. CLINE
logy. When the hatchet men of today do their lethal work of depriving people of their property or rendering their contracts illegal, they bring to the killing an apparatus so complicated that even the victims do not know they are about to die. Perhaps Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act has left the electorate (or that minimal part of it which is prepared to examine the day-to-day de- tails of legislation) so punch-drunk that nothing is sacred any more; in which case neither the parliamentary draftsmen (who must by now be reeling with fatigue) nor the ministers they serve need worry. No point in wrapping it up in the hope that the electorate won't notice. The slaughterhouse of private rights is now so busy that one more killing—flagrant, uncomplicated— would not worry any one.
It is common knowledge—if 'common' may be used in this context—that the Land Commission is to be given wide powers of compulsory pur- chase. They may compulsorily acquire any land `which in their opinion is land suitable for material development.' After 120 years of com- pulsory purchase owners of land (which includes modest leaseholds, not merely ducal estates) have become inured to the vagaries of the authorities; the blow may be delivered anywhere at any time, predictably or unpredictably, like storms or floods. We have also acquired some experience of the safeguards, the prolonged but sometimes life- saving procedures of inquiries, objections, inspec- tors' reports and the like. But is it also common knowledge that the present Bill deprives the victim of this limited last-ditch protection?
With one hand the Bill reassures—under clause 7 the normal procedures and safeguards are available, enabling the victim to be heard before he loses his rights; but in the other hand (clause 8) the Bill holds ready its death-dealing instru- ment, which is given the sinister title of 'special procedure.' For if it appears to the appropriate minister that it is necessary in the public interest to enable the Commission to obtain authority for the compulsory acquisition of land by a 'sim- plified procedure,' he can make an order direct- ing that the killing shall be simplified. This euphemism—akin to 'final solution' in another context—thinly disguises the fact that the minister can, if he wishes to, ensure that he may dispense with a public inquiry altogether and dispense with `affording to an objector an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the minister for the purpose, unless in the circumstances of the case that minister con- siders it expedient to do so.'
Note the wording: if it appears to the minister that it is necessary . .. to make the order, he can dispense with these traditional protections unless he considers it expedient in the circumstances. In what circumstances? The Bill is silent. It must be left to the executive, which knows what is best. Examples of this kind of power are now so com- mon that to complain is to be suspected of obstructing the modernisation of Britain. Again and again Parliament gives the executive a blank cheque: 'you decide, we will not interfere.' And every time that a clause of this kind is made the law of the land, the aggrieved citizen is deprived of the right to ask the courts to help him. The minister is the final arbiter and his decisions can- not be legally questioned.
It may be objected that this special guillotine procedure is only available where the minister lays a statutory instrument before Parliament which may be annulled by a resolution of either House. But since in any given instance the ex- pediency of gagging the victim before expro- priating his property can only be fully grasped by the minister and his department, the occasions on which a member of either House would feel justified in fighting for an annulment must prove exceedingly rare.
Clause 12 of the Bill gives the Commission the function of managing and 'turning to account' the land which they have taken from people, and to perform this function they can execute build- ing, engineering and other works where 'they are of the opinion that it is expedient to do so with a view to the subsequent disposal of the land.' And since the Commission cannot be expected to do such works themselves. the local authorities can contract to do the work and presumably they in their turn will sub-contract. Many will view with the deepest misgivings this further concentration of the power to place valuable contracts. As it is, the building and construction industry is com- ing more and more to wait on the decisions of town clerks and county borough surveyors and architects for its meat and drink.
The most dramatic feature of this legislation is to be found in Part Ill. Every disposition of every single plot of land has to be reported to the Commission so that the latter may decide what levy to impose on the vendor of the land. This is because the sale of land or the granting of leases (if longer than seven years) are what the Bill has chosen to call 'chargeable acts or events'; and when the land is sold or the lease granted, the vendor cannot go into his counting house and reckon up his proceeds. He has to await the assess- ment by the Commission of the levy he has to pay, if any part of his profit is attributable to development rights. The calculation of the amount of the levy is a draftsman's nightmare; it can ultimately be understood with the assistance of a skilful lawyer or surveyor specialising in valuations. But under the accumulation of schedules, explanatory clauses and definitions lies a serious departure from principle.
Levies, taxes, duties, charges are items which in modern conditions have to be taken into account by anyone who wishes to dispose of any-
thing which belongs to him. Hitherto it has always been possible to ascertain beforehand the
amount of the liability and to make one's dis- positions accordingly. Builders, for example, have to pay to an Industrial Training Board a levy of 0.5 per cent of the total emoluments they pay to their employees. At least they know where they stand. But no two surveyors would necessarily agree on the evaluation of rights in land, parti- cularly development rights: and experts are en- countering enormous difficulties in fixing the value of property rights simply because the free market system has become so distorted by legislative in- tervention. In the result they have to make numer- ous assumptions in order to arrive at a figure, and understandably their valuations have a hit- and-miss quality. The vendor must now wait for the long processes of administration to work out the betterment levy he Must pay out of his pro- ceeds—and wait longer still if he wants to appeal to the Lands Tribunal against his assessment.
One final irony—in contrast to the vendor who sells and then has to await assessment the owner who wishes to enter upon `a project of material development' of his own land has to pay the levy the moment he starts the project, even though he has not made a penny out of the development. The Commission is in a hurry; it does not wait for the developer to sell and reap his profit. He must pay as he develops. Putting up a garage, changing the basement into a dentist's surgery, is as much a material development as putting up a block of luxury offices. When the builder's esti- mate for constructing the garage comes in, you had better remember to add something for the betterment levy to the Land Commission. But how much? Only time and 2,000 civil servants— so they say—will tell.
Previous page
