HC Deb 25 July 1963 vol 681 cc1851-3

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 5, at end insert: or (e) in relation to land in any of the areas aforesaid, without any such consent as aforesaid, if the land is used for the purposes of an industrial or commercial undertaking and is to be acquired incidentally to the removal of that undertaking from Greater London.

Sir K. Joseph

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

At the risk of causing one or other hon. Members opposite to sound his own trumpet again, may I explain that the Amendment gives to the G.L.C. power to buy by agreement land when, as a remit of its purchase, it might be able to procure a transfer of industry from London to outside. This aspect was pressed upon us in Committee.

If we are to be teased every time we have met a constructive Opposition criticism, it will make us the less willing over the next few years to do it in the inevitable further legislation which we shall put through the House. I do not, however, grudge the hon. Member the chance to crow a little when he has persuaded us, because I should like to pay tribute to the diligent and conscientious way in which some hon. Members opposite, as well as some of my hon. Friends, have followed every part of the Bill.

Mrs. Butler

Before the trumpet sounds, may I ask the Minister whether he is sure that he is right in making this provision without the consent of the London borough which may be affected? I say this knowing well that my hon. Friends have pressed for a provision of this kind, but I am concerned that all the Amendments which we have made, including these from another place, are whittling away a little the rights and powers of the new London boroughs, and particularly those in the present county area of Middlesex. They are losing a lot of their powers and I am not happy about this power being given to the G.L.C. without its having to secure the consent of the London borough from which it may be removing the industry.

Mr. Skeffington

We do not want particularly to tease the Minister. We only feel that occasionally he might say that the Government were wrong in Committee to resist our arguments. If he were to make that confession he would disarm us and give us the satisfaction of knowing that we were right, as we always knew we were. I felt this particularly strongly concerning the planning Amendments, because unless the Greater London Council knew details of the borough plans at an early stage, the ultimate result was bound to be chaotic. That is why I thought that the Minister might concede the point now he has accepted it in Amendments previously moved.

The Amendment is limited in operation because it refers only to land of industrial or commercial undertakings. It is an important concession and I am grateful for its insertion in the Bill, even at this stage. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) will not feel too alarmed about it. It is the sort of case that arises when dealing with the removal of industry from a congested area and when opportunity arises for quick negotiation and purchase of the land vacated. The sole reason why we pressed this matter in Committee, and why this concession is worth while and will not harm the interests of the borough concerned, is that if the Greater London Council wishes to obtain the land, it must act quickly. If it had first to go to the borough and get consent arrangements there, or to the Minister, months might pass, in which event the land would not be acquired by the G.L.C for the essential purpose of developing an area and also in connection with overspill.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not feel that the interests of the borough will be undervalued or in any way prejudiced. This will be a valuable power for the Greater London Council. I only wish that in the other categories of land which we pressed upon the Minister he had been able to give way, too.

Sir K. Joseph

In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) I adopt the answer given for me by her hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harrington (Mr. Skeffington). I accept that there is a slight disadvantage to the boroughs, but in the overwhelming common purpose of assisting overspill and industrial redevelopment for non-conforming industry it is necessary to accept that.

In answer to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who persists in crowing, I must remind the House that for every one time when the Opposition have been right and we have adopted their ideas, there were nine times when they were wrong and we have not adopted them.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]