I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out from "State" to the end of line 14.

Subsection (2) of this Clause reads:

"The report of the Commissioners for any financial year shall set out any directions given to the Commissioners during the year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of State "—

and then we have these important words:

"except any direction in the case of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of State has notified to the Commissioners his opinion that it should be omitted in the interests of national security."

We have here full control by the two Ministers to issue directions as to whether or not the directions shall have publicity. It is rather strange that this should come up tonight, because it is not very long ago that we had concern and commotion in the House over this very thing being pleaded by a Minister. Having quoted partly from a document, he said that he could not quote fully from it. In that case, I think the phrase used was "the public interest."

In this House, therefore, we have always been very concerned about the pleading of public interest, of national security, when it means withholding, not merely from Parliament but from the people as a whole, information as to directions that have been given by a Minister to a commission such as the Crown Estate Commission.

11.0 p.m.

I know that the justification given for the words "public security" or "national security" will be that they relate only to matters of defence. But I cannot see how to any great extent the Crown Estate will be involved in this in such a way that the people in the area will not know about it.

I do not know whether it is a bad thing or a good thing—it is probably a good thing—that we cannot take any action in the House in relation to any buildings or the siting of any base of any kind without its being known. So how we can plead the public interest in relation to the sale or development of a piece of land for a certain purpose and keep it secret is beyond me.

That would defeat the purpose of the withholding of the direction, but that is not my real concern. My real concern is the possible misuse of this power to withhold publicity from a direction that the Minister has given to the Commissioners. It is interesting to note that although the Secretary of State can act on his own and the Chancellor can act on his own in relation respectively to Scotland and England and Wales, they can also act jointly. But in this case they can veto a direction individually. If a joint direction has been given by the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of them acting on his own and without consultation with the other could give a further direction that no mention should be made of the joint direction in the annual report.

Our main concern is abuse of power, this danger that by pleading the public interest or national security, in this case, one or other of the Ministers concerned can bring upon himself this protective shield from the glare of public opinion and Parliamentary knowledge of what is being done.

I think I am right in saying that Parliament can get to know whether or not publicity in respect of a direction has been withheld. All that a Member of Parliament has to do—he has a right to do so—is to ask how many directions have been given in the year. If the Minister says that seven have been given and only six appear in the report, we shall know, and no doubt our curiosity will thereby be aroused to find out about the one not mentioned there; and we shall then be told that it is not in the interests of national security to divulge it.

I wonder whether the Financial Secretary, who seems poised to reply—I would ask him to be very quick if he wants me to hear him—will satisfy me that this power will be very sparingly used and truly only in important matters relating to defence.

I gladly respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The point is that it is essential that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State should be allowed to preserve the secrecy of any directions that they may give to the Commissioners if the national interest so demands.

But there is nothing sinister about this. It is the common form security provision that is applied in the case of Ministerial directions, and I think it must be ultimately a matter for the Government of the day to decide whether there is anything that it would be against the national interest to publish. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that subsection (2) reenacts Section 2 (4) of the 1956 Act, and the words which he seeks to delete are words that are common form for a great many of our statutory provisions. For example, I have here the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act, 1946. Section 54 (2) of that Act contains words practically identical with those which he seeks to leave out of this subsection.

I assure him that, to the best of my knowledge, these provisions will be very sparingly used, and I hope, with that assurance, that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

With that explanation, I am glad to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Now that we have a new manifestation of the Crown answering, I hope that we shall be able to get yet another view of some of the problems that have been worrying us. I think that if the Committee is to get serious treatment from the Treasury Bench of the contents and intentions of Clause 2, we should get from the Minister replying a much more cogent and understandable exposition of what the Government have in mind—certainly something more practical and less theoretical than the arguments in some of our discussions up to now.

The draftsmen apparently thought it necessary to occupy nearly as much space for this Clause as for Clause 1, and it must be tremendously important. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will explain it to us. In particular, I hope that he will tell us what the Government expect the Commissioners to do which will involve Clause 2 (4), because this seems to imply some kind of long-term planning, some form of comprehensive planning, which has been rejected out of hand by the Government spokesmen up to now.

The questions of premiums and leases and the sharing between capital account and income account, must surely involve a process of enhancing the value of land, which can only be the result of some comprehensive development. It will be interesting to know what the Government have in mind and how they visualise the deathless landlord appearing in this respect.

Our criticism of this Bill up to now has been that it does not appear to set a very high standard. It only sets the standards of normal trustees, and even the most reasoned reply that we have had seemed to imply that private interest and public interest coincide—that a good landlord would never do anything against the public interest, not because it was the public interest, but because it would be against his private interest. The two sides of the Committee do not seem to be able to agree on that.

Here in Clause 2 are references to elaborate financial arrangements and planning which must have been introduced into the Bill because the Commissioners already practise some kind of planning of this kind.

We have had some interesting new ideas in the debate. For many years now, the deathless landlord has been the landlord most sought after by those to whom "nationalisation" was a dirty word but who wanted in practice to get as near to it as they could. We now learn that the deathless landlord is looking for the deathless tenant as the best possible tenant giving the best possible covenant.

In the Crown Lands Act, 1927, there was a provision for payments out of the capital account for improvements which were to take place, and that provision was incorporated in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. It gave the Crown Commissioners power to use the same device which they had in the 1927 legislation when they were dealing with the case of a tenant who could not get a renewal of his lease because the landlord had pleaded that he was precluded from giving it, for one of a number of reasons which were obviously connected with comprehensive planning and development.

In those circumstances, the tenant had to be offered compensation, and that compensation came out of capital account. I suppose that some idea of that kind is embodied in Subsection (4, a). That seems to imply that the Commissioners will be undertaking the process of phased comprehensive development of the estate involved. Otherwise, they would not go to all this trouble to create this machinery for dealing with tenants who are to be displaced and for whom some compensation will have to be provided. I suppose that the lawyers have had to invent some device which regards as re-investment in the land the payment of compensation to the tenant to get out from that tenancy because it is needed for a more comprehensive development.

While throughout the debate up to now we have heard a constant denial that the Crown Commissioners can be subjected to planning regulations or be obliged to consult anyone, when we get what to the layman is this not-so-easy-to-understand Clause we find that it seems to contain an indication that there is much more in the minds of the Commissioners than there was in the mind of the Government when they drafted the other Clauses of the Bill, or than has appeared from their expositions so far. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be enthusiastic enough to spell this out to those of us who do not understand the financial side all that well, and to say exactly what is behind it.

I am a little concerned about subsection (2), which deals with the cover which the Commissioners will have from instructions given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Scotland. I presume that the reason for that cover is that if, for some reason in the public interest, the Commissioners do not make the maximum profit, they will need to have an alibi and to be able to show why they have so acted. It is, therefore, necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State to decide over-riding policy in the public interest.

Earlier, it was suggested that it was as part of good management that the Commissioners would inevitably seek a good tenant rather than one who might pay a little more in the short run and not be so reliable. That was entirely the case of the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he put through the Rent Act. He said that a landlord would always want a good reliable tenant rather than a market price which was rather exorbitant. That view has proved incorrect with housing and landlords take what they can and are prepared to have short-term leases and to get their tenants out at the earliest possible moment in order to increase their incomes.

11.15 p.m.

It has been made clear from the Government benches that the Commissioners will deal only with estates and will not attempt to trespass on the functions of the Minister of Education, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or any other Minister who has a public interest at heart. I am wondering if it does mean in subsection (2) that there can be specific instructions given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Scotland which would enable land to be used in such a way that would not be, perhaps, to the best financial advantage but would preserve the system of good management as put forward from the Government benches—namely, used in a way which was useful for the community, and that the due considerations of the user of the land would be given absolute weight. If that is so, I am quite happy about this subsection.

Clause 2 has a relatively limited scope. It provides that the Commission shall make an annual report to the Sovereign, and that their accounts shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who shall lay them before Parliament with his Report and shall supply the Treasury with such information as is required. It is rather remote from the Rent Act and some of the points discussed.

In answer to the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), Subsection (4) simply lays down the method of accounting to be adopted by the Commissioners and enables them specifically to make adjustments between capital and income. I am bound to say that I cannot see anything derogatory to the public interest in that. The Subsection enlarges the Commissioners' powers under existing legislation by enabling them to provide, where they think appropriate, for the replacement of capital out of income, and again that seems wholly consistent with the public interest. Paragraphs (as) and (b), I am told, reproduce the existing rules in Section 5 (4) of the 1927 Crown Lands Act and Section 3 of the 1894 Crown Lands Act.

In answer to another point raised by the hon. Member for Paddington, North, I am told that the power under Section 15 of the Crown Lands Act, 1927, can be used to pay compensation to business tenants under the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act, and the Commission will still be able to do this under the new powers in Clause 1. Subsection (2) of this Clause merely re-enacts Section 2 (4) of the Crown Estate Act, 1956, and simply provides that the Commissioners shall publish any directions given to them, tied with the proviso we were discussing on the previous Amendment.

I hope that with that explanation the Committee will allow the Clause to pass.

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. He has tried to make it as short and clear as he can. I was not suggesting that there was anything wrong with the Clause or derogatory to the public interest. Quite the contrary, I am suggesting that there is evidence of the intention of doing some comprehensive long-term planning, and I was asking what the Government had in mind or what the Commissioners were, in fact, practising. Although no reference has been made to it in the Bill and no admission of its possibility escaped the lips of Ministers when answering discussions on Amendments, this substantial point about improvements does imply that tenants are going to be displaced and compensated, but only in the interest of a better development of the estate as a whole.

I want to hear more about schemes of development—how comprehensive they are, who is consulted, whether the plan- ning authority is officially consulted, and whether the tenant is going to be consulted where it is in the public interest that a certain amount of economic development shall take place in a certain area. It is fascinating, in view of the doctrinaire denials we have had of the possibility of anything of this kind, that provision is made here for what can be needed for nothing else. That is the only reason that the Commissioners should wish to compensate the tenant for his displacement—the fact that they are going to do something bigger and wider.

That is a most interesting point, because, of course, if ever a solution is to be found to this problem it will be found in a device whose point of impact is at the moment of the change of user of the land. It will never be solved by buying all land at once with all the problems of valuation and compensation. The device which will be found will be a change of relationship at the point of change of user, and this is what the Clause obviously provides for.

I am sure that these are fascinating points, but, for the reasons which I gave in my earlier exposition, I do not think that they arise on this Clause, and I do not propose to be drawn on them now.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, after "lease," to insert "feu."

I do not wish to spend a long time on this. Why has "feu" not been put in? In other parts of the Bill we have been puzzled by the continual use of English legal terminology. We never seem to use Scottish legal terminology. Why should it be excluded from a Bill dealing with Scotland?

I hope that the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment. I hope that he will not allow Scotland to be disposed of in the words "or otherwise dispose of." I hope that he has a higher sense of the importance of his profession than to allow us to be dealt with in this way.

I am sorry that we have not included as much Scotch—I use that word in the non-technical sense—in this Bill as the hon. Gentleman wishes, but it is unnecessary to include "feu" here. It is covered by the words "sell, lease or otherwise dispose of." To put in "feu" would be both inaccurate and inapposite, because although one talks generally about feuing something, what one does technically, legally, when one creates a feu estate for the first time is "to sell, and in feu-farm dispose" which I think would be rather a mouthful, and we would also have to deal with cases where the consideration was not the feu duty but the ground annual, and that would be even more complicated.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the word is unnecessary. Also, it is inapposite, because we talk about selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of not only of land but of

"any right or privilege over or in relation to any such land"

and one does not feu or dispone in feu-farm any right or privilege over or in relation to any such land but only the land itself.

I am very interested in the clear exposition which the learned Lord Advocate has given of this rather obtruse Scottish point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that we do not need the word "feu" because this is covered by the words "or otherwise dispose of." I suggest that "lease" is also so covered. Why put in "lease"? Why should we always be open to this desire to give priority and prestige to anything English? I would have thought that it would have been an adornment to the Bill to have included the grand Scottish words in all their pristine glory which the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out. It would add dignity to the Bill and would let us see that we were included in the Bill and that the Scottish legal aspects had been given the attention which they deserve. This is not the Scottish Grand Committee; had it been, we could have got down to an examination of these words and to the arguments in connection with them. It is rather late and, having had the explanation from the Lord Advocate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end to insert:

"but excluding any element of monopoly value attributable to the extent of the Crown's ownership of comparable land".

It would be convenient at the same time to discuss the Amendment in page 5, line 22, at the end to insert:

(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of this section the following provisions shall apply to the determination of the consideration to be given by a person for a disposition by the Commissioners of any land of the Crown Estate comprising any portion of the bed of the sea, or any right or privilege over or in relation to any such land—

(a) the value of the land shall, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, be taken to be the best obtainable in the open market and capable of justification on normal considerations of supply and demand and on the assumption that other equally suitable facilities could be obtained by negotiation from other landowners;

(b) the purpose for which the land, right or privilege is required by the person to whom the same is disposed of shall be taken into account but no account shall be taken of so much of the value of the land, or of the right or privilege over or in relation to the land, as is attributable to the fact that all or a substantial part of the bed of the sea in the neighbourhood of that land is vested in the Crown Estate;

(c) there shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of reducing the value of the land or of the right or privilege over or in relation to the land the estimated cost of executing any works which may be required or authorised to be executed on over or under the land under the conveyance lease or other instrument by which the land, right or privilege is disposed of to that person;

(d) any question or difference arising as to the amount of the consideration shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.

In this subsection "bed of the sea" means the shore or bed of the sea or any river channel creek bay or estuary.

Shall we also discuss now the second Amendment in line 7, at the end to insert:

"or except at the valuation of the appropriate District Valuer made as between a willing buyer and a willing seller"?

That would be convenient.

Clause 3 (1) deals specifically with the principles to be observed by the Commissioners in their management of the Crown Estates and provides that the Commissioners, apart from exceptional cases, which are dealt with later, can dispose of Crown Estate land and interests only for

"the best consideration … which in their opinion can reasonably be obtained"

in all the circumstances of the case. It is a relaxation of the existing law. Previously the best rent had to be obtained, in addition to the best sale price. The best rent was interpreted by the courts as meaning the best uniform rent throughout the term, and it did not give the Commissioners the opportunity of granting leases containing provisions for a periodical review of the rent reserved.

The reason for requiring the Commissioners to get the best consideration is that this is public property, and where public property is sold or leased to a great commercial undertaking, which can afford to pay a large rent for the easement or the lease or the land itself which it takes from the Crown Commissioners—because it is of great commercial value to that firm—there is no reason why it should not pay the rent which is reasonable in the circumstances.

But a formidable case was developed on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to the effect that that might operate very harshly in certain cases where the Crown Commissioners have a monopoly or semi-monopoly of the land. In the ordinary case, it can be left to the ordinary determination of the market. A commercial undertaking, for example, would approach the Crown Estate Commissioners and offer what it considered to be a reasonable price for the land or a reasonable rent for the lease or easement. If the Commissioners ask a price for the land or a rent for the easement which the commercial undertaking thinks is inordinate, the undertaking will go elsewhere and take another piece of land. I will deal with public authorities separately. I am now dealing with commercial undertakings. In ordinary cases, the ordinary supply and demand in the land market can take care of the matter.

11.30 p.m.

Different considerations apply to the foreshore and to the seabed, because there the Commissioners are virtual monopolists of the seabed and own very substantial parts of the foreshore. It is true that where the foreshore is developed it has largely passed out of the hands of the Commissioners. It has largely passed out of the Crown Estate. The bulk of ports are not part of the Crown Estate. The great Port of London, for example, is the property of the Port of London Authority.

Nevertheless, in the undeveloped parts of the foreshore there are great portions in the possession of the Crown Estate. It was represented that in such a case the operations of the market would not produce a fair consideration. For example, if the Commissioners asked what a purchaser felt was too high a price, he could not go to an adjoining landowner and pay a lower price, because there are not, or may not be, adjoining landowners. As a result of the pertinacity of the hon. Member for Pembroke in connection with oil companies in his constituency, a new policy was agreed with the Crown Estate Commissioners whereby the monopoly element had to be discounted.

It was argued very strongly on Second Reading that, if that was to be the principle which obtained, it ought to be written into the Bill. I considered that with my right hon. and learned Friend and we have tried to meet that case. The Amendment would insert the words:

"but excluding any element of monopoly value attributable to the extent of the Crown's ownership of comparable land."

I had hoped that that would go the whole way to meet the objections put forward, but I will deal with the other Amendments and say why I think that the Government Amendment is preferable. I will take first the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman in page 4, line 7. The first disadvantage of this Amendment is that it does not deal specifically with the point about monopoly value. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish it to be read together with the Government Amendment, which is acceptable to him.

Grammatically it would follow perfectly.

That is so. My real objection to it is that the words used are in fact a repetition of what may be expected to be meant by "the best consideration". Therefore, it is not a real alternative to the other part of the Clause. If it means something different from the best consideration that can be reasonably obtained, I ask how can a district valuer reach a fair valuation except on the test of what is the best consideration that can be obtained in the circumstances. Therefore, to my mind, the words are either unnecessary or would lead to a conflict between the two parts of the Clause.

As I say, it seems to me that the Government Amendment is preferable because it deals specifically with monopoly value, and that, from the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, if it means anything other than what is already in the Clause, it is very difficult to see on what basis the valuer can operate. I would have thought that the price as between a willing buyer and a willing seller is the best consideration. It seems to me that there is no advantage, and that there are many disadvantages, in adding the words which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to add.

I come now to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Pembroke. That seeks to put into the Bill two things—first of all, a valuation formula, and, secondly, a requirement that any

"difference arising as to the amount of the consideration shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal."

It seems to me that there are major defects in the valuation formula suggested.

In the first place, the reference to "normal considerations of supply and demand" and the assumption about other facilities being obtainable are mutually inconsistent, in a way that they are not in the express discounting of monopoly value in the Government Amendment. Secondly, with regard to paragraph (c) of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, I am not sure that I entirely understand the intention of that. Perhaps I may have an opportunity of saying a word or two after the hon. Gentle- man has explained the purpose of that paragraph. But, taking the words at their face value, paragraph (c) seems to suggest that the greater the cost of the works the less should be the price of the land.

That does not follow at all. What matters is the degree of benefit likely to be obtained from the development, irrespective of its cost and size. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that all the words in his suggested valuation formula which are really appropriate are already covered by the words in the Clause—

"the best consideration … having regard to all the circumstances of the case."

Before coming to the arbitration point, may I say a word or two about

"having regard to all the circumstances of the case."?

As I indicated on Second Reading, those words are designed to allow a certain flexibility between, say, an oil company bringing in a pipeline across the sea bed and the foreshore with a view to commercial exploitation at a profit, on the one hand, and, on the other, a local authority taking a sewer out to sea in pursuance of a statutory duty and with no aim of making a profit. That is a matter which can be taken into consideration.

I now come to the question of valuation. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) brings in the district valuer. I have already indicated that in any questions of foreshore valuation the Crown Estate Commissioners are willing to submit the matter in dispute to the Valuation Office. So I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that his point is met in that respect. I do not see that it is appropriate in any case except where there are these elements of monopoly value to be discounted. In the other case the price can be left to the ordinary bargaining of the market.

With regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke, I suggest that it is unnecessary to bring the question of the valuation of the sea bed into the sphere of the Lands Tribunal. The conception of arbitration is inconsistent with transactions for the disposal of rights and interests in land. The price call ordinarily be settled by the haggling of the market.

We bring in the Lands Tribunal in the case of compulsory purchase. But we do not do it, for example, in what seems to be the closest comparable case—where one gets the comprehensive development of a town centre by a local authority. If it acquires the land compulsorily, that will go to the Lands Tribunal because there is no bargaining possible—none of the market bargaining. But when the local authority sells or leases off the property which it has acquired for comprehensive development, we would not dream of saying that that is a matter which should go to the Lands Tribunal. It is the same here. The way to find what is a fair price in those cases—the local authority leasing its property and the Crown Commissioners leasing or selling their property—is the same; to find what people will pay for it by bargaining.

I apologise to hon. Members for talking for so long over these Amendments at this hour, but I thought that it would be better to deal in advance with the Amendments in the names of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Pembroke and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and to state the objections to them, so that they can consider them when they come to deal with their own Amendments.

Concerning my Amendment, which comes first on the Paper, I do not entirely agree with the Solicitor-General. The form of this subsection is a prohibition. It states:

"… the Commissioners shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any land of the Crown Estate, or any right or privilege over or in relation to any such land, except for the best consideration …"

It is, I quite agree, a common form. Suppose an alternative is put in, then if the Commissioners complied with either—what is stated in the subsection at present

"… for the best consideration …"

or what is stated in the alternative, they will have escaped any consequences of non-compliance with this subsection.

Therefore, if, in fact, the two things were always going to be the same, all that could be said would be that this is unnecessary. But I am not satisfied that the two things mean the same, for two reasons. Firstly, it was the Solicitor-General himself who imported the district valuer, and the way the district valuer came into the picture was this; the Crown Estate Commissioners had made, very informally, what appeared to people later to have been an extortionate demand over the right of a foreshore. I think it was desired to acquire it by an oil company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). It was not until that demand had been made that the practice arose of calling in the district valuer, or so we were told on Second Reading. In the circumstances, I agree entirely with the practice, and I should like to make sure that the practice assumed for that occasion is not abandoned by some subsequent Government. We are here legislating for what may well be a considerable time in the future.

11.45 p.m.

I see no reason against putting the district valuer in as an alternative, and I see a very good reason for putting him in. It was suggested by some hon. Members on Second Reading that the district valuer was too much in the position of a Government servant. But he is not, of course, a Government servant. He is constantly used between local authorities and owners of property of various kinds to fix a fair price, and he is the sort of person who, I think, has the confidence of practically everyone in this matter. Certainly, he has a very wide experience. I should like to include the district valuer. Although I am rather disposed to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about arbitration clauses, to leave out both arbitration and the district valuer would be to leave much to much in the hands of the Commissioners in practice, even if not in theory.

Is there any difference between

"the best consideration … which can reasonably be obtained, having regard to all the circumstances of the case"

and the alternative I suggest of

"valuation … as between a willing buyer and a willing seller"?

I think that there is. I can imagine a case where the Commissioners would have a bargaining power considerably above the average, to put it in that way. Monopoly, of course, is the extreme case. There, they have a complete bargaining power. But there are other cases where they may have to choose between two competitors—the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself gave one instance—and the best consideration they would get would clearly be from one competitor. It is said that that is met by putting in the words

"having regard to all the circumstances of the case".

I speak with great deference on this matter, but my opinion about those words is that they mean precisely nothing. So far as I know, they occur nowhere else in this connection. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. What do they mean? They are so wide as to cease to have any meaning at all, I should think.

One ought to know what it is that the Government had in mind when using the words

"all the circumstances of the case".

They have not told us, and I do not think they can because they have not thought it out. I much prefer the very well known and common formula, which any district valuer or any other valuer would understand, based on dealings as between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

I have no objection to the Government's Amendment. I should like to see it in as well as mine just to obviate any doubt about the matter. But, in fact, my Amendment would have met the case. It was the Solicitor-General himself who referred to the laws of supply and demand under a monopoly, but the point about a monopoly is that there may be much demand but there is no supply except the one. That is the reason why we have to have some phrase like

"as between a willing buyer and a willing seller"

It is such a common and well understood phrase that I much prefer it to what I had at one time in mind, namely, a reference to the terms of compulsory acquisition in recent town and country planning legislation. That would make it altogether too complicated, but I think the reference to the district valuer and then to a valuation on the basis of the willing seller and willing buyer would meet the case simply and with fairness to all concerned.

Having said all that, I know my Government well enough to realise that there is not the foggiest chance of their accepting my Amendment. So there it is, at this time of the night.

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his attempt to meet the point made by several hon. Members on Second Reading. I think that he has made a genuinely sincere endeavour to allay some of our fears, but I must regretfully say that I do not think he goes far enough. He criticised the terms of the Amendment standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), but he knows that its form is based on the general instructions which the Treasury has been considering giving to valuers. That is the real source of the Amendment's terms.

Three points ought to be made on the Amendment. First, whilst I agree that the purpose for which the land is required should be taken into consideration in the valuation, the value of the land or the facility to the purchaser is something quite different; indeed, for practical purposes, I should have thought it very difficult indeed to calculate. It is one thing to say, "Yes, this is an area where you might put an oil pipeline" or "This is an area where you might put a sewage pipe for a local authority," thus giving two valuations in return for the same sort of concession, in practical terms, according to what the land is required for. That is one thing, and I entirely agree with the Solicitor-General that there should be a differentiation in that respect.

When one examines the mechanics of how one values what the concessionnaire will do with the property subsequently to receiving the concession it becomes a different matter and raises all sorts of problems which I should have thought were most unwise to include in the general attitude of valuation, and unless there is an Amendment such as that in my name and that of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, the Government will find themselves in this kind of difficulty in the future.

Secondly, the Solicitor-General said that he did not quite see what we were driving at. What I am suggesting is that there are certain facilities that might be granted by the Commissioners to an oil company or some other undertaking which may not actually involve any gain to them. A dredging operation confers no proprietary interest in the sea bed, may well improve the Crown property at very considerable cost to the developer and cause no detriment to other Crown land. My purpose in drawing that part of the Amendment was to ensure that this possibility was covered and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will discover on inquiry, there is a specific case at this moment under consideration with one of the oil companies where there is some dispute over the valuation.

The Solicitor-General's third point of criticism was in relation to the introduction of the Lands Tribunal. The reason for that inclusion is that although I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's good will in his Amendment the exclusion of the monopoly element in the value can be only notional. It does not cause any practical change because, as I said on Second Reading, I do not consider valuation to be an exact science but only an art. When it comes to an assessment, two valuers can always arrive at two totally different figures, and as long as there is no free market operating it is really impossible for anyone to have any sanction against the decision of the valuer other than recourse to this House. That would be, I submit, an undesirable and impracticable administrative proposal in dealing with valuations which might arise from time to time. It would leave any would-be undertaker ultimately in the hands of the Commissioners. The suggestion to introduce the Lands Tribunal is one way over the difficulty.

The Solicitor-General compared this with the leasing off of a comprehensive area of development in the central area of a town. I suggest that that is not a comparable proposal, because if somebody wished to lease a shop site in, say, the centre of Leicester, which was one area of comprehensive development, and found that it was too much, it would still always be possible for him to go to Coventry or Nottingham. He is not finally bound to have a shop only in Leicester; there are other places. But undertakers in this country actually have to leave the country. This raises practically very much more difficulty.

So I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the only way in which justice not only is done but can be known to be done is by having some second court of appeal in which some people can say "Yes, that is fair" or "No, that is unreasonable"—people who are not actually interested parties in the way the Crown Estate Commissioners are.

I must be perfectly frank and say that a lot of this difficulty would not have arisen but for the behaviour of the Crown Estate Commissioners over Milford Haven. This is where the lack of confidence in the administration of the Commissioners has arisen. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on Second Reading, there is a great disparity between what the Commissioners were asking at one stage in the Milford Haven case and what they ultimately had to accept. The very fact that there is that vast difference of many thousands of pounds shows that there was something wrong in the Crown Estate office and something fundamentally wrong with the administration of that body. It is because we want to avoid this sort of difficulty arising again that we have raised this matter at this stage in the discussions on this Bill.

There is one last point that I would suggest to the Solicitor-General. While we are anxious to facilitate the passage of the Bill, I am also deeply concerned about the future development of the port of Milford Haven, naturally, as it is in my constituency. While I have no doubt of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own personal good will in the matter, I am still not satisfied that any future undertakers in developing the port of Milford Haven will avoid considerable difficulty and be certain that their problems will be resolved speedily unless some such proposal as this is incorporated in the Bill.

I am not tied to the words here. I should be very happy if the Solicitor-General would look at the matter again at a later stage of the Bill to ascertain whether some instructions should not be written into it so that people who are proposing to undertake development know precisely where they are. I apologise to the Committee for having taken up so much time.

I, too, am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for having argued so cogently the case for the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and myself. I think he can also be thanked for having gone as far as he can to table an Amendment which covers at least the major part of the point which I feel should be met.

It crosses my mind that the Clause can be made to apply to such things as oyster beds, the supply and demand and the purpose for which oysters are to be grown. I feel that the matter of supply and demand in relation to oysters might actually allow the Commissioners to force up the price.

That is not so important, however, as the industrial installations of which we have been talking. The aspect which makes a foreshore development different from anything which takes place in a town or on dry land is that many of these docks and installations have to be put on one or two specific points around the coast, where there is probably no alternative site. One cannot, for reasons of depth or currents, or transport, find an alternative site.

12 m.

It is a pity that my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment does not allow either the district valuer or the Lands Tribunal to be mentioned in the Bill. I do not think that it particularly matters which is the arbitrating authority. It can be argued either way. I favour the Lands Tribunal. If neither the Amendment to line 7 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) nor the Amendment to line 22 is accepted, there will be absolutely no cure if there is disagreement.

It is easy to see that in the case of a few acres of foreshore the Commissioners will be able to say what the monopoly value should be, and there is no outside authority written into the Bill to give a decision. This is analogous to compulsory purchase by a local authority, but in this case one may say that it is compulsory purchase of a monopoly position, where it is even harder to put a value on the facility or the right to enjoy it, because there is no yardstick anywhere else in the country.

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether we cannot write into the Bill some final arbitration authority, either mentioning the district valuer or perhaps following our suggestion of bringing in the Lands Tribunal, because there should be some appeal where there is definite disagreement on the value of the rights obtained.

The Solicitor-General obviously had in mind his duty to pacify my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and solve that particular problem. It was, none the less, extremely interesting to hear him unfolding what is in his mind in tackling what is, in effect, a new principle. I was more than delighted with the last few sentences of his speech, where it seemed that suddenly he came to meet us on this side of the Committee on an extremely important point of principle.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's approach is an entirely new one. He is trying to establish a new principle and a new problem. I suppose that is so because he is dealing here with land which, in almost every case, had no previous use value. There is no intrinsic value in the foreshore. Of course, there is the manifestation of the half-a-crown which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) mentioned on Second Reading, but even so it is a socially created value if seaweed is worth half-a-crown to somebody inland who is ready to use it.

Ordinarily, however, the foreshore has no value until it suddenly attains a socially created value. I hope the last few sentences of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will fructify in the minds of the Commissioners and others who have rejected our arguments. I hope, moreover, that, in the restrained view he is now taking of the rights of the Crown in this matter, he will consider legislation to restrict some of the monopoly value which has passed into the hands of private owners of the foreshore through the laziness of some of his predecessors in office.

I wish that there were time to develop the interesting story of the Severn Estuary, where Dr. John Smith, a Member for Gloucestershire and the nominee of the Berkeleys, did not occupy himself with the great problems of the Civil War, but achieved a great victory by establishing the rule that the riparian owners of the Severn Estuary lands owned the bed of the river up to the middle of the navigable estuary, as a result of which some people now get a monopoly of the salmon fishing in the area, to the detriment of the old fishermen. There may be other examples of private monopolies which would be worth the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown if they have hit on the right solution to this.

I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can tell us about other devices which have passed through his mind and by which the Crown could obtain some share in the equity of industrial developments. I suppose he would say that it would mean some kind of Customs or something legally undesirable. Right at the close of his speech he seemed to be drawing an exact parallel between what a local authority would do in the case of leasing its property for development and what the Crown Commissioners would do under his proposals. But that is what we have been arguing from these benches throughout the debates. It is precisely that the local authority uses its powers for a social purpose, a planning purpose. The Commissioners could not possibly come to any conclusion about leasing the foreshore to an oil company unless it was desirable as part of the economic planning of the area that that development should take place. That must be one of the prime considerations, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has conceded the case by making that comparison with local authorities.

Seaside resorts are certainly often in the position of using the profits from letting out pitches to the ice-cream man on the beach—jugs of tea and that sort of thing—to attract to the neighbourhood opportunities for employment for their residents out of season. It was the seaside resorts which had the earliest experience of the problems of seasonal unemployment, and they sought to attract balanced employment into the area. The prime consideration in the use of land in such circumstances is what contribution it makes to the balance of employment in the neighbourhood and to the prosperity of the people.

If at this hour of the night the Solicitor-General is to argue that that is the right way to tackle the problem, I would not mind giving any kind of three hearty cheers which are permitted by the rules of order, and I would applaud his lead in this matter and disagree with those who are trying to perpetuate this system with some sort of device for passing the buck to someone else—the district valuer or a tribunal—who would know no more than anyone else what the value of the land was because its cash value could not be estimated, unless there is a straightforward tax on the production which passes from it. However, the social value must be estimated as part of the development and it cannot be argued that that is not part of the process of the development taking place in the area as a whole. There is no legal formula and the district valuer cannot make this an exact science, as has been said.

The balanced judgment must be whether it is better to make a concession at a low price to attract the right kind of industry into the neighbourhood, or whether there is no need to make such a concession and no need to attract any kind of industry, in which case a share of the equity can be taken in a prosperous industry which is asking for the concession.

What he has just said has been the most helpful speech that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made. I hope that it looks as good when I read it in HANSARD as those last two or three sentences sounded. If it does, I shall begin to feel that we are getting somewhere.

In the light of previous discussions we have had, we are entitled to underline those things which may save discussion that otherwise might just be approaching. We had previously the Solicitor-General's attempt to persuade us that we must not put into the Bill any considerations about industrial and social planning which were obligatory on the Crown Commissioners. He attempted to persuade the Committee that the Commissioners, although they might take into account the public interest as they went along, as it were, were nevertheless to be mandated to enhance the value of the land and to exploit it to the maximum extent in monetary terms.

It is in this Clause that we get the crassest statement that the Commissioners are to get their "money or money's worth". My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and others have complained about how that might work out, and has worked out, in certain monopolistic positions. Now we find that the Solicitor-General is ready to concede that there is something wrong about the crass pursuit of the highest profits in these cases and that something must be done to curb the powers of the Commissioners.

There are three questions I wish to address to him. What on earth did he mean when he talked about the district valuer in relation to the Bill's terminology about

"… the best consideration in money or money's worth."?

As I understood him, he said there was no difference between the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the district valuer should be introduced to make a valuation in these cases and the terms of the Bill, which say they must go to

"… the best consideration in money and money's worth …"

I must have put it very badly. My intention was to say precisely the opposite—that I thought the price arrived at between a willing buyer and willing seller was the best consideration.

What I do not understand is the objection of the Solicitor-General to the introduction of someone who is generally regarded as a fair authority in such cases and to whom cases should be referred for the fixing of a fair price. This requires same further explanation.

Secondly, how under the terms laid out here are the Commissioners supposed to make a distinction in practice between a profit-making oil company bringing a pipeline across the foreshore and the local authority desiring to lay a sewage pipe? The Solicitor-General says it is somehow covered by the phrase

"… having regard to all the circumstances …"

I should like to know exactly how they do have regard to all the circumstances of the case. What does it mean? In money terms? In terms of evaluation of the land and the action they are supposed to take? Which kind of sale or lease are they to prefer when there are such alternatives? Unless we have some exemplification of that we do not know what the words

"… having regard to all the circumstances …"

mean, except in so far as the Bill says they are to go for the highest price. In this case that seems to be contrary to what the Solicitor-General has told us.

12.15 a.m.

Thirdly, what is meant by "monopoly value"? How will it be interpreted? The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) referred to the case of the foreshore and drew attention to the especially monopolistic character of these cases; that only a few places around the shores of this island were suitable for certain kinds of installations.

This could be said about dry land; about many parcels of land. In my constituency there are only a few places which are suitable for the erection of houses for my constituents. If we are to avoid making inroads into the best farming land, and if we are to avoid the hazards of mining subsidence, there are only a few parcels of land which are suitable for the erection of houses, schools, and other things.

This monopolistic character, this element of monopoly value, exists all over the place and has a very powerful influence on land values and on the speculation in land values. It is not confined to the foreshore.

I want to know exactly how the element of monopoly value attributable to the extent of the Crown ownership of comparable land will be excluded. If the Solicitor-General can answer that in practical terms, and also the other question, I am sure that we will make very speedy progress.

I was going to make the Solicitor-General an offer. It is a bit hard to bring forward a gift horse and then have everybody looking at the beast's teeth in the way we have perhaps been doing for the last minute or two. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying very hard to meet the point that was put, but honestly—and I hope that he will take this from me—I am not sure that he has gone far enough. I think that the root of the difficulty is not so much the basis of valuation as the method of it.

I think that on both the Amendments there was a feeling that this ought not merely to be a prohibition on the Commissioners as it is at the present time, but that there ought to be some arrangement for enabling a fair price to be arrived at by someone expert in these matters, be it the Lands Tribunal which my hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman opposite suggested, or the district valuer, or whoever it is.

We ought to be fair in a matter of this sort. We do not want this rather unfortunate incident which happened in my hon. Friend's constituency, which has, after all, been discussed as much as it is good for any slightly unpleasant incident to be discussed, to happen again.

With the memories of the Franks Report still fresh in our minds, we did not want to err on the side of giving too much statutory harshness to the Commissioners. I will willingly withdraw my Amendment if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the matter again. There are two ways of looking at the matter again. In one case one first makes up one's mind that one is not going to make any alteration and then looks at the matter again, and in the other one looks at the matter and then makes up one's mind whether or not to make an alteration. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will adopt the second and more equitable method.

I associate myself with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend. We are anxious that this kind of incident is not repeated in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) for their very courteous and helpful approach, which is no more than characteristic of them. I should like to accept the hon. and learned Member's offer, but I should be less than candid with the Committee if I did not state that, with my hon. Friend, I have already considered the matter very carefully. We saw the force of the case which was put and we tried to meet it, and we considered carefully whether the use of the district valuer should be made mandatory in all cases, or whether an arbitration procedure proper should be adopted. After careful consideration we came to the conclusion that it was inexpedient. I will carefully consider all that hon. Members have said, with my hon. Friend; but it would be wrong to leave the Committee with the idea that we have a completely open mind about it.

The hon. Member for Pembroke was right when he said that there was a vast difference between the price originally suggested and the final negotiating bracket. The difference is represented by the difference between the old and new formula, and particularly the new formula as it will be in statutory form if the Committee accepts my Amendment. I confess that, even after hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation, I still do not like his Amendment. In the first place, it seems to me wrong to bring in the district valuer in all cases.

It is only one of two alternatives.

I mean, not to limit that provision to the foreshore but to bring it in generally. In the ordinary case, where there is no monopoly or semi-monopoly or oligopoly, there seems to be no reason at all for bringing in the district valuer. It is much better left to ordinary bargaining. Secondly, it seems to me that there is still a false antithesis between what is the best consideration obtainable and what is the price arrived at between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and because it suggests that there is that antithesis, I think that it would be wrong to accept it.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider talking to a valuer about it? I dare say that he has already done so. We had similar points on the Town and Country Planning Act. The valuers have views of their own.

I have discussed this point with the Valuation Office. May I make one point plain which I do not think was appreciated? In practice we have not abandoned the district valuer. On the contrary, in respect of the foreshore and the sea bed it remains, and will remain, the practice adopted by the Commissioners to bring him in. It is precisely because it is necessary or desirable in the case of a monopoly that this very difficult assessment of the discounting of monopoly value should be independently carried out that the Commissioners are willing to take the Valuation Office view in the event of a disagreement with a potential purchaser or lessee.

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that valuation is an art. This is the way it will work. In the event of a disagreement between the parties, the matter will be referred to the local valuation officer. I echo the tribute the hon. and learned Gentleman paid to local valuation officers. The valuation officer will say what he thinks is a fair price—he will name the consideration to be paid. The instruction to him runs in this way:

"The district valuer should assume, for the purpose of making his valuation, that there is a measure of competition, and, that if the negotiations with the Commissioners break down, equally suitable facilities could be obtained from other landowners on payment of a consideration which is reasonable in the circumstances of the case."

I hope that answers the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). I am told that the Valuation Office thinks that is a workable formula from its point of view.

I am sorry to intervene once more. I am just as anxious to be rid of all this as is the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Why not put it in the Bill in relation to the foreshore, if that is to be the practice?

It is far better left as an instruction. I have an undertaking to the Committee that, in respect of the foreshore and the seabed, in the event of disagreement the machinery of the district valuer will continue to be invoked. I do not like the rest of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, so if only for that reason I could not advise its acceptance. I hope that, with those assurances, the Committee will feel that we have met the gravamen of the complaint made on the last occasion and will allow my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment to be accepted.

I want to raise again a point with which the Solicitor-General did not deal. It is the question of dredging. This is a very important point, because dredging can cost a great deal of money. It adds a certain amount of insult to injury if the Commissioners then charge a great deal of money for the privilege of dredging, when the dredgers may well be rendering a service to the Commissioners.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not dealing with this point. The cost of an operation like that would be reflected in the profit. It would therefore in turn be reflected in the price that a willing buyer would be willing to pay, to adopt the hon. and learned Gentleman's phrase. My own view is that in such a case he would find the benefit to the Crown Estate and the cost to the intending purchaser reflected in the best consideration which could be given for the property.

My last suggestion about putting the district valuer into the Bill in relation to the foreshore was unconnected with the precise terms of the Amendment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman after thinking about the matter still objects to the reference to the willing buyer and the willing seller, that would not prevent him putting in the district valuer's machinery in relation to the foreshore. The Committee would never dream of not accepting his undertaking, but we may be legislating for a considerable time and, thought I rather doubt it, even the Solicitor-General is not immortal.

I apologise to the Committee for not making one point clear. The Commissioners will not use the district valuer only if they get into disputes with applicants. They have agreed to go straight to the district valuer without any prior negotiation if that is wished on the part of applicants.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "one hundred" and to insert "fifty."

I have often heard right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite refer to drafting Amendments when the right word to describe them would be probing Amendments. Therefore, perhaps I may be allowed to use the same phrase about this Amendment.

I wondered why the term of one hundred years was put into the Bill. Was it just laziness, was it just a matter of following convention, or was there any special significance for its inclusion in the Bill? I should have thought from the experience of the working of the leasehold system—I am sure that in other circumstances. I should have support on that matter from this side of the Committee—that a hundred years has not turned out to be a happy period at all. It is just long enough for the form of the community's life to have been completely changed and long enough to drag out the life of a house longer than it should. It produces a mass of schedules of dilapidations and the right of appeal and requires people to restore things which are no longer required because they are out of fashion. In fact, there is no sense in it at all.

Many of the more farsighted free-holders are now granting leases for much shorter periods with certain rights of renewal and extension which bring them nearer to the point, which has arisen before in our discussion, when a change in the terms of a lease is desirable, namely, the point of change of user of the land concerned. Therefore, although I have moved to delete "one hundred" and to insert "fifty," I would rather have a shorter period and the option to discuss fresh terms in a sensible way instead of copying the old custom of a hundred years lease with all its disadvantages and all the odium attached to it now and giving no chance of a shorter lease renewable on Landlord and Tenant Act terms which gives the opportunity to discuss again the use to which the land shall be put and the proper rent which shall be paid. It is for the purpose of extracting information from the Financial Secretary that I have moved the Amendment.

As an old veteran of the Standing Committee on the 1954 Bill, I should be glad on some future occasion to have an opportunity of debating long leases and all that with the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin).

The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the powers of the Commissioners to the granting of leases for fifty years. I am advised that, in practice, that would make it impossible for the Commissioners to let any part of the Crown Estate on a building lease, because the term of fifty years would not be sufficiently long to enable the developer to recover his capital.

Subsection (2) replaces Sections 4 and 5 of the 1927 Crown Lands Act whereby the Commissioners may grant leases for a term not exceeding a hundred years from the date of the lease or the contract from that lease if such a contract were made. It is for the reason which I have given that this provision has been inserted in the present Bill, and I must ask the Committee to accept the period of a hundred years.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, to leave out from "money" to the end of line 38 and to insert:

"by trustees and subject to any conditions attaching to such investment:

Provided that for the purposes of this sub-section any such conditions may be adapted or modified by an order made by the Treasury in the form of a statutory instrument and subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament".

I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in page 4, line 38, at end insert:

Provided that no moneys shall be invested in any such securities or investments as are mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph where the holder is not entitled to repayment of the principal within twelve years from the date of investment.

That will be convenient, Mr. Thomas, for although they are separate points they are closely related.

This is a case where the Government have been rather naughty. The Eve Report recommended that the Commissioners should have the powers of investment of trustees for the time being. The Government, very quietly, confined them to what I will call "savings bank powers". The Commissioners have not had a very good history about investment—at any rate, since the 1956 Act since when they have had to publish Reports—and in their Report for the year ended 31st March, 1958, they came to the conclusion that they should have an investment policy in which securities should fulfil the following conditions:

"(a) all should be dated;

(b) none should have a life of more than 15 years;

(c) the portfolio should be so arranged that a proportion matures every two or three years."

These were rather excellent conclusions, though possibly, as I shall suggest, fifteen years was a shade long for the purposes of the Commission. The Commissioners pointed out that:

"The securities held by the Commissioners are needed as a reserve of liquid capital for re-investment in real estate, as opportunities offer, and for financing interest-bearing improvements; they cannot properly be regarded as a regular means of obtaining a high income or capital appreciation."

Indeed, they could not be in this case. They have been a substantial means of obtaining a substantial amount of capital depreciation.

The statement of investments held at 31st March, 1958, shows that investments that originally cost £3,800,000-odd had depreciated by that time to £2,800,000-odd, which is a fairly good loss on a not very large quantity of investments. The reason is reasonably obvious. When one looks at the investments one discovers that a substantial part of them were either irredeemable or long-dated. Why did the Commissioners think it necessary to buy anything of that sort? I can suggest an explanation.

They no doubt made the purchases at a time when the Labour Government were keeping interest rates low. Whether or not one thinks that is right or wrong, it would not have involved them in the losses which the financial policy of successive Tory Governments involved them in. In any case, that is what happened, and one does not want it to happen again. Anyway, they have cleaned it up now, for two years later, in their Report showing the securities held on 31st March, 1960, they now have £2,500,000—and I am giving round figures—cost price and a market value of £2,300,000. I suppose that that is not so bad—in what is left, at any rate—for it is a loss of only about 10 per cent. instead of a loss of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. They refer in their Report to having carried out the recommendations of the earlier Report.

I think that these gentlemen want looking after in this matter. They have discovered it themselves and I hope that we shall, later on in the day, be discussing the same problem in a rather wider context and in connection with an even more distinguished body of people—the National Debt Commissioners, whom I have not had the advantage of meeting. These gentlemen do meet, but this is rather a sad story. They have pulled up their financial socks and have got the matter right at last, but they should not be allowed to do it again. They may be tempted. Who knows? Let us see that their investment powers are proper.

The first Amendment suggests that the provisions of the Eve Report should be followed—a revolutionary suggestion which will undoubtedly be turned down by the Government at this hour of the night. They have previously found the Report rather convenient and have relied heavily upon it. It is now inconvenient, and they will turn it down. Such is the nature of Governments. There is an additional proviso because the Trustee Investment Bill, if it goes through, will contain some conditions about investment by trustees which are inappropriate to this particular case and which might have to be modified—and could easily be modified—by a Treasury order. That would be a quite proper thing to do in this type of case.

The second proposal, which one can treat as an alternative if the Government wish—since they will turn down both, it does not much matter—is simply that the Commissioners should be kept to securities redeemable within twelve years. If the Government like to say fifteen years, I shall not reject the offer on that account. It is really rather naughty to take the Eve recommendations, after what has happened to the securities in this case, and introduce merely savings bank powers, without any modification. Quite a lot of public money has been lost, in what seems to have been a comparatively short time, in such a simple matter as dealing with long-dated or irredeemable investments.

I agree that these two Amendments are among the more important Amendments which we have discussed this evening, and I shall endeavour to explain to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) the Government attitude in this matter.

The present Statutes enable the Commissioners to invest in trustee securities, but they are subject to the approval of the Treasury and, in practice, the Treasury has authorised investment only in the limited range of Government or Government-guaranteed securities authorised, as the hon. and learned Member intimated, for the investment of money paid into the fund for the banks for savings. The general Treasury view on the matter is that it is inappropriate in the case of funds like this to go beyond what one might call the Exchequer family of securities, which provide relief to Exchequer borrowings and which have other practical advantages today, for example, in the use of the machinery for investment provided by the National Debt Commissioners.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Eve Report. It is true that the Eve Committee in 1955 recommended that the Commissioners should have powers of investment similar to those given from time to time to other trustees under the general law. But in this case subsequent discussion between the Government and the Commissioners has led to the acceptance of the proposition for which the Bill provides. This being what one might fairly describe as a management reserve, it should be kept in liquid form, and suitable investments for a fund of this kind are Government securities.

The present Clause is a modification of the Commissioners' powers of investment in securities from the point of view of Statute, though it is in accordance with current practice as approved by the Treasury. I can sum it up by saying that the Crown Estate is primarily a landed estate and, therefore, surplus capital will normally be used for the purchase of land. Apart from the power to lend money on the security of real, leasehold or heritable securities in accordance with Clause 3 (4, a), the funds invested from time to time in securities represent the management reserve of the Commissioners. They need to be kept liquid so that they can be used for investment in the purchase of land whenever suitable opportunities occur.

12.45 a.m.

I quite agree that, looking at it from the point of view of public interest and the management of public money, a wider investment Clause might in present circumstances enable the Commissioners to get a little higher return. If the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) were here, I think that I would be prepared to stand up to him on what I said in the Budget debate about the gilt-edged market but, whether he is right or I am, I do not think the importance of this is very great, because the interest on investments in securities is a pretty small proportion of the revenue of the Crown Estate. In the financial year 1959-60, it was only about £100,000 out of total receipts of over £3 million.

The Commissioners, in determining their precise investments, must also have in mind the desirability of at least maintaining capital value and, of course, of having funds readily available—and this is the main point—for financing current transactions. I think that there will also be some practical difficulties in making full use of the provisions of the Bill which we shall be discussing later today, because these are not really designed for an estate which is primarily a landed estate and uses its investments and securities only to hold its reserve readily available for investment in real property when opportunity presents itself. It is for that reason that it seemed to us best to keep to the limited range of investment provided for in the Bill, in accordance with present practice.

I come now to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second Amendment, which we are also discussing. Here, I can say that there is no dispute on the policy that the investments should be kept in dated stocks that do not mature a long time into the future, but we feel that it would be undesirable to have a rigid provision, or that Parliament should seek to impose this kind of restriction which, even if it appeared all right now, might prove to be an impediment to the efficient investment of money needed for a particular long-term need of the Estate. The Commission's policy has been, within the range of Exchequer securities, to keep to a portfolio of dated stocks maturing in not more than fifteen years so that, in any case, the suggested restriction of twelve years would be rather too short.

These considerations surely underline the undesirability of trying to set a precise period. The Commissioners have sold their former holding of undated stocks, and their present aim is to hold a well-balanced portfolio of dated stocks maturing in not more than fifteen years. There is no reason to think that after this Bill becomes law that policy will be changed, and the Government are perfectly in agreement with it.

For those two reasons, I could not advise the Committee to accept these Amendments, and in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman I think the short point is this. The investment of the money which the Commissioners will have available to meet their needs for working capital and awaiting re-investment is secondary to their function of real estate management. For the most part, not only will these investments be secondary but they should, I think, be held in such a form as to be readily available to meet commitments in connection with the management of the Estate and to take advantage of such opportunities as may present themselves. I must therefore advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment.

Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve was the chairman of the Eve Committee and, at the relevant time, was chairman of the Commissioners. Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve is far from being half-witted, and I read out the paragraph in his Report which explained the nature of the fund the Commissioners desired to have and its requirement exactly as the hon. Gentleman has just stated. They came to the conclusion that for these reasons a fund of a certain character was required, and it is that character that we desire to import by the second Amendment. There is really nothing in the point that there is some obscure difference between twelve and fifteen. I will not argue it at this hour of the night. I think there is a case for twelve, but be that as it may.

There are two alternatives here. One is that we should trust the Commissioners and give them the powers which the Government themselves are proposing to give to ordinary private trustees but think it improper to give the people who are trustees of this fund. After all, other trustees will have funds exactly like this one to administer, and they have the sense to choose the right kind of securities for those funds. Surely, if private trustees are competent to do it under the terms of the Bill which we shall consider later in the day, then these gentlemen ought to be able to do it, too. I have no reason to suppose that they cannot do it.

That is what the Eve Report recommended, but the Government will not do it. On the contrary, they say "We cannot do that. We can only give them savings bank powers.", and they then refuse to put the limitation on the savings bank powers which the Commissioners themselves have recommended. Either we trust them or we do not. This is an extraordinary way of hovering in between, half trusting them and half not trusting them. It is contrary to what they themselves suggested or, at any rate, to what Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve suggested in the Report. It is contrary to their own practice, and it is simply there because this is the conventional form which has pleased the Treasury. It is Treasury practice. Later in the day we shall come to the National Debt Commissioners, and then we shall see where Treasury practice leads us.

This is the second time that we have found ourselves passing a Clause in the Bill that emphasises the money-making character of the Crown Estate.

We have passed Clause 1 which said that it should be the general duty of the Commissioners to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it. We are now asked to pass a Clause which says that they

"shall not sell … except for the best consideration in money or money's worth".

Further on there is a proviso which says more or less that everything

"is to be determined in such manner as, in"

the opinion of the Commissioners

"is calculated to secure to them the best consideration in money or money's worth".

These things they shall do.

I would point out to the Solicitor-General that there is no mention of the public interest, community welfare or industrial planning or any of the elements of the national interest. An hon. Member has pointed out that we are just about to reach a Clause which deals with some public purposes. The interesting thing is that this Clause says that the Commissioners may do certain things for public purposes or the welfare of the community, for charity and other things, but so far we have repeated half a dozen times that the Commissioners shall put the pursuit of profit first in all their considerations. It is against that that I protest.

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has just said. I do not emphasise it because I mentioned it, and I intended to mention it on the very first Amendment.

There is one small point here. I am afraid that I did not hear quite all the discussion about the insertion of the word "feu", but I gathered from what the Lord Advocate said on the matter that it was covered, in effect, by "disposal". Looking at the Bill, I have a feeling that the Scottish aspect of it in the matter of language may have been somewhat neglected. There are spasmodic references to Scotland. It would have been easy to put in the word "feu" by appropriate words. It is a very common method, of course, when disposing of land in Scotland, and it is rather odd to put in the English words "dispose of" and not put the Scots word in. I wonder whether it would be too much to ask that the Lord Advocate or the appropriate person in the Scottish Office should look not only at this part of the Bill but at others, too, to ascertain whether the adaptation to Scottish practice is sufficiently complete. It is rather odd to put a word like "advowson" in what I thought was an exclusively English term. I speak with deference. I do not know Scots law. There may be cases where the corresponding Scottish equivalent has been omitted. I do not know. Perhaps I may take the comparatively affirmative gestures of the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate as an indication that there is some possibility of that being so.

I have only two things to say.

The first is in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). I draw his attention to the fact that Clause 4 is invoked into this Clause by the opening words of Clause 3:

"Save as provided by the following provisions of this Act …"

I come now to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate closely scrutinised the drafting of the Bill. I am told that there is no such concept as advowson in Scotland, and, therefore, the Bill does not give a Scottish equivalent. In line 31, page 4, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find the words "heritable securities", which he can hug to his soul with delight.

I have seen "heritable securities," and I have hugged the creature, but it is rather strange not to refer to feuing when dealing with questions of disposal of land in Scotland. I hesitate to say this, but it is common knowledge that it is a very frequent method of dealing with land in Scotland, and it is odd not to put it in. It looks as if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has neglected Scotland. I should have thought that, even in the light of tonight's experience, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have learnt how unwise it is to do that.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, to leave out from the beginning to the second "the" in line 30.

I think that it will serve the convenience of the Committee if we discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in page 6, line 4, at end insert:

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Commissioners with such consent as aforesaid and without consideration or for such consideration as they think fit, may dispose of the foreshore or of any Hart of the foreshore or of a right or privilege over or in relation to the foreshore to any public or local authority and the Commissioners shall so use their powers under this section as in course of time to dispose to public or local authorities of so much of the foreshore as is under the management of the Commissioners and as they are not precluded from disposing of by any direction given under subsection (4) of section one of this Act.

That would be convenient, Mr. Thomas. I will put this as shortly as possible. This is a Clause about grants for public or charitable purposes, and it begins by saying that whatever is done under it can, as I read it, be done only

"For the development, improvement or general benefit of any land of the Crown Estate …"

I understand these words as limiting the whole scope of the Clause. The Amendment I have moved would leave those words out. The other Amendment would introduce a specific case to which I shall refer later. I should have thought that when one was dealing with the question of giving or selling cheap—if I may put it that way—land for public purposes such as those of a public or local authority, or for road construction or watercourses or reservoirs, or, under Clause 4 (1, c)

"for providing, enlarging or improving a place of religious worship …"

and so on, one should not limit oneself by words of that kind.

I said at the beginning of the debates on this Bill that it seemed to me that what the Government were trying to do was to give the Commissioners the character of good Tory landlords, and that I did not think that that was good enough. Some of the things that have been said since then make me wonder, if these are good Tory landlords, what on earth bad Tory landlords are like.

1.0 a.m.

Be that as it may, I should have thought that even on that rather narrow view of the matter the words ought not to be left in. This ties up too tightly what ought to be a public duty in the case of the Commissioners of Crown Estate with the business of estate management. If the words were literally enforced—if they are capable of being enforced—a great many things which a reasonably good person would do—to use that broad phrase—it would be possible for the Crown Estate Commissioners to do. Partly on the ground that my hon. Friends and I feel that that concept of the duties of the Commissioners is too narrow, and partly on the ground that even on the narrower view the words are still too narrow, I should like to see them out.

Now I come to the specific case and I must refer again to my seaweed. I still feel a little hard put to it having to pay 2s. 6d. a year for the privilege of having to remove seaweed from the foreshore. The Lord Advocate knows as I know that along the coast of Scotland people take seaweed from the foreshore and use it for fertilising the fields. That is done mainly in the wilder parts of Scotland—I should not think that they do a thing like that in Edinburgh, but they do on the West Coast of Scotland—and it is an instance of the sort of thing in which the Commissioners get involved in connection with the foreshore.

Under the law of England, no one has any right to go on the foreshore at all, except fishermen for the purpose of their craft. The Solicitor-General will remember a case of the lord of the manor who wanted to put some bathing machines on the foreshore, but the Court of Common Pleas decided by a majority that he could not do it and had no right to do it. The only dissenting judgment dissented on a very interesting premise. It was thought proper to have bathing machines in those days, and it was said that the practice of bathing ought to be encouraged because it enabled the citizens of an island State to rescue shipwrecked mariners.

In spite of all those considerations, the case confirmed or decided that no ordinary citizen had any right to go on the foreshore, except fishermen in the pursuit of their craft. In Scotland there is a curious thing called jus spatiendi, which in English or Scots means "right of walking" and which to some extent, apparently, enables the Scots to go on the foreshore.

There is a third aspect to this matter of the foreshore and I mention this with some feeling. We hear a good deal about really messy beaches covered with oil discharged from ships. That oil is a nuisance to everybody. I should have thought that it was a legal nuisance, too, but a nuisance in the ordinary sense of the word it certainly is. It is on the land belonging to these gentlemen, the Crown Commissioners. Do they ever do anything about it? I have never heard so. I dare say that the Solicitor-General will be able to give instances when the Commissioners have been found patiently scratching oil off the foreshore, or taking steps to prevent it accumulating there.

Seriously, whether it is a question of dirty beaches and oil on the foreshore, or a question of the rights of individuals to use the foreshore, or a question of having things like my seaweed, surely the Crown Commissioners are not the right people to own the foreshore. I have suggested that they ought to be able to dispose of the foreshore and that it ought to be their duty—not with any time limit and an actual date—to hand it over to the local authorities. Local authorities do not own it at present. It is not within their jurisdiction. I should have thought that they were the best people to do it.

The Government may say that they have consulted the local authorities and that they do not want to have it. I could understand that objection, because the foreshore is rather a liability, but if it is not going to be handed over to the local authorities what are the Crown Estate Commissioners going to do about cleaning it up? The answer to that question would really be interesting, but it is too late to develop this fascinating subject a little more closely. We shall never know, for instance, about the king and the 49 casks of brandy, the case that the Solicitor-General will remember. The king got the 49 casks, and died soon afterwards.

As one who is, in a Parliamentary sense, a neighbour of the Crown Estate Commissioners, I have very much sympathy with what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is seeking to persuade the Committee to accept. I have no idea what advice the Solicitor-General will give us, but I should be very glad to feel that he would be able to concur, at least in spirit, that they should follow the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are most excellent powers given in Clause 4, and it is a thousand pities that some hon. Members who have castigated the Commissioners earlier have now left us. It is particularly unfortunate that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris), who clearly had not studied the provisions of the Clause when he addressed us, has gone to bed.

What may be a real point in my constituency is that if, in an area, the Commissioners are invited, and feel it wise, to make land available for the provision of a school, they must by their statutory duty be sure that it is

"For the development, improvement or general benefit of any land of the Crown Estate,"

and not for the benefit generally of the area or for the benefit of the surrounding land. It is the Crown Estate that must benefit.

I should have been glad of some explanation of their power in that regard. We have great confidence in their ability to administer an estate in their hands, and they could surely be given a certain discretion in that matter. While I would not necessarily seek to press the matter tonight, if the Solicitor-General would suggest that this aspect—one of good neighbourliness—will be looked at again, however briefly, it might remove some anxiety which is quite non-party and which is an anxiety to make the Bill workable.

Clause 4 gives power to the Commissioners to make grants for a number of wide public or charitable purposes, but as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, all their powers under subsection (1) are governed by the opening words that it must be

"For the development, improvement or general benefit of any land of the Crown Estate,"

Those words are rather wider than my hon. Friend, the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) might have suggested. For example, there have been two very recent cases where similar powers have been exercised—because this is largely recapitulation of existing powers. The first was land leased for the siting of a village hall at Oxshott, which is by no means exclusively taken up with the Crown Estate, but the Crown has a substantial estate in the neighbourhood. The other is of more immediate interest to my hon. Friend and is where land was licensed for the construction of a reservoir on the Windsor Estate. The Commissioners have considered that the general improvement or general benefit of the Crown Estate can properly be construed in a wide sense, and I should have thought that they were right in that.

The hon. and learned Gentleman in his Amendment goes further, because by eliminating these words what he is doing is to enable the Commissioners to make grants for any public or charitable purpose whatsoever whether or not it is for the general improvement or general benefit of any land of the Crown Estate.

It has to be done with the consent of Her Majesty, and that imports the Government's responsibility.

Nevertheless, the point remains that what one is doing is to allow the Crown Estate Commissioners to make grants for any public or charitable purpose at less than the best consideration, whether or not it redounds to the advantage of the Crown Estate even in the wide sense that I have suggested.

One should remember that we are dealing with public property. This is in effect the property of the nation. It reverts, constitutionally speaking, at the end of each reign to the Sovereign, and the settlement which has habitually been made for the last two hundred years is made at the beginning of the new reign. But this is public property; therefore, if general grants for public or charitable purposes are to be made, they should be made by the appropriate organ of Government. The Commissioners can properly be given wide powers to make grants for charitable purposes, as long as in the most general sense it can be said to redound to the advantage of the Crown Estate, but it would be wrong in the circumstances to go further.

The second Amendment deals with the foreshore, and I can deal with it quite briefly. The foreshore is part of the Crown Estate and is capable of producing very valuable revenue; revenue far in excess of the 2s. 6d. a year by which the Exchequer benefits from the hon. and learned Gentleman. One has only to think of sand and gravel extraction. Where people are going to extract sand and gravel commercially to derive a profit, should not they pay a proper consideration to public funds? It is the public fund, the national fund, since it is part of the Crown Estate, which should benefit in such a case.

But, says the hon. and learned Gentleman, what about the amenities of the foreshore? That is a perfectly fair point, but that is already taken care of by existing practice. What the Crown Commissioners do is to encourage local authorities to take regulating leases of the foreshore adjacent to their areas. They can then regulate the use of the foreshore, control the use of materials, and in other ways regulate the activities of the public on the foreshore—to which as a matter of grace which has developed into custom—they have access and preserve the amenities. Great areas of Crown foreshore are already on such leases, particularly in the neighbourhood of the more popular resorts. As I say, the Crown Estate Commissioners are anxious and willing to encourage more local authorities to make use of those powers.

I rise only to say that nothing could be less satisfactory than that reply.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, at the end to insert "for the purposes of".

This is only a tidying Amendment. I will not delay the Committee long with it or with the next Amendment. We have paid much attention to the Clause because after the rather harsh commercial landlordism which seems to animate the rest of the Bill, the Clause is one in which a little of the milk of human kindness starts to flow. We feel that the insertion of these words makes the Clause much clearer, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept them.

There is perhaps a little ambiguity in this paragraph, as it might be read

"for the purposes of any public or local authority … exercising powers conferred by or under any enactment for the supply of water."

I imagine that that is the point which exercises the mind of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). It was not the Government's intention so to limit the purposes of any public or local authority. The Amendment makes it plain that it is not intended to be so limited, and I advise the Committee to accept it.

Hear, hear.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out "or improvement" and to insert "improvement or maintenance".

This deals with only a small point. I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing the Solicitor-General accept this Amendment, too. It concerns a principle very well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) on Second Reading. What we sought to do throughout that discussion was to preserve the principle of stewardship on the part of the Commissioners. There would be a constant responsibility not only for the matters which we have mentioned previously but also for maintenance—a responsibility to maintain the property in the best possible condition.

When the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) earlier said that he agreed with a great deal at the end of my speech, I began to be very nervous, and I determined to see what I had said which had drawn that tribute, because I felt that I had probably been extremely incautious. I was even more nervous when the cheers of hon. Members rang in my ears a moment ago, but it is a very sweet sound in the ears of any Minister and very unexpected. Encouraged by what happened then, I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out from "Estate" to the second "or" in line 8.

Subsection (2) empowers the Commissioners to make grants in money out of income for religious or educational purposes connected with the Crown Estate or for hospitals or other purposes tending to the welfare of residents or employees. The words we seek to omit were first inserted because they appear in Section 5 (2) of the Crown Lands Act, 1894. I do not think that the words are necessary and the subsection would run very much better if it simply read:

"The Commissioners may, out of the income of the Crown Estate, make contributions in money for any religious or educational purpose connected with land of the Crown Estate or for any other purposes tending to the welfare of persons residing or employed on any such land."

In other words, it makes it perfectly cleat that the contributions in money must tend to the welfare of persons resident or employed on the Crown Estate. I think that this is a reasonable departure from past precedents and the word of the earlier Act. I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

I omitted to mention that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in page 6, line 8, after "infirmary", insert:

"library, community, centre, village hall".

This is a somewhat doubtful procedural trick by the Government. They have at the last moment inserted an Amendment which causes my Amendment in page 6, line 8, to fall. Theirs is a starred Amendment, but they are the Government and so it appears on the Notice Paper and is called. If they take that criticism seriously, I assure them that I have much more fundamental criticisms of their conduct. I see what the hon. Gentleman intends by his Amendment. I think that I am right in saying that the objects I had in mind, that is to say, contributions to a library, community centre, or village hall, would all come within the language of the subsection as it will be when certain words are deleted by the Government Amendment. It may be possible to think up an ingenious case in which something would be welfare but not a religious or educational purpose. Even so, it is all covered. Therefore, the procedural trick has succeeded. The Government have no doubt taken this wise and sensible step because I pointed out to them the difficulties of contending that a cemetery tended to the welfare of persons residing or employed on the land. It may do many things, but not that.

I hope that the Solicitor-General will bear with me. I want very briefly to say how much I welcome this device of his, which will sweep away archaic phraseology and the conception of the old-fashioned institution. By the omission of these words the whole Clause will be much more up to date and comprehensive. It will be more in line with modern welfare services.

I am glad that the hon. Member thinks that. I am reminded of some words used by Lord Amory at one point in his Budget speech last year, when he talked about being inspired by reforming zeal and moving from one bold expedient to another.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, after "required" to insert:

"by any public or local authority".

I feel that I am rather tempting Providence to come up a third time, having had two Amendments accepted for the first time since I became a Member. Though the voice is that of a Sassenach, the words are those of Scotland. I have pleasure in trying to persuade the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment, the purpose of which is obvious.

It is suggested that with this Amendment we might discuss that in page 6, line 40, after "development," to insert

"by any public or local authority".

On a point of order. You said, Mr. Thomas, that you thought it would be as well to discuss the two Amendments together. Actually there are another two Amendments to page 6, line 40, one of which is in my name, which fall within that heading. I am assuming that you are calling my Amendment.

I am so sorry that the hon. Gentleman's assumption is not well founded. It is the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) which goes along with the one that has just been moved.

We are now on the Amendment to Clause 5, in page 6, line 40, after "required", to insert

"by any public or local authority".

As I understand the Amendment, it is to make it perfectly clear that the land in Windsor Forest can be taken for development only by a local or public authority. As now amended, the Clause would still enable the Bracknell New Town Corporation, having cleared the land, to permit it to be developed otherwise than by a local or public authority, as it is only natural it should be able to do. On that understanding, the Government are quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

I may not have followed quite properly, Mr. Thomas, but I understand that you have put the Question on the first Amendment in page 6, line 40. Is there not the last Amendment to the Clause in the same page and line on the Order Paper? I am not sure, but I thought that the Government were also accepting that Amendment.

I think that for purposes of discussion they were taken together, but I do not know whether the Government intend to accept it.

Is this a matter for which the Government have no policy?

I take the slight rebuke in your voice, Mr. Thomas, but I am in the difficulty that, although I know that I have no right to question why the Amendment which I put down to the Clause was not selected, the Clause is of the very greatest importance. I wish to ask my sight hon. and learned Friend a question or two, largely on subsection (3). I mentioned the matter on Second Reading.

In the area that I represent, Clause 5 is the culmination of a very long struggle—that is why I am so particularly interested in the Bill even at half-past one in the morning—between the requirement for the extension of Bracknell New Town, on the one hand, and the attitude previously taken up by the Crown Estate Commissioners on the other. They, very briefly, have asserted up to now that the land was inalienable and that however pressing, as undoubtedly pressing it is, is the requirement for extending the new town they could not co-operate.

I must say perfectly frankly—and I will cut my remarks extremely short in deference to hon. Members at this hour—having examined the legal arguments and having seen an able critique of them, I doubt very much whether they stand up. I have got ready, but now shall not need to use, evidence in the form of a statutory declaration where land which the Crown Commissioners have up to now asserted was inalienable, always had been and absolutely, under an Act of 1730, could not be sold was, in fact, offered for sale before the First World War. That, I think, shows that the claim here is very doubtful.

What bothers me is the way in which subsection (3) is hedged around. There are three requirements if the Crown Estate Commissioners are to be required to sell their land. The fact has been referred to that the ordinary powers of compulsory purchase do not apply to this body of land owners. Not only must there be

"… a certificate of the Minister of Housing and Local Government …"

that the land required

"… is in the public interest …"

which is reasonable, but there are three additional requirements. The subsection states that the land must be

"… suitably replaced … by other land …"

In other words, it has to be a transfer in specie. If they are to make their land available, there has got to be other land available. There is no such requirement that any other landlord could impose and I see no reason why it should be so in this case. The subsection also states

"… other land (not less in area). …"

So that it must not be less in area. It might be that the respective values of the land being exchanged just did not match up and there may be endless trouble in the future if we cannot find land that is

"… (not less in area). …"

Thirdly, the subsection states that the other land must be adjacent. These are three very stringent limitations.

This is the first time—and I say this deliberately—that the Commissioners have been forced to make their land available for sale for certain specific social purposes, and I speak a shade bitterly about this because I frankly think that the Commissioner's actions up to now in my area have not been in the public interest in this respect. That is why I have felt it proper to sit for five hours without an opportunity to gain refreshment—even to assist the Revenue—in order to see this Clause under discussion.

Bearing in mind their regard for the public interest up to now in their policy of sale, why are we hedging around their ability to sell with these limitations? What endless opportunity it gives for prevarication and discussion. "There is no suitable land adjoining," they could argue. "It is not the same or more in area," they could say. I must add that it is with regret that I have seen these severe limitations imposed. That is why, even at this late hour, I have thought it right to delay the Committee.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubensee) has had an opportunity of expressing his views on this subject and of course I fully realise the importance of Clause 5 to my hon. Friend, and this subsection in particular. The purpose of this subsection is to enable suitable arrangements to be made between the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Minister of Housing for an extension of Bracknell new town.

For some part of my political life I had responsibility for compulsory purchase orders, and I had impressed upon me the importance of reading all the evidence before allowing compulsory purchase orders to be made. It is not often that one hears complaints about such orders, because so many conditions have to be complied with. Similarly, there are many conditions before something of that kind could happen in this case.

This subsection authorises the sale, in certain circumstances—I agree laid down very precisely—of land which forms part of the Windsor Estate. In order that such a disposal should take place, two things are necessary. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government must certify that the land is required for development in the public interest. My hon. Friend takes no exception to that. Secondly, as my hon. Friend has said, the Commissioners must be satisfied that such land can be replaced in the Windsor Estate by other land equal in area which is adjacent. Upon such disposal, any land so added to the Windsor Estate will become part of Windsor Forest.

This is the agreement reached, and I am bound to say that I do not think it unreasonable. While I understand the importance of this matter to my hon. Friend, all I can say is that I hope that he and those whom he represents will recognise that considerable trouble has been taken over the matter. It seems to me that Clause 5 is not an unreasonable solution to a genuinely difficult problem.

We have just been dealing with Windsor Park. We come now to Regent's Park. I have an important question to put. Who gets Monkey Hill at the end of the day?

That is a very fast one, and I am not sure that I can answer. I think that Monkey Hill is part of the Zoological Gardens, and the effect of the Clause is not to take away any part of the Zoological Gardens, but to make it possible to add to them so as to improve the landscaping of the edges. I think that it will make Monkey Hill more visible to the general public who use Regent's Park.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, to leave out "to ten" and to insert "and eight."

I think that with this Amendment might be taken the Amendment in the Third Schedule, page 20, line 8, column 3.

These Amendments repeal two Sections of the Crown Lands (Scotland) Act, 1833, which are out of date and which are never taken advantage of.

I beg to move in page 14, line 7, to leave out "alienable" and to insert "inalienable."

This corrects a misprint.

I beg to move, in page 15, line 16, after "sections" to insert "four."

I think that with this Amendment might be taken the next two Amendments, in lines 19 and 24.

These are really drafting Amendments dealing with technical points of Scottish conveyancing which, at this hour of the evening, not even the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is very interested in.

I beg to move, in page 16, line 16, at the end to insert:

20 Geo. 2. c. 50.	The Tenures Abolition Act, 1746.	Sections fourteen and fifteen.
20 Geo. 2. c. 51.	The Sales to the Crown Act, 1746.	The whole Act.

This Amendment repeals certain obsolete enactments. For the benefit of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I will say that they provided for the purchase of lands in the Highlands for the pacification and further civilising of the inhabitants of the Highlands of Scotland. It is hoped that this is no longer necessary.

I beg to move, in page 19, line 4, at the end to insert:

50 Geo. 3. c.ccxviii.

An Act for disafforesting the forest of South, otherwise East Bere otherwise Bier, in the county of Southampton, and for inclosing the open commonable lands within the said forest.

Section thirty-four, from "and shall" onwards.

I suggest that it might be convenient with this Amendment to take that in page 19, line 14.

These Amendments deal with further obsolete Amendments that are due for repeal.

Can anyone tell me whether there are people still employed searching for the obsolescent enactments? If so, how many years does the Treasury think it will take to unearth them all? Are they still being brought to light? Will anybody answer that?

indicated dissent.