HC Deb 22 February 1963 vol 672 cc841-57

Order for Second Reading read.

2.55 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I feel myself in a considerable dilemma, for although this is an agreed Bill and a useful though rather technical Bill, I am afraid that it is an infernally dull Bill. If I am to outline the main features of its provisions to the House, I am bound to make rather a dull speech. I hate boring the House, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I make the briefest of speeches, leaving any further elucidation which may be necessary to my chance to speak again, with the leave of the House.

I said that this was a technical Bill. It is also a tidying-up Bill. Its object is to bring up to date and to fill in certain gaps in existing powers of local authorities to buy, hold, dispose of, and develop land. That brings in all sorts of references to all sorts of legislation. It is a Bill which can best be dealt with in Committee, and I should like to say at the outset that in Committee I shall

in this country care, that I think that he deserves a Second Reading for his Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 31.

Division No. 64.) AYES [2.48 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Smith Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Cooke, Robert More, Jasper (Ludlow) Talbot, John E.
Dalyell, Tam Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield Ronton, Rt. Hon, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Elliot, Cant- Walter (Carshalton) Russell, Ronald Mr, Rees-Daries and
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Mr. Goodhew.
NOES
Bishop, F. P. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Rees, Hugh
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Marsh, Richard Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Mitchison, G. R. Skeet, T. H. H.
Corfield, F. V. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.) Steele, Thomas
Davies, Harold (Leek) Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Errington, Sir Eric Owen, Will Taverns, D.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Wigg, George
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regie) Pavitt, Laurence
Irving, Sydney (Dartlord) Peel, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Plummer, Sir Leslie Sir. H. Lucas-Tooth and
MacColl, James Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Mr. Temple.
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfrles> Redhead, E. c,

be exceedingly sympathetic to any representations which are made, particularly on a point which I expect to be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).

So far as it is a tidying-up Bill, it is based on provisions which have appeared in local Acts in which the House has conferred what it considers to be suitable powers on local authorities. For instance, the first two Clauses extend the powers of local authorities to acquire land by agreement—I emphasise not compulsorily—and to develop land. They are based on certain model Clauses which are two of the most two widely used model Clauses. I need only tell the House that their value to local authorities is indicated by the fact that more than 600 local authorities have found it necessary to obtain such powers and to include such Clauses in their local Acts. Because I do not want to bore the House, I will leave those Clauses at that.

Clause 3 gives local authorities power to lend money to assist with the erection of buildings on land acquired from an authority. That, again, is only an extension of existing powers included in private Acts.

Clause 4 breaks new ground. It enables at the outset that in Committee I shall local authorities to provide lock-up garages for letting. It is an exception to what I have just been saying. There are few precedents for this sort of power in local Acts, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that on the face of it it is reasonable that these powers should be given in a general Act.

I admit that I am myself in some difficulty with Clause 5, which deals with derelict land. This is what I think will be mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. I am not quite happy about the definition of derelict land, because in the Bill it is extended to include neglected or unsightly land. There are dangers in that and, although I do not give any definite pledge at this stage, I promise that I shall be very sympathetic towards any proposal to amend or even delete those words in Committee—provided the Bill gets a Second Reading.

Clauses 6 and 7 deal with corporate land. This is a very tricky subject and if any hon. Member wants me to expatiate on that, I will do so, but I warn that it is not dramatic or exciting, to say the least of it, and so I will leave it at that and content myself with saying that these are agreed Clauses.

Clause 8 deals with the power to amend local Acts.

Those are the main provisions of the Bill. Because I want the Bill now, and because I do not want to bore the House, I leave it at that. I repeat that this is an agreed Bill. The Association of Municipal Corporations wants the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend's Ministry wants it. I believe that it is widely needed and desired by local authorities, and I promise that if it is given a Second Reading, I will behave sympathetically towards Amendments in Committee.

It is a useful Bill although it is not dramatic or exciting. The place I drew in the Ballot for Private Bills was not one which would entitle me to introduce a contested or controversial Measure, so I determined that I would do something that was humble but useful, even though it was dull.

I offer this Bill to the House. Some of it is useful. It contains provisions which are necessary and helpful. It will not bring me or this House fame or glory, but it contains provisions which should be incorporated in general legislation, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

3.1 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) on introducing this Bill. I do not think that he can describe it merely as a technical Bill. It has considerable constitutional importance in the manner in which, by a number of its Clauses, it gives general powers to local authorities rather than the closely defined powers which Parliament has always taken great care to give to local authorities.

I should like to put on record one or two points on which I think the Bill goes rather further than one would imagine when reading its Clauses. Many of the Clauses refer to previous legislation, and it is a little difficult to understand them and appreciate their purport without referring to that legislation.

Clause 1 gives local auhorities the power to acquire land by agreement for the purpose of powers and duties given to them by local Acts. It seems rather astonishing that local Acts may have given local authorities powers and duties without at the same time giving them the right to acquire land by agreement to carry out those duties. One therefore wonders whether there is any ulterior motive in Clause 1. Does it, by any cross-references to other Statutes or other Clauses, give local authorities any power to acquire land compulsorily?

Sir G. Nicholson

No.

Mr. Page

If that is not so, then subsection (2) in particular is useful, giving, as it does, a local authority power to acquire land by agreement in advance of the uses to which it wishes to put that land.

The House knows that under Section 138 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, the owner-occupier of "blighted" land—land which is subject to some future intentions of the local authority—may give notice to the local authority requiring it to acquire that blighted land from him. That section of the Act is very closely drawn, and only if the land is blighted by being marked with some particular purpose on a development plan is the owner-occupier able to exercise his rights. If, perchance, under this Bill some greater rights can be given to the owner-occupier in such cases, it would be very welcome.

Clause 1 (2) gives local authorities the right to acquire land in advance of their use of it or their need to use it. If the land is blighted by the intentions of the local authority being made public the owner-occupier of that land should be able to oblige the local authority to purchase it.

The wording of Clause 2 seems extraordinarily wide, for subsection (1) states: Subject to the provisions of the next subsection, a local authority may, for the benefit or improvement of their area, erect any building and construct or carry out works on land. It does not say for what purpose the building or works are to be carried out, or on whose land. I do not think that one can assume that it is necessarily on the land which already belongs to the local authority because it seems to go far wider than that. It gives the local authority power to construct buildings on land. If the local authority has power to do that, it will have power to acquire that land. It may be, reading one Clause with another, that the local authority would have power to acquire land compulsorily. That seems an extraordinarily wide power to give to local authorities. It is not a case of the construction being on a local authority's land but merely "on land", and I would hope that in Committee my hon. Friend would agree considerably to restrict that right.

I would also like to know if that provision would permit a local authority to override the normal duty to obtain town planning permission. Here is an absolute power given to a local authority to construct buildings on land and we must consider whether the local authority would have to get planning permission if the planning authority did not happen to be the same as that local authority. That is not clear in the Bill it should be made plain beyond peradventure.

Clause 3 is designed to give power to the local authority to lend money to someone to whom it has sold land so that that person may develop the land. This considerably extends the powers of local authorities, although it seems that in this case it is a good extension.

Clause 4 should be of great advantage to the public in that the local authority would be able to erect garages for the accommodation of cars in order to take them off the streets. At present, a local authority can allocate any street or part of a street as a parking area. It may cause great damage to a frontager if the street in front of his house is allocated as a parking place. One can obtain no compensation for any damage so done or for being deprived of any amenities, such as of parking one's own car in front of one's house. The Clause will give local authorities power to provide garage accommodation or even—and this is an interesting innovation—hard standing for cars without necessarily producing off-street garages. Obviously the more parked cars we can get off our streets the better.

I will return to Clause 5 later, because I have some comments to make on that.

I jump to Clause 8, which would give the Minister power to repeal any local Act which is contrary to the terms of the Bill. The Minister is empowered to do that after consulting the local authority whose local Act it is, but what about the individuals who might be affected by repeal of such a local Act? Many local Acts provide amenities and advantages to particular areas, landowners or householders. If the Minister is to be given power to repeal those Acts merely by reference to the local authority concerned, and without reference to the individuals who may have some sort of right under them, Clause 8 goes much too far. Individuals should not be deprived of rights granted under local Acts merely by what I might call a hole-and-corner decision by the local authority and the Minister.

Clause 5 is of very great importance. Its rubric refers to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, and one would think that it referred only to national parks and access to the countryside. I am sure that any hon. Member who thought that the Clause protected the amenities of national parks and access to the countryside would support it, but, if my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, this is something of a confidence trick.

The Clause does not refer only to national parks or to access to the countryside, but to any piece of land anywhere. It gives a local authority power to acquire compulsorily land that it thinks is derelict, neglected, or unsightly. That is entirely new. It does not appear from the Clause itself that power of compulsory acquisition is given. That power is given by Section 89 of the 1949 Act. Therefore, if any piece of land anywhere, not in a national park or in the countryside—perhaps in the middle of a town—appears to a local authority to be unsightly that local authority would have the power compulsorily to acquire it—

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

Does that mean that if in the centre of a city there were a number of pit mounds and, adjacent to them, two great privately-owned marl pits filled with water, that were dangerous, and in which children sometimes drowned, the Clause would give the local authority the power to purchase them, and take action?

Mr. Page

Under the Local Employment Act, 1960, a local authority has power compulsorily to purchase any land that is derelict, neglected or unslightly, but, in passing that Act, the House was careful to apply it only to development districts. This Clause would extend compulsory purchase power to all areas. The exercise of such power might be thought to be very right and proper in the sort of dangerous incident that the hon. Member has given, but a local authority has power, without this Clause, to tackle such dangerous conditions. Dangerous-structure notices can be served under the Public Health Act.

At present the powers of the local authority over derelict land are simply these. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, a local authority can serve a notice that the land should be tidied up without compulsorily acquiring it. If there is an unsightly garden or vacant land, a local authority can serve a notice on the owner to tidy it up and make it look respectable, but it would not have power to acquire it. Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, the local authority has power to acquire compulsorily land which is derelict.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

May I ask if a local authority under the Town and Country Planning Act includes a county or a county district?

Mr. Page

Under the Town and Country Planning Act it is the planning authority. It has the right to serve notice for clearing up an untidy site, but there is no question of purchasing it, either by agreement or compulsorily, under that Act. Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act the local authority has compulsory power to acquire derelict land, and "derelict land" means abandoned, ownerless land, but it has not compulsory power to acquire land which merely seems to it to be neglected or unsightly. That is the extension which would come under Clause 5 of the present Bill. It is an extension to which I object, an extension of compulsory powers. If the local authority desires to acquire land of that sort to improve the amenities of its area, it should do so by agreement. If indeed the land is derelict, I would give the local authority the compulsory power which it already has under the 1949 Act.

I imagine that my hon. Friend wishes to put this Bill before the House as one which brings into general operation powers which have been given under local Acts. That, indeed, is what the remainder of the Bill does, apart from Clause 5. In the case of Clause 5, there have been a number of local Acts which have been brought before Parliament in their first instance as Bills, with this sort of power given to the local authority, such, for example, as the Middlesex County Council, to acquire land compulsorily when it is derelict, neglected or unsightly. In every case this has either been withdrawn before the Bill has become an Act or it has been defeated in one House or the other. In no case has the local authority been given compulsory powers under a local Act to acquire land which it thought neglected or unsightly.

So Clause 5 is not making general anything which is in a number of local Acts. This is not in a number of local Acts. It is that to which I object, that it is extending compulsory powers to local authorities unnecessarily. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this in Committee. I do not wish to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. I do not wish to talk it out. I think it can be amended in Committee, but my desire is to put on record on Second Reading the sort of points to which I hope my hon. Friend will give attention in Committee.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

I should rather like to support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I do not know that I am prepared to go as far as he is and to give an undertaking that I shall not oppose the passage of the Bill through the House this afternoon. This is a very comprehensive Bill and I do not think it is the sort of Bill which is a desirable one for promotion by private Members' legislation. If such a Bill as this is desirable, in my opinion it should be a subject for Government promotion so that the various parties concerned in such legislation, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations and so on, may have an opportunity to state their points of view.

Clause 1 extends the powers of local authorities far too widely, as my hon. Friend said. I agree with him that there should be some restriction on the scope of this Clause when the Bill is passing through Committee, if perchance it should receive a Second Reading this afternoon.

Clause 2 is one of the two Clauses to which I really object. I think it gives a sweeping extension to the powers of local authorities. They may for the benefit or improvement of their area, erect any building and construct or carry out works on land"— subject to the provisions of the next subsection. This is a tremendous increase in the powers of local authorities who, if they think that land is derelict or unsightly, may acquire it and make use of the powers which are provided for them in this Clause. I do not think that such an extension should be made to local authorities' powers.

Clause 4 is the other Clause about which I find myself in some confusion. I do not know why it is necessary at all. I have always understood that local authorities can, if they think desirable, erect garages, and I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government why this Clause has been slipped in. The Clause starts by saying: A local authority may within their area provide accommodation for the keeping of motor vehicles and may for that purpose erect garages, construct hard standings or convert buildings into garages. Up and down the country one sees garages owned by local authorities, sometimes provided on council estates, and I should not have thought it was necessary for this Clause to be included in the Bill, unless there is something peculiar behind it which I do not understand.

Another Clause which I find difficult to understand and to which I should like to draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is Clause 8 whereby The Minister may, subject to the provisions of this section, by order repeal or amend any provision— (a) in any local Act… I do not want to weary the House by repeating the protest that I have so often made about private Members' legislation being introduced in the House on a Friday when very few Members are present, thus enabling the Government, under the legislation, to issue orders on which they do not allow a free vote. The first thing that we know when an order is issued under a Private Member's Bill of this nature is that the Whips go on and it is very difficult to secure the rejection of the order. I always make the strongest protest to any Government which, under private Members' legislation, introduces orders of this nature.

Quite wide powers are being given to the Government by this Clause. They can by order repeal or amend any provision— (a) in any local Act passed before this Act… and so on. This is a very comprehensive power. For instance, if the Government did not have this power, as I understand the law, it would be necessary for a private Bill to be drawn up by the local authority concerned in order to effect what the Government would seek to effect under the order. That would be subject to the support or otherwise of people living within the area of the local authority who would have various rights such as having a poll taken or petitioning against the Bill if they thought that the powers being asked for by the authority were wrong or were powers of which they did not in the circumstances approve. It would be quite monstrous if this Clause were allowed to remain in the Bill without considerable modification in Committee and on Report.

As I have said, I consider that comprehensive legislation of this kind is best done by the Government of the day, not by private Members. I shall listen carefully to the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary before I decide whether it is necessary to determine by a Division whether this piece of legislation should be allowed to proceed.

3.26 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-upon-Trent, Central)

Rather unusually, perhaps, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about Clause 5. I like, in particular, the substitution of subsection (2) for the original subsection (1), and I say this with reference to the question I put to him. If we have the Bill and Clause 5 (2) as it stands, local authorities will be given certain powers which they do not at present have. I mentioned marl pits, pits with very deep water in them in which children sometimes drown. At present, I believe, local authorities have power to have them fenced, or to require the owners to fence them, but their powers do not go beyond that. I do not think that they can compel the owners to drain the pits or fill them in by tipping. The Clause would give local authorities such as mine in Stake-on-Trent, where we have faced this danger and dilemma for some years, an opportunity to serve a very important section of our people, namely, our young children, whom no fence will ever, I believe, keep out permanently.

Mr. Graham Page

The words used in the Bill are "derelict, neglected or unsightly". The hon. Gentleman is speaking of dangerous land or dangerous water. I imagine that no one would object to a local authority having power to take all necessary steps in the case of dangerous land, but this is not what the Bill provides.

Dr. Stross

With respect, I think that the word "neglected" would cover the point I make. Perhaps I am wrong, and I look forward to being informed about it by the Parliamentary Secretary.

I am very much in sympathy with the Bill as a whole. No doubt, Amendments will be required in Committee, but I consider that it would be quite wrong not to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is a Bill which, I know, the local authorities feel that they need very badly. As one who, like many hon. Members on both sides, has served for years as an elected member of a local authority, I have very much sympathy with its purpose, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.

3.29 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Bishop (Harrow, Central)

I agree with both the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that local authorities must have every power to deal with land which is neglected in the sense of being dangerous. I should have thought that this would probably come under the word "derelict", but am not certain about that.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in directing attention to the very wide extension of the powers of local authorities given by Clause 5 as at present drafted. It is not apparent from the wording of Clause 5 unless it is read in conjunction with Section 89 of the principal Act, which deals only with derelict land and gives the local planning authority powers compulsorily to acquire derelict land. By a later Section of the principal Act—I think it is Section 102—those powers can be passed to any local authority and not merely to a planning authority. Therefore, the existing powers for the compulsory acquisition of land which is derelict are very wide and are not limited to local planning authorities.

The extension of those powers to land which is not only derelict but neglected or unsightly appears to carry the matter much too far. The word "derelict" has been defined today. I looked up the meaning of the word "unsightly" in the Oxford Dictionary and found that it is defined as "unpleasing to look at". Therefore, if we boil this down to its simplest terms, we should be giving by Clause 5 power to any local authority, and not merely a planning authority, compulsorily to acquire any land which in its opinion was "unpleasing to look at".

It may be said that local authorities would exercise these powers in a reasonable and practical way, as they normally do, but that is no reason why Parliament should give them a power which is so very far beyond anything that they need. I was glad to hear the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) that he would be prepared to consider amendment of this Clause in Standing Committee. For my part, I have no desire to obstruct his Bill, but I emphasise that some of us would wish there to be effective amendment of Clause 5.

As has been said, the rest of the Bill is based on provisions which have appeared in a large number of private Acts over the years. Indeed. I have been told that the provision in Clause 5 has appeared in some private Acts. I have not been able to find them, although I have been able to find a number of cases in which an effort has been made to include these very wide powers in private Bills, but this has been rejected. I think that the compulsory acquisition power was rejected or withdrawn not only in the case of the Bill promoted by the Middlesex authority, but also in the case of a Bill promoted by the Kent authority. There have been other instances of this.

It seems to me that there are two possible ways of amending the Clause which would meet the case. One would be to leave out the additional words "neglected or unsightly", which go beyond the wording of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, and to retain the compulsory power to acquire derelict land, to which, I think, no one could object, or to leave out the power of compulsory acquisition and leave it open to the local authority to acquire such land by agreement, as has been embodied in the Measure promoted by Middlesex and in other Measures. I merely pass that to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary as a suggestion, for what it is worth. I wish only to reinforce the plea that this Clause should be amended in the sense we desire.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

Most of this Bill has appeared in local legislation—private Acts—before now. All of it, I understand, is wanted by the local authorities, and the objections which have been raised to it seem to me proper matters for consideration in Committee and not ones which would involve any of us in opposing the Second Reading of what appears to be a useful Bill. I say no more than that I hope that the enthusiasm to protect the owners of unsightly and neglected land will not carry hon. Members opposite too far.

3.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) has said, this Bill makes no fundamental change in the pattern of the existing powers of local authorities, nor is it particularly exciting or dramatic. Nevertheless it is useful and perhaps more permanent in its effect than the more dramatic Bill which we have just debated.

The provisions of this Bill come from private legislation and have therefore been accepted by Parliament before. There is an advantage to such history because, when all is said and done, the promotion of private Bills is not the cheapest operation. It tends inevitably to be carried out only by the larger local authorities, but we have the advantage that when such a Bill as this is brought forward it contains provisions which are already working in some areas. We certainly know of no case in which these provisions enacted in private legislation, affecting by and large the larger local authorities, have given rise in any way to difficulties or problems such as those suggested by my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) and for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop).

Naturally that does not mean that the Bill will be perfect for all time and will not need looking at in Committee. It may well be that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby put his finger on a point of substance—although it appears to be a minor one—in his emphasis on the word "unsightly", but again I hope that he will think that this is something which can be dealt with in Committee and is not a basic objection to the Bill. The words to which he drew attention in Clause 2 (1) are: Subject to the provisions of the next subsection, a local authority may, for the benefit or improvement of their area, erect any building and construct or carry out works on land. I am advised that this does not carry any compulsory powers with it. The words struck me as being odd for another reason, since land includes water and I could not think where else one would build buildings or carry out works. Was that what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby adverted?

Mr. Graham Page

Is it land belonging to the local authority, or land belonging to someone else? If the latter, then Section 159 of the Local Government Act, 1933, would give the local authority power to acquire that land in order to carry out powers given to it under this subsection.

Mr. Corfield

I understand that it means land belonging to the local authority. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of instances such as road verges which are apt to be neglected and become a menace because of weeds. This is the sort of thing which is in mind to be dealt with by the Bill. However, we can look at this in more detail in Committee.

I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that Clause 8 is not quite such a dangerous weapon in the hands of Ministers as my hon. Friend suggested. This Clause was first introduced in the Public Health Act, 1961, to enable Ministers by order to get rid of conflicting statutory provisions where general legislation conflicted with private legislation or merely reproduced it, so that they should not have this difficulty which sometimes arises when certain local authorities carry out functions, which they are entitled to do under some general Statute, but do it under a local Act, causing quite unnecessary confusion.

Mr. Dudley Williams

I agree with my hon. Friend, but what I was saying was that a Bill brought in under the procedure for Private Member's Bills should not give powers to Ministers to enable them to put across orders by putting the Whips on. If the Government would give an undertaking never to put the Whips on when an order issued under the provisions of this Bill comes before the House, then my objection would fall to the ground, but in fact Ministers are always doing it, and I am against it.

Mr. Corfield

I do not know that I can give that undertaking because my hon. Friends the Whips do not always operate quite as one anticipates, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I have initialled a very large number of these orders myself in the short time I have been in this job, and there has never been any suggestion that any hon. Member found that it was worth objecting to them or calling for debate on them in the House. These orders are most carefully checked, and they are most carefully submitted to the authorities to make sure that nothing is being repealed that is not in fact a duplication or an inconsistency. This does seem to me a rather better operation than that we should have on the Statute Book at any one time a number, albeit affecting only a very small area, of local Acts applying provisions which may be held to be inconsistent. That is the only object of this, and while I can see my hon. Friend's objection in general principle, I think that there are exceptions which prove the rule, and I hope that he will think that this is one.

To turn to Clause 5, I understand that the provisions here with regard to compulsory purchase, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is concerned, are really not quite as new as they appear, in that Section 102 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, which I think he referred to, does enable a local authority which is not a local planning authority to ask for these powers, and if the county council is not prepared to delegate them, that local authority is able to go to the Minister and ask for his consent. So what we are doing, as I understand it, in this Clause is merely removing the Minister's consent, in effect. If my hon. Friend feels that is going too far he may well have a point, but, as I say, I hope he will think it is a matter for the Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page

We are surely extending the Act beyond "derelict", under the Act, to "derelict and unsightly"?

Mr. Corfield

Yes, but I admitted earlier quite freely that there was the change of wording. I was at this point adverting purely to the compulsory purchase side of the matter as opposed to acquisition by agreement.

I hope that the House will adopt the general lines suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that this is a useful Measure, and that any criticisms of it are appropriate for consideration in Committee and do not go to the root of the Bill itself. I assure hon. Members that it has had the agreement and indeed the welcome of the local authority associations concerned. They all regard it, I understand, as adding small powers but nevertheless valuable powers, and as clearing up small anomalies, and as helping to make the wheels of administration go round that little bit more easily. I do not think there can be any question of any great departure from principle, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Forward to