out of a residential area? that the place was being sold. The chap who finds out hot-foots it to the town Mr. Gurden : I appreciate that ,;ome ' hall and says, " They are selling this of these things arise. The hon. Member place. It is a non-conforming user. Can is quoting the law as it stands. But it now be extinguished? " surely this is a Committee point. An At this point, the thing begins to Amendment could be tabled to the Bill catch fire. The new owners have paid to provide that where a deal was made something like £12,000 for the property. for the purpose of capital gain or invest­ The local authority goes to work imme­ ment improvement a limit could be diately and puts a compulsory purchase applied- perhaps the price paid or some order on the area because it is a non­ other value. We are seeking mainly to conforming user and the authority protect people from hardship. wishes to use it for other residential pur­ Mr. Brown : I understand what the poses. The new owners have never set hon. Gentleman is trying to do. I do not foot in the place ; they have had it sur­ want to be unkind, but this seems to veyed and decided that it is suitable for be so confused. It is impossible to come I them. They have paid out no money to the House of Commons with a Bill and done nothing to appreciate the pro­ ~ and say "Here is the general idea. We I perty in any way. After the compulsory will knock it into shape.", and then purchase order is made, there is nego­ accept this or that compromise as various tiation to try to reach agreement for ~. objections come along. acquisition, but the new owners are quite adamant and the matter goes to public Mr. Graham Page : The Bill is very inquiry. The Minister decides that, in precise in what it intends to do. If the l all the circumstances, the local authority hon. Member wants to do something else, t is right in trying to take the area over let him bring in his own Bill. for residential purposes. In the case I have in mind, it was for garages. Mr. Brown : That is a matter of opm10n. The hon. Member for Crosby Another year or more is taken up by (Mr. Graham Page) is well versed in the discussion and argument to get all the law. Who am I to challenge his views bits and pieces tied up and agreement on on what is precise? I would only conjec­ this and that. In the end, the new owners, ture that if be were engaged by a client

---~L.l:-..- ~ 1993 Umd Comp,,,,o,;o,, 21 MAY 1965 (Amemimm,1 BUI !9947 to fight this type of Bill in court, he Mr. Gorden : But if a person has been would demolish it quickly. I am more thrown out of his house and has no concerned with the attitude of the hon. money to buy another, except compensa­ Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (M r. tion, he must get the market price because Gurden) than with the preciseness of the that is what he will have to pay for terminology to satisfy the legal back- another house. ground of the hon. Member for Crosby. The hon. Member for Selly Oak is Mr. Brown : But these people do not really in agreement with my hon. Friend simply get thrown out of their houses. that this is a big problem and that Alternative accommodation suitable to numerous things must be done, which their · needs is offered. If the local substantiates my point that this ought authority behaves anything like my own, to be part of a much more comprehensive tihen itthese people are made a number of Bill. The Government are introducing offers and are thus given an opportunity their Land Bill, and that will take account to choose the place they want. Some of many of these points. No doubt that might ask why they should be given Bill will lay down what compensation such a choice and suggest that they should be paid. I urge the hon. Member should have to take what is offered. But for Selly Oak to withdraw his Bill, be­ the local authority is obliged to be cause it is before its tjme. It bas its responsible for them under the slum place, but these are issues which should clearance legislation and, that being so, be discussed on the Land Bill. it should ensure that they are satisfied with what they are offered as alternatives. Market value always seems to be in­ volved in the purchase of property. I wanted to make this po-inrt about Oddly enough, it is really · completely market price and market value. The argu­ indeterminate. I will illustrate what I ment which hon. Members oppos~te have 1 mean. I kriow bow much I paid for my used abourt market value is frequenJtly house a few years ago. Since then we made. I begin to wonder whether I under­ have bad the 1957 Rent Act. My stand words any longer beoause there seem authority, I am delighted to say, was to be so many interpretations. But, one of those which decided that to put clearly, market value is not necessarily people out on the street was completely the price one pays. Art one time, market and utterly indefensible. It went to the value was the market price in a free limit within the law to ensure that that market but there is now no free market did not happen. We used every device because ~here are so many pressures on allowed to us by the Government. This housing. The market is conditioned by involved us in buying about 1,50/) houses oi.1-cumstances and to use the rterm on the open market. Because my " market value " is stretching the meaning authority did this in order to protect beyond w,hait one would normally inrtend. people from the effects of the 1957 Act, I have tried to range over wider issues the houses in my area have appreciated because one has had experience of trying almost 100 per cent. in value. to deal with these problems. I am not These houses are now twice the price pouring cold waiter on the Bill. I applaud they were when the exercise began. At the hon. Member for his concern. If more any point of time in carrying out that people had been concemed in the past we exercise from 1957 onwards, who could might not have been in tlhis hopeless hous­ 1 say what the market price was? It was ing situation, ce11tainly in London. no more the market value than the man I applaud rthe hon. Gentleman and his in the moon. It was an artificial price co-sponsors and I do not wa.Dlt him to placed on property because the then feel that I am being carping about it. Government had intrnduced a M,!asure But I urge, now that he appreciaites thait which put housing at a premium and there are so many other factors-as he because the local authority decided that himself has admibted--4hat, having made it could not see families put on the street his case, he should withdraw •the Motion. and reduced to an anxiety neurosis. It The Bill, although iotha,s the best of inten­ was these factors which put up the price tions, cannot stand on its own. Its pro­ of housing. Is that what hon. Members visions should form part of a larger opposite mean by the market value? It Measure. As he knows, the Government is completely artificial. are br,inging forward legislation which will . --- 1995 Land Compe1;satio11 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1996 [MR. BROWN.] That the House has to consider is aHow him to put the pomts he is con­ whether we are prepared to leave the cerned wil1lh. He will have the chance to various anomalies and difficulties which raise this matter then. If he withdmws have been referred to as they are, or the Bill today I am sure ,thait these issues whether we should embark on legisla­ can be discussed art: a lart:eir stage. tion, subject to amendment in Commit­ tee, which seeks to cope with some of 3.8 p.m. them. I do not think that anyone who Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston­ has listened, as I have listened-apart upon-Thames) : I join hon. Members from a few moments when I was engaged on both sides in congratulating in what the Royal Air Force used to my hon. Friend the Member for call "landing to refuel and rearm" ­ Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) to the debate could deny that there is a on his choice of subject. Those general indication from both sides of congra,tulart:ions are shown very justifiably the House that there are real differences, by the very high qua1iity of the debart:e. I difficulties and anomalies in our present hope ,tihart:I shall not do the hon. Member law which required to be tackled. for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R . W. Brown) irre,parable polirt:ical harm when I My concern-it is a narrow argument, say ithart: I and the House were initeres,ted I agree, though it is one which may be in

r - •~j ..: e5 o4r& • :+:: . ·1

1997 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 1998 and particularly to the situation of in­ done since. I do not know at what date dividuals whose homes are taken under he thinks these things should be con­ various schemes by compulsory purchase. sidered. When coming up to a terminal I do not think, with respect to the date in December, I should have thought hon. Member, that he wholly answered that this is about the right time to do it, their difficulties when he drew our atten­ when there is still time to act- tion, quite rightly, to the fact that it is Mr. Hamling : Really? the general practice of all Ministers of Housing and Local Government not to Mr. Boyd-Carpenter : The hon. Mem­ approve rtihese schemes unless the 'local ber says, " Really? " If one is to judge authority is prepared to undertake the of a situation as it will be in December rehousing of the people displaced. I 1965, the nearer one can get to Decem­ think I am right in saying that no Minis­ ber, 1965, while allowing time for ter of Housing of any party has approved legislation, the more likely one is to a scheme, certainly not for many years, come to a decision consonant with the except under those conditions. What facts. The hon. Gentleman is being a happens is that someone who was an little unreasonable in putting this point owner-occupier is transferred into a ten­ to me. If he differs from me by a month ant paying rent. That is not necessarily or two over those last few months­ what the person wants. The very fact which is the only relevant period-then that he bas taken the trouble to become it is his right hon. Friends and not mine an owner-occupier is some indication that who would be responsible. he wants to be one. I do not think one meets the difficulty, which caused the Mr. Hambling rose-- previous Government to make this pro­ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter : I will just finish vision in the 1957 Act-that that person may wish to continue to be an owner­ this sentence, if I may. occupier and may therefore require, by Though this is a private Members' way of compensation, the equivalent of day and we are discussing a Private what is necessary to buy himself a simi­ Member's Bill, I can claim that it is my lar house-just by saying, although it is hon. Friend who is trying to do some­ an important consideration, that he will thing about it. Whether what he is trying be rehoused by the local authority. The to do about it is exactly right is the hon. Member must realise a little of the kind of question which the House may difficulty in his suggestion that it is right wish to consider during later stages of and sensible for a local authority to try the Bill, but at least the hon. Member to find premises which suit a person for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) can­ affected by a clearance order, although not reproach my hon. Friend the Member there is no statutory duty on the local for Selly Oak, nor my other hon. Friends authority so to do. They might not, who have set their names to the Bill, for with the other demands of their waiting not doing anything about it. lists, be able to do it. Mr. Hamling: Would the right hon. Therefore, as we are now in May in Gentleman not agree that there were the year in which, in December, this pro­ ten years before 1957 when we had pre­ tection expires, we should be concerned cisely this method of compensation, so about whether we should allow this pro­ that we have had eighteen years' ex­ tection to lapse or at least consider what perience of i.it, not jusit eigiht years'? I am certain the 1957 Government thought would have to be done-whether Mr. Boyd-Carpenter : The hon. or not to extend it. Gentleman, no doubt inadvertently, is Mr. Hamling: That was seven years missing the point. We have had ex­ ago. The right hon. Member was in perience of this over a number of years, the House then and has been here con­ and it has offered very useful protection tinuously. Wlhy has nothin,g been done to those affected. Now that we are since? at about the right time to decide, the question which we have to decide is Mr. Boyd-Carpenter : It is eight years whether to allow that protection to lapse. ago, if my mathematics is right. The The hon. Member surely realises that if hon. Member asks why nothing has been one is to form a sensible judgment as to 1999 Land Compe11satio11 21 MAY 1965 (Am endment) Bill 2000 [MR. BOYD-CARPENTER.] ceivable at this stage of the year, and whether a serious situation is now so in the present condition of the Govern­ easy that one does not have to give people ment's legislative programme, that the this protection is a matter best decided comprehensive legislation which hon. as near the date as is reasonably prac­ Members have said they prefer to deal ticable, while leaving time for legislation. with this matter could possibly take effect l in time to deal with the situation in the Therefore, the decision whether go to coming December. on beyond December, 1965, is most sensibly taken during the course of the Therefore, the decision which lies calendar year 1965. For that reason, I before the House is not whether in its am particularly glad that my hon. Friend Second Reading form my hon. Friend's should have taken advantage of his good Bill on this difficult subject is 100 per fortune in obtaining an opportunity to cent. right. That is a decision which is, introduce a Bill to introduce one on this perhaps, more relevant for the House to subject. take if and when we come to Third I have said that we are all expressing Reading. What the House has, however, our individual opinions on this Private to make up its mind about today is Members' Day, and my opinion is that, whether to go forward with a Measure which, among other things, continues the ~ in some respects, my hon. Friend's Bill goes too wide. I think that there is real protection given by the Second Schedule force in what one or two hon. Members to a number of owner-occupiers or opposite have said, that if one goes whether deliberately to take a decision, beyond the owner-occupier, one risks by rejecting the Bill, to let that protection stimulating the kind of speculation in lapse. That is the immediate point and ~ slum property which no sensible person none of us can avoid the responsibility on either side of the House wants to see of taking our decision upon it. happen. I think that there is a risk of 3.23 p.m. that. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to I am concentrating the limited time the Ministry of Housing and Local which I propose to take upon where Government (Mr. James MacColl) : The there is a point that is not only of con­ right hon. Member for Kingston-upon­ siderable importance-whether this pro­ Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) began by tection to owner-occupiers should be saying that be had only taken time off allowed to lapse-but which equally is to refuel and rearm before launching his the problem of all of these that is the atJt:ack. I never would have :t!hought that most urgent. There is, obviously, force the day wouM come in this House in what one or two hon. Members have when I would get up, having had two said about the desirability of dealing with hours' sleep during the morning and these complex problems comprehensively having had no 4unoh, and say that I had and widely. I doubt whether the Land enjoyed every moment of the debate and Bill, if it appears, will do that. I do that I was extremely grateful to those not say that offensively. It is a Measure who had helped to clarify a difficult and which I have not seen, but I do not think complicated problem. that it is aimed very much at these problems. We shall see when it comes, The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. if it comes. Talbot) said that this debate and the problems created by the Bill exhibited What we cannot delay is a decision on to tlhe Minister that a problem existed. this continuation of protection for a That is perfectly correct. We are aware certain number of owner-occupiers under of that, and we were aware that there the Second Schedule to the 1957 Act. was a problem before this debate, but Thi;: hon. Member asked why something the value of this debate has been, as was not done before, and I gave him my views about that. He will, I think, agree debate in t,his House always .9hould be, that if we decide not to proceed now, certainly on a Friday, to give back-bench in the. latter part of May, with legislation Members an opportunity of talking \1/hich could deal with this matter, we frankly about their problems and the are taking a d_efinite decision to let the difficulties as they see them so that all protection lapse, because it is incon- the issues can be looked at.

... ..-. 2001 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 200~ Perhaps I might deal with a slight to say that one will pay the value for deviation from the general trend of the that property in itself. That is the prin­ debate by my hon. Friend the Member ciple which clearly impressed this House for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd), after the first war, and it has, broadly who looked particularly at the problems speaking, been the philosophy underlying of non-residential occupiers of property compensaition for silum clearance ever in the development areas. He referred since. particularly to shopkeepers and other However, it had a breach made in it, trades people. not as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter : And to churches. Graham Page) said, in 1936-and for once I am able to correct the hon. Gentleman Mr. MacColl: And, indeed, to -because the 1936 Act was a consoli­ churches. dating Measure. It was, in fact, the 1935 The previous Government produced Act, which introduced the question of some planning bulletins dealing with the payments to the owner-occupier for well whole problem of central area redevelop­ maintained property. ment which contained wise advice about Mr. Boyd-Carpenter : I congratulate the consultation between developers, local hon. Gentleman on having done what I authorities and people affected by deve­ have never been able to do ; namely, to 1 lopment, and particularly about the fault my hon. Friend the Member for importance of seeing that alternative Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) on a point of facilities were available for people either law. within a development area or immediately outside the area. The points in those Mr. MacColl : I take no pleasure in planning bulletins relevant to this are doing so. I like to trust the advice given 1 accepted by my right hon. Friend as to us by the hon. Member for Crosby on being bis views on the matter. these complicated matters. Perhaps I I have in the last few days had dis­ remember the 1935 Act and the consoli­ cussions with representatives of bodies dating Measure because I was a member of traders on precisely this point. We of a housing committee at the time. have been discussing what, if anything, The we11 maintained principle is that more could be done. However, on the one gets a grant if one has kept property general principle of dealing humanely in good repair-and this is linked, as has with the people affected by development, been pointed out, to the rateable value. that is something which we entirely For what it is worth, I should mention accept. that the new valuation has meant that At the risk of irritating the hon. Mem­ the amount of grant has gone up, for the ber for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) by increases in rateable value in the last two referring to ex gratia payments, I assure years have had the effect of increasing the hmi that local aUJthorities can be autho­ grants for well maintained property. 1 rised to make ex gratia payments when A second breach which was made in they consider that hardship is being the general principle is the one which we caused. I will come to the specific have been mainly discussing today; that point about the relevance of this to slum owner-occupiers who purchased property clearance problems shortly. between 1939 and 1955 were entitled to It might assist the House if I gave a compensation at the market value. The short summary of the history of this com­ principle behind tiha1 is :that people who plicated matter, because it goes back bought during those years could not be further than some hon. Gentlemen oppo­ assumed reasonably to have realised that site seem to think. It is not all due s,lum cleara,nce was coming back again. to the 1957 Act, as the hon. Member for During the war years there were upsets Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) of war damage and so on and it was said. The provision of paying site value reasonable to say that they should have for property found to be unfit goes back more compensation when, after 1956, the to at least 1919. There is no complica­ accent began again on s·1um clearance. tion about the princ:iple of this. It is The ten-year period was not just a somewhat difficult to say that a property matter of luck. The principle was that is a danger to health and then to go on it gave people a reasonable time for the 2003 Land Compensation 21 MAY 1965 (Amendment) Bill 2004 [MR. MACCOLL.] it was m ,tlhe earlier Sections of nhe 1954 enjoyment of their property. It was felt Aot tihat tihe principle of patohmg was that if they had acquired it and had put inrto the generai law. 11herefore, it ten years of enjoyment, they had not was reoogni:sed tthat whetre property was done too badly considering the other bad and cornld not, because of itihe load rights they had got. on tihe housing machine, be cleared at There is no doubt at all about the once, it shoU1ld be taken over and kept duty of the local authority to see that in to'lemble oondi

FAMILY PRESERVATION BILL LABELLING OF FOOD BILL Order for Second Reading read. Hon. Members: Objeot. Hon. Members : Object. Second Reading deferred till Friday Second Reading deferred till Friday, next. 2nd July. ESTATE DUTY (DEFERMENT OF PAYMENT) BILL NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL Order read for resuming adjourned [Lords] debate on Second Reading [9th April]. Order for Second Reading read. Hon. Members : Objeot. Hon. Members : Object. Debate further adjourned till Friday Second Reading deferred till Friday, next. 2nd July. HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) BILL BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL Order for Second Reading read. Read a Second time. Hon. Members : Object. Bill committed to a Standing Com­ mittee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 Second Reading deferred till Friday (Committal of Bills). next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (FURTHER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE PROVISIONS) BILL (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES) BILL Order for Second Reading read. Order for Second Reading read. Hon. Members : Objeat. Hon. Members : Object. Second Reading deferred till Friday Second Reading deferred till Friday next. next. PLUMBERS (REGISTRATION) MOTOR VEHICLE BILL DRIVING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL Order for Second Reading read. Order for Second Reading read. Hon. Members : Object. Hon. Members : Object. Second R eading deferred till Friday Second Reading deferred till Friday, next. 4th June. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENTS) BILL PROTECTION OF DEER BILL · Order for Second Reading read. A Order for Second Reading read. Hon. Members : Object. Hon. Members : Objeot. Second Reading deferred till Friday Second Reading deferred till Friday next. next . CLIENTS' MONEY (ACCOUNTS) FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS BILL BILL Order for Second Reading read. Hon. Members : Object. Hon. Members : Object. Second Reading deferred till Friday Second Reading deferred till Friday next. next. 2015 Kodak Limited 21 MAY 1965 (Mr. Roberts & Mr. Conway) 2016

LICENSED BETTING OFFICES KODAK LIMITED (MR. ROBERTS (RESTRICTION) BILL AND MR. CONWAY) Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, Hon. Members : Object. That this House do now adjourn.- [Mr. Howie.] Second Reading deferred till Friday next. 4.3 p.m. Mr. Maurice Orbach (Stockport, South) : On 15th April last, my right hon. EMOLUMENTS OF TOP MANAGE- and learned Friend ,the Amtorney-Gene:ral, MENT (DISCLOSURE AND replying to Questions arising out of the REGULATION) BILL prosecution of itwo men for conspir:ing to injure Messrs. Kodak LimiJted by divulg­ Order read for resuming adjourned ing ,indust11ia,l secrets and confidential debate on Second Reading [26th informart.ion and accepting from a man February]. named Jean-Paul Souperit 2,000 Deutsch­ Hon. Members : Object. marks, said t!hall the proceedings were Debate further adjourned till Friday aUJtborised by him and were undertaken next. by itme Director of Public Prosecuitions. ~ The prosecution was brought on informa­ iliion supplied by Messrs. Kodak. One of I REPRESENTATION OF THE the two men charged was Ken Rober,ts, PEOPLE (EXTENSION OF a film spooier. He had worked with VOTING FACILITIES) BILL Kodak for 23 yea.rs, and he is a member ~ of ithe Communist Parity and an arden.! Order read for resuming adjourned trade unionist. The other was Godfrey debate on Second R eading [J 2th Conway, a film ooaller, another trade February]. unionist who had worked wiith Kodak Hon. Members : Object. for 17 years. No serious complaint had Debate further adjourned till Friday been made aga:ins,t either of these men next. during the yea.rs of their employment except -thall objeotiion was taken by the management to their advocacy of trade HOUSE BUYERS unionrism. PROTECTION BILL Alt 8 p.m. on Sunday, 29th November ~ last year, Conway's home was entered by Order for Second Reading read. a chief inspector, a detective sergeant and Hon. Members : Object. six plain-clothes policemen. They arrived Second R eading deferred till Friday with a waniant and carried ouit their search next. wiithouit fuss and wiith every countesy. At the same time, Roberits was arrested at Kodak works. Boob of tJhe men were i GUARDIANSHIP OF taken to Bow Street and oharged with INFANTS BILL receiving a roll of felt and released on bail of £50 eacih. Order for Second R eading read. Several days later they were arrested Hon. Members : Object. aga,in, charged under rthe Prevention of Second R eading deferred till Friday Corruption Act, 1906, and given bail in nexx. £1,000 eaoh. They returned rto work, they were ordered off i!lhe premises. On 4th December, t!ihey were dismissed with loss STRENGTHENING OF of pension and other l'igblts. The Harrow MARRIAGE BILL Em ployment Exchange, having been in­ formed by the Kodak managemem, dis­ t Order for Second Reading read. allowed ~hem unemployment benefit. Hon. Members : Object. The case was finally heard in a magis­ Second Reading def erred till Friday traites' count on itwo oC'casions. 'Dhe chief next. witness was :tJhe man named Soupoot. a 2017 K odak Limlled 21 MAY 1965 (M r. R oberts & M r. Conway) 2018 l foreign national claiming ito be a chemist unwholesome passage of money, under­ who admitited working as an industrial taken, as Kodak says, with the agreement spy for otihe East German Government. of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Evidence was also given by two M.I.5 In the event, all the charges against men and itwo representaitives of Kodak. Conway and Roberts were dismissed. It was concerned w~th meetings between The evidence of Soupert was shown to be i Soupeflt and Conway and Roberts and the a pack of lies, although supported by two passing of a package to the East German representatives of Kodak called by the indusitri-ail spy by ,these men. Director of Public Prosecutions. I have Soupert claimed that he had received here seven pages of foolscap typescript industrial secrets concerned with processes which show this miserable person contra­ used at Kodak's on several occasions. On dicting and denying his evidence-in-chief, their part, the two men did not deny that making it appear that detailed statements they knew Soupert under the name of were made by him without regard to the Dr. Stevens and that they had met him future of Conway or Roberts but only on family holidays in Belgium and when to save his own skin because he feared he came to this country. what he would be asked when be made When the case came to the Central a report to his East German State boss. Criminal Court, it was revealed that in He admitted that his story was a complete a letter dated 23rd October, 1964, signed invention. by their solicitors, Kodak's agreed to pay What should concern the House and Soupert the sum of £5,080 in Belgian the Attorney-General, together with francs subject to his signing a statement, Soupert's admission that he was not in prepared by a police officer, agreeing to ,t,his country on 8'1:ih and 9th May, 1964, come to London and place himself at the is that his passport was apparently disposal of Kodak's and the police and stamped by the immigration authorities that he would identify and give evidence to show that be came here on the 8th against Conway and Roberts. While in May and departed on the 9th. His last Britain, bis and his wife's expenses would words on the witness stand were- and be paid in addition to the £5,080. I paraphrase vhem- 1Jhat he told these The agreement was contained in a long lies again and again " to justify the two letter, which I shall not read, but there stamps in my passport ". are two iDJteresting paragraphs to wihioh I must re.for. Paragraph 5 of this extra­ When on the 15th April my hon. ordinary letter reads : Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) asked whether security considera­ " Depending on the assistance and satis­ faction given by you in carrying out these tions were involved my right hon. and arrangements, consideration will be given to learned Friend replied : paying you or your nominee a bonus addi­ "Sec urity considerations were involved, and tional to the above mentioned payments." I am sure that the House would not expect The payments mentioned there were the me to go into them."-[O FFJCIAL REPORT, 15th £5,080 in Belgian francs. The last para­ April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 1637.] graph is of no less interest. I am sorry there was no qualification of " This letter will be shown to you and that statement and I hope that my right thereafter will be retained in official custody hon. and learned Friend will help me until you have received the first amounts set with regard to that matter. Was that out when it will be returned to us." statement made with the full knowledge I know that it bas been contended that the prosecution had stated in court by my right hon. and learned Friend the that no security considerations were in­ Attorney-General that the payment of volved? I am sure that my right hon. £5,080 to Soupert was not necessarily and learned Friend would agree that, if an inducement. I hope, however, that there had been, the prosecution would it will not form a precedent and be not have been undertaken by the D .P.P. customary for witnesses to receive pay­ I want to address to my right hon. and ment to give evidence on oath in our learned Friend a few questions of which courts of law. Again, if there was I have given prior notice. nothing clandestine in this extraordinary transaction, it is strange that there should The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn be the attempt, emphasised in the final Jones) : Perhaps I can deal with that paragraph, to cover up the whole of this last point now. If there had been 2019 Kodak Limited 21 MAY 1965 (Mr. Roberts & Mr. Conway) 2020 f [THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.] graph, Television and Allied Technicians, security considerations, of course the a trade union which is affiliated to the proceedings would have been undertaken T.U.C. So much for Kodak, except by the Director of Public Prosecutions. this-and perhaps the hon. and gallant I will go into the points of substance Member for Harrow, East (Commander later. Courtney) may have something to say ~ upon it. Not happy with having sum­ Mr. Orbach : Is my right hon. Friend marily dismissed Conway and Roberts I· aware that foreign passports can be before their case was heard, Kodak dis­ stamped with exit and entry impressions missed the chairman of their trade union without the holder having been in this branch, a prominent member of the East country on the dates concerned? Why Harrow Labour Party, for having at­ was the original charge of stealing or tended the court on the last day of the receiving felt proceeded with after the trial. How vicious was this dismissal expenditure of police time and public is shown by the fact that he had given money? As Soupert was seen by an ample notice that he intended to be executive of Kodak in Belgium before present in the court on that day and it agreeing to the generous terms which was gener-a~ly agreed by the firm that persuaded him to lie to the court, and as people could be absent from time to Kodak claims that the agreement was dis­ time when they gave notice. cussed in advance with the D.P.P., is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied Commander Courtney : Will the hon. with what went on or is he dismayed, as Gentleman confirm that this man had the so many people must be who know or permission of the firm, having given learn of this unsavoury business? ample notice, to be absent? There is much more I can say but Mr. Orbach : I am not sure whether time is pressing. Thousands of trade he did. I assume that if he did not have unionists believe that this case was permission on that occasion, neither did brought in furtherance of the Kodak anti­ he have permission on other occasions. union policy. The firm here rejects trade It was assumed that he could go on that unions and cohlective bargaining as does day. I hope it will not be suggested by its pareillt organisation in America. An tihe hon. and gallant Membe:r that employee is numbered, reported upon absence after notice had been given and has a dossier recording his behaviour, warrants dismissal. I hope that will not his outside interests and his affiliations. be asserted in the way the hon. and Pay envelopes are stamped with anti­ gallant Member suggests. union propaganda and a " phoney " I put 1Jwo final questions to which I workers' representatives' committee exists do not expect answers from the learned only by right of the management. Attorney-General. Under what arrange­ ment was £5,000, or over £5,000, trans­ Commander Anthony Courtney (Har­ row, East): I am following the hon. ferred in foreign exchange to the man Soupert? This was a time when balance Gentleman's speech with the closest in­ at of payments problems were difficult. r terest. How is it that, in the fearful circumstances he describes, Kodak, at a Foreign exchange was becoming a night­ [: time of full employment, is able to get as mare to all of us, yet it seems that it many workers as it wishes? was possible to transfor money in :this way. Is it the case, as has been stated in Mr. Orbach: That question is irrele­ the Press, that Her Majesty's Govern­ vallJt. I ib.ave not described any terrible ment have part of the equity of Messrs. circumstances. I have described what Kodak Ltd.? If they have and on the goes on in a great deal of American in­ question of tlhe foreign exchange, I should dustry which we would consider rather like my right hon. and learned Friend to reprehensible. But Kodak may be re­ have a word with his right hon. Friend sponsible for good wages. In those cir­ the Chancellor of the Exchequer. cumstances the firm would attract people As for Soupert, he was not committed who might otherwise go elsewhere. for perjury, he was allowed to leave the Conway and Roberts had enrolled over country in a hurry, and I hope that he 15 per cent. of the workers in Kodak's will never return. The spy is glamorised factory in the Association of Cinemato- by fiction writers for his sadism and, on 2021 Kodak Limited ~ r;i 21 MAY 1965 (Mr. Roberts & Mr. Conway) 2022 occasions, for his sexual prowess. The the House will, if those proceedings con­ real spy, particularly the double agent, tinue, be the subject of judicial in­ like this man Soupert, is only a liar, a vestigation later. contemptible and corrupted wretch. I hope that in the review by the Govern­ I come now to the specific questions which my hon. Friend asked. The first ment of our security arrangements all the was whether the statement which I made "i Souperts who still exist will be eliminated. in the House on 15th April in answer to Finally, I ask my right hon. and learned a supplementary question by my hon. Friend-I have already asked him to Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. speak to the Chancellor, and I know how Lipton) was made with full knowledge courteous and helpful he is on all occa­ that the prosecution had stated at the sions-to speak to his right hon. Friend Old Bailey, at the trial of Mr. Roberts the Minister of Labour to try to per­ and Mr. Conway, that no security con­ suade him to make arrangements with siderations were involved. The security Kodak with regard to the three men aspect of this matter which, in the pub­ whose names I have mentioned who have lic interest, I can mention only in broad been dismissed as a result of this most terms, was as follows. At the material unconscionable business. If my right hon. time, operations were in progress in and learned Friend had been a back­ conjunction with other allied security bench Member I am sure that, with much services for the purpose of breaking up more applomb, elegance and erudition, a hostile spy rin,g oontroHed by the East he would have made the case that I am German intelligence service. making. It was initially thought that the witness 4.18 p.m. Soupert-who, by the way, has never The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn been an employee of the security services Jones): My hon. Friend the Member for of this country, so my hon. Friend can Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) was good be reassured about that-might be in­ enough to inform me in advance of the volved in the collection of defence questions he proposed to ask me in the secrets in this country. That is why he course of the debate, and I am grateful to and those with whom he was connected, him for doing so. Naturally, I will do and whom he was frequently meeting, by best to answer his questions. Perhaps initially came under surveillance by the I should make two caveats at the outset. security services. After a while, how­ The first is this. That the two men about ever, the security authorities came to the whom my hon. Friend has spoken, conclusion that Soupert's interest in this namely, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Conway, country was in obtaining trade or in­ who are concerned in the case we are dustrial secrets. At that stage, the matter discussing, were found not guilty by a passed from the hands of the security jury. Accordingly, I am very anxious services into the hands of the police. that I should say nothing in reply to Senior Treasury counsel, who con­ my hon. Friend's speech to cause them ducted the prosecution, made it quite damage. As I ve1111:uredto state in an­ clear that it was not alleged at the trial swering Questions from my hon. Friend that security was being jeopardised either on 151Jh April, I doubt whet,her the in­ by Mr. Conway or by Mr. Roberts in terests of tihe two accused are be~t served regard to the matters complained of. 1 by further rehearing the case in this Nor, when I announced in the House Chamber. that security considerations were involved l in this matter, did I suggest or mean to The second matter which I think it is suggest to the House anything to the proper for me to refer to is that I under­ contrary of what was so clearly stated at sitand ~hart Mr. Roberts and Mr. Conway the trial. I hope that that makes clear have brought a claim for damages for the position so far as the two accused wrongful dismissal against their em­ were concerned, in relation to the matters ployers. Although I am not suggesting which arose at the Old Bailey. Per­ that, under the rules of the House, that haps I should add that security considera­ renders the mait:•ter sub judice at this tions did not affect my decision not to s,tage, it is cem1in that some of the ques­ prosecute Soupert for perjury or-as my tions which my hon. Friend has raised in hon. Friend suggested that I should- the 2023 Kodak Limited 21 MAY 1965 (Mr. Roberts & Mr. Conway) 2024 [THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.] were for the purposes of compensating Kodak Company for conspiracy to per­ Soupert for that loss. He indicated vert the course of justice. publicly that he was coming over to this The next matter which my hon. Friend side for the purposes of assisting in this asked was whether I am aware that work of counter-espionage and also of foreign passports can be stamped for appearing in a court and disclosing entry and exirt impressions withoot the bis connections with East Germany. passport holder having been in the coun­ Obviously, that would be the end of any I expectation of a pension from East try on the dates named. The evidence in the case showed that Soupert was pro­ German sources. That was the basis of vided by the Belgian security services with the terms in the agreement to which a passport marked for the purpose of my hon. Friend has referred. showing it to the East German authorities Mr. Orbach : Is it right and proper and satisfying them as to his employ­ and customary for such an agreement to ment, and for no other purpose. It would be signed by the solicitors of Messrs. not be in the public interest for me to Kodak? go further into general matters connected with the steps which have to be taken The Attorney-General : The circum­ from time to time for the protection of stances, as I have endeavoured to explain, allied secrets against espionage. were wholly exceptional. It was the only I was next asked why the original possible way in which the man Soupert I could and would come to this country charge of stealing or receiving felt was not proceeded with after the expenditure to testify. They were not moneys paid of police time and public money. I have for the purpose of persuading him to lie to inform my hon. Friend that there was to the court and there is no evidence that no such original charge, but it is right the lie that he admitted making in respect to say that both the accused were detained of one of many visits to London­ originally on suspicion of having stolen namely, on 8th and 9th May, 1964-was suoh felt. Tihis was because the witness induced by the terms of that agreement. Soupert alleged that the two accused had As to the knowledge of the Directorate sold him a sample of felt belonging to the of Public Prosecutions of the terms agreed Kodak company. However, no cor­ between Soupert and the Kodak Co., the roboration was found to support this part position is as follows. The relevant f. of Soupert's evidence and accordingly, in officers of the Director of Public Prose­ the circumstances, no charge in respect cutions were aware that it was anticipated of it was laid. that Soupert would require, and that I next come to the questions that my Kodak would agree to pay him, a sum, hon. Friend asked-it is right that these which would have to be substantial ~ matters sbouiJ.d be probed and, of course, having regard to the pension which he no complaint is made about that ; on the would have to forfeit, before be would contrary- as to the arrangements for the be likely to be prepared to come to this country. The Director's department took ~ witness Soupert to give evidence in this country. It is true that before he came the view that, in the circumstances of the here, he was seen by a representative of case, there was nothing improper in that Kodak in Belgium. It is also true that being done. It was not for one moment the offer od' payment was t'hen made to suggested that payment should be made him, on the basis of which he agreed to for the giving of false evidence. come to this country to make a statement I might, however, add that the Director to the police here as to his connections was not aware of the actual sums to be with the two accused. His coming here paid, nor was he aware, nor did he and testifying as to his activities in con­ approve of, nor was he asked to approve nection with the East German authorities of, the terms of the letter from which would have caused him, Soupert, to suffer my hon. Friend has quoted and which substantial financial loss by having to was sent to Soupert. Indeed, as soon as l forfeit a pension which he was other­ that letter came into the possession of wise expecting to receive from the East the Director of Public Prosecutions, it German authorities. was shown tQ prosecuting counsel, who, The terms embodied in the agreement in accordance with the highest traditions to which my hon. Friend bas referred of the Bar, at once took steps to show

L M... ~ 2025 Kodak Limited 21 MAY 1965 (Mr. Roberts & Mr. Conway) 2026 it to defending wunsel. He naturally The Attorney-General : As to what made considerable use of it at the trial knowledge Messrs. Kodak had, I do not and I hope that I am saying nothing think I can give the House any assi&tance. improper if I verntuTe to say that its pro­ I am speaking of the knowledge thait was duction may well have had an important in the hands of the authorities, and it is bearing on the result of the case. So the case rthait after Soupert came to this there was, on the part of the British country it was to the police thait he was authorities, no cover up and no attempted making the relevant statements in the cover up. On the contrary, there was a preparaJtion of the case. full, frank disclosure of all that was My hon. Friend a:sked a number of known by the prosecution at the trial. other questions. He raised certain impor­ tant trnde urnon issues and the question Perhaps I might add tha,t just as thart: of the dismissal of ce1itain employees of disclosure of the existence and terms of the Kodak Company. I am afraid that the agreement was made to the defence, those are not maitters within my province. so iii: was the prosecution whioh disclosed Quesitions have already been put on these to the defence the falsiJty of Soupert.'s matteDS to my right hon. Friend the Minis­ evidence as to one, the las,t, of his many ter of Labour. J.t is his sphere of respon­ visiJts to this country-1hart: of 8rth May sibility to deal wiith these matters. and 9th May. Lt wa:s again the prosecution My hon. Friend also asked, saying which disclosed the false entry i[1to the frankly thait he did not expect an answer passport to whioh my hon. Friend at this stage, certain questions about ex­ re£erred. At the end of the day, as I change control. My information is that have said, the two men were acqui,tted the Kodak Company had complied wirth by the jury. the exchange control regulaitions in regard Commander Courtney: Would the right to the paymel1lt 1thart:was made to Soupert, hon. and learned Gentleman agree that having made the appropriart:e applioaillion the House might infer from what he has for permission ,to make the payment. As said that Messrs. Kodak did not know to his fasoinailling question about •the part anything about the acivities of these two of the Government in the equiJty of Kodak, I am afraid t:hat I cannot, without notice, men, nor, perhaps, of 1ilie exisitence of enlighten the House about that. SoupeJJt, until the police were informed by tlhe right hon. and learned Ge111tie­ Question put and agreed to. man's DepaTtmel1lt? Adjourned accordingly at twenty­ seven minutes to Five o'clock. 1

~

~ ·1 295 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 2Y6 Friday, 21st May, 1965 l MINISTRY OF AVIATION In the winter of 1963-64, in-lamb ewes at Pwllpeiran were fed with a non­ Phantom Aircraft protein nitrogen at two concentrations and Captain Kerby asked the Minister of this was compared on an equal cost basis Aviation if he is aware that many parts with maize/linseed cubes. used in the Phantom aircraft are made in In the winter of 1964-65 out-wintered the United Kingdom under licence to beef stores of 18 to 20 months at United States companies ; and if he Trawscoed were fed straw plus 4½lb s. of will buy equipment destined for those meal or 2 lbs. of a non-protein nitrogen aircraft for the Royal Navy and the Royal supplement daily and the results Air Force where the United States compared. licensor is unwilling to waive territorial The N.A.A.S. considers that further rights for direct purchase from the United work is needed, and studies with dairy Kingdom by the McDonnell Aircraft heifer replacements and beef cows for Company, such purchases by Her suckler calf production are projected for Majesty's Government to be paid for in the winter of 1965-66. sterling and supplied by Her Majesty's Government on embodiment loan. The cost of these trials is not separately available. Mr. Roy Jenkins : Some items used in the Phantom aircraft are of designs which Fisheries College are or could be made under licence in the United Kingdom, and I hope that Mr. James Johnson asked the Minister some of these items can be supplied from of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what U.K. sources. In at least one instance the plans he has, in conjunction with the U.S. licensor is unwilling to agree to White Fish Authority, to found a direct purchase from the U.K. licensee fisheries college in England. by the McDonnell Aircraft Company, and Mr. Hoy : The training of fishermen it has been suggested that my Department in England is the responsibility of local should buy these items directly and supply education authorities and trainees are them to McDonnell. But this solution assisted by the White Fish Authority who would weaken the responsibility which we are at present reviewing the whole subject and the U.S. Government will impose in consultation with the Departments on McDonnell for the timely delivery of concerned. the complete aircraft. I am discussing with the U.S. Government other ways of solving this problem. HOME DEPARTMENT Boundary Commission (Maps) AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES Recommendations AND FOOD Lord Balniel asked the Secretary of State for tihe Home Department whether Non-Protein Nitrogen he wilrr take steps to place copies 0£ ali Mr. Jopling asked the Minister of tJhe maps whioh relate

299 Wrillen Answers 21 MAY 1965 Written Answers 300 employees are currently receiving unequal Mr. Gunter : An estimate of cost is by pay for equal work ; if he will name the no means an easy matter, and depends, industries ; and what steps he will take amongst other things, on the definition to remedy this situation within the terms of equal pay and equal work and on the of the incomes policy. extent and phasing of its introduction. Mr. Gunter: No comprehensive These are matters which are currently information is available and definitions under examination. of equal pay and equal work vary widely. In general, it appears that in the manu­ facturing industries, where a woman is OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT performing a man's job and carries out the requirements of the job without addi­ Bilateral Aid tional supervision agreements provide that Sir F. Bennett asked the Minister of she is to receive the mari's rate. As Overseas Development whether she will regards non-manual workers, there is give a break-down of aid to be allocated equal pay in national and local govern­ by her Department to developing coun­ ment services, in the nationalised indus­ tries in 1965-66 by categories of scheme, tries and for teachers and nurses. both in terms of sums earmarked and The whole question of equal pay is at percentages of the whole. present being examined. Mrs. Castle : New commitments of Mrs. McKay asked the Minister of bilateral aid for development are made throughout the financial year in negotia­ Labour what progress has been made tions with developing countries which are towards the implementation of the prin­ conducted in the context their develop­ ciple of equal pay; and when be expects of to make a further statement on the matter. ment plans and the planning of our own aid. The amounts committed are often Mr. Gunter : Now that the details of for several years ahead, and rarely for a the prices and incomes policy have been single year only. The disbursements agreed, I hope to make further progress resulting from them, also, usually extend in considering the question of equal pay. over a number of years. The many social and economic issues involved need very careful examination and until this is completed I do not think I can give the House any more useful POST OFFICE information. 4d. Stamps (Colour) Mrs. McKay asked the Minister of Mr. Eldon Griffiths asked the Post­ Labour what representations have been master-General if he will change the made to him by trade unions on the colour of the 4d. stamp from blue to red. implementation of equal pay in industrial Mr. Joseph Slater : My right hon. agreements. Friend does not at present intend to make Mr. Gunter: I have received letters such a change. from the Trades Union Congress, and from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, drawing my attention to resolutions cal­ TRANSPORT ling for equal pay and enquiring about the possibility of ratifying the I.L.O. Driving Licences Convention on this subject. Letters on Sir R. Russell asked the Minister of the subject have also been received from Transport how many persons were two trade union organisations-the licensed to drive motor vehicles of all Association of Supervisory Staffs, Execu­ groups in Great Britain at the latest con­ tives and Technicians, and the National venient date ; and how many were issued Federation of Professional Workers. with licences, and provisional licences, re­ Mrs. McKay asked the Minister of spectively, for the first time in the latest Labour what estimate has been made of convenient period of 12 months. the total cost of the full implementation of Mr. Tom Fraser: Information is not the pledge to grant by right equal pay for available about the number of licences equal work ; and if he will make a for driving different groups of vehicles, statement. but at 28th February, 1965, there were 301 Written Answers 21 MAY 1965 Written Answers 302 altogether approximately 12,600,000 sub­ survey which related to pay and coodi­ stantive and 1,700,000 provisional driving tions of service in comparable outside licences current. employment at 1st January, 1964. In No figures of the number of persons accordance with the 1964 Civil Service issued with driving licences for the first Pay Agreement this will be the operative time are available but for comparison date of the increase for Tax Officers there were approximately 11,900,000 sub­ (Higher Grade). stantive and 1,500,000 provisional The new rates of ·pay give increases licences current at the corresponding time over existing pay of 5 per cent. at the in 1964. minimum and 6·8 per cent. at the maxi­ mum with somewhat larger increases in Compulsory Purchase Orders the middle of the scale. The compounded Mr. Jopling asked the Minister of annual rate of increase at the maximum Transport how many compulsory pur­ over the period since October 1958 when chase orders promoted by local autho­ the last increase based on outside evi­ rities he has refused to confirm after dence was given, is 4 per cent. appeal during each of the last five years to the most convenient date. Estate Duty (Exemptions) Mr. Tom Fraser: 1960, I ; 1961, 0; 1962, 6 ; 1963, 7 ; 1964, 7. Orders re­ Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe asked the Chan­ fused or withdrawn for technical or other cellor of the Exchequer in how many reasons are not included in these figures. estates exemption from Estate Duty on objects of national, scientific, historic or Stamford-Oxford Road (Footbridge) artistic merit has been granted under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1930, as Sir G. de Freitas asked the Minister amended by Section 48 of the Finance of Transport when he expects to be able Act, 1950, in each year since 1950. to reply to the Northamptonshire County Council's letter on the subject of a foot­ Mr. MacDermot: The table below bridge at Haunt Hill, Weldon, Northamp­ shows the number of estates in which tonshire, on the A.43 , Stamford to applications were received in each year ; Oxford road. there are no records of the number granted, but only a very few were Mr. Tom Fraser: A reply to the last letter received was sent some months ago. rejected. 1950 108 1951 107 1952 113 NATIONAL FINANCE 1953 114 1954 101 Tax Officers (Pay) 1955 128 1956 89 Mr. Peter Walker asked the First Sec­ 1957 101 retary of State and Secretary of State for 1958 87 Economic Affairs into which category of 1959 92 exceptions to Her Majesty's Government's 1960 98 1961 108 Incomes Policy, as outlined in paragraph 1962 109 15 in the White Paper on Prices and In­ 1963 129 comes Policy, the increase in salary for 1964 131 6,500 tax officers, higher grade, of be­ tween 8 and 10 per cent., back dated to Oil Companies (Tax) 1st January, 1964, comes. Mr. John Harvey asked the Chancellor Mr. MacDermot : I have been asked to of the Exchequer (1) what is the total reply. aggregate of tax paid on profits in each As my right hon. Friend the First of the last five years by the eight prin­ Secretary of State explained to the House cipal oil companies operating in the on Tuesday, 11th May, 1965, pay revi­ United Kingdom ; sions in the Civil Service are based on (2) what is the total aggregate of tax the Priestley Commission principle of paid on profits in each of the last five " fair comparison " with comparable out­ years by the four principal subsidiaries side employment. Tax Officers (Higher of foreign oil companies operating in the Grade) were the subject of a pay research United Kingdom. 303 Written Answers 21 MAY 1965 Written Answers 304 Mr. MacDermot: It is not the practice to publish figures of tax relating to narrow Hyde Park (Serpentine Snack Bar) groups of taxpayers without their Sir Knox Cunningham asked the permission. Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to see that the Capital Allowances rubble on the land between the Lido and Mr. Barnett asked the Chancellor of the Serpentine snack bar is removed, so the Exchequer what was the annual cost that this area may be used by the public. in the most recent year for which the Mr. Boyden : This area is being tidied information is available of all capital up at present and work should be com­ allowances, excluding investment allow­ pleted within the next few weeks. ances. Mr. MacDermot: About £720 million Sir Knox Cunningham asted itlhe Minis­ for 1964-65. ter of Public Building and Works wheitJher, owing to ithe crowded nature of t,he Ser­ Fuel and Powers Industries (Tax) penrtine snaok bar during the present Mr. John Harvey asked the Chancellor month, ibe is still satisfied tihat there of the Exchequer what is the total aggre­ will be sufficient accommodation for the gate of tax paid on profits in each of the public during the summer ; and what last five years by the energy-producing further steps be intends to take to industry in the United Kingdom other than improve the s1tuation in Tespect of obtain­ the oil industry. ing ligihrt mea!ls in t!h1s area. Mr. MacDermot: No tax on income Mr. Boyden: I recognise t!hat in excep­ was paid by the public corporations in tionaHy fine wea'llher t,he snack bar is the fuel and power industries in the crowded. I hope ith,at facilities will be years 1959-1963. For the years 1959-1962 generaUy adequate when t:he e:vtensic,ns this information is shown in Table 34 of and additions of whioh my right hon. the National Income Blue Book of 1964. Friend has already informed- the hon. Member come into operation. / PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS Building Projects (Norfolk, HOSPITALS Suffolk and Cambridgeshire) Geriatric Beds (Sheffield) Mr. Eldon Griffiths asked the Minister Mr. Wainwright asked tihe Minister of of Public Building and Works if he will Heal-oh whait was rbhe number of geriatric provide a table of the public works build­ beds in the Sheffield Regional Hospital ing projects currently under construction, Board's aDea in rbhe years 1960 to 1964, unde contract or under negotiation, in respecbively ; and what is the present the administrative Counties of West Suffolk, East Suffolk, Norfolk and Cam­ number. brigdeshire ; and if he will list the sites Mr. Loughlin: As at the 31st Decem­ of such works, the Government Depart­ ber in eaoh year the figures- including ment for whom each construction is being chronic sick-were: undertaken, the names of the architects, 1960 4,962 building firms and the numbers of men 1961 5,166 employed ; and what is the approxi­ 1962 5,226 mate budgeted cost of each scheme. 1963 5,3 18 Mr. Boyden : No. The tabulation of 1964 5,340 this information would entail a dispro­ The most recent figure available is portionate amount of time and effort. 5,344 at 31st Maroh, 1965.