HC Deb 27 October 1966 vol 734 cc1408-10
Mr. Willey

I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 79, line 37, leave out 'before so entering'.

The Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee to amend the Clause so that anyone entering land would have to show not only before he entered the land but also while he was on the land that he was authorised by the Commission or that he was an officer of the Valuation Office, as the case may be.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in line 40, leave out 'twenty-four hours' and insert 'seven days'.

This fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee that the period of the notice ought to be extended from 24 hours to seven days.

Mr. Graham Page

This is a most acceptable Amendment. If I might pick the Minister up, it is not quite as he suggested. As I understand it, entry can be made, but a demand for entry as of right cannot be made. I wonder if this is not a little contrary to the previous Clause, where a person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter upon the land. I should have thought that one ought to make that subject to the new Amendment to Clause 84, but no doubt the Minister will look at that, as it is a matter of drafting. On the merits, it is a most acceptable Amendment to this side of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allason

I beg to move Amendment No. 233, in page 80, line 13, leave out 'any land is damaged' and insert 'damage occurs'.

As the Clause is drawn at present, only damage done to the land has to be paid for. Under the Clause, as the right hon. Gentleman has explained, officials of the Land Commission can enter into land and can undertake very considerable activity in there. The Commission can bore for oil, search for minerals, prospect in every sort of way, and its officials will probably find themselves trampling down hedges, releasing livestock and committing a great number of uncountryman-like acts which are always liable to be done by people who are not particularly used to the countryside. In these circumstances, as we explained in Committee, it seems pretty unsatisfactory if only the actual physical damage to the land is to be paid for.

Other types of damage might be quite considerable. There may, for example, be interference with trade. If boring for oil is taking place on the forecourt of a shop, it will not be very helpful to the trade of that shop. Once the paving stones have been replaced at the end of the operation, the physical damage will have been put right, but not the damage to the shopkeeper's books.

When one thinks about farming, one realises that there may be considerable damage to the movement of livestock, and damage through the carrying of disease because of failure to take the necessary precautions, and various other forms of damage may occur.

Difficult problems may arise with regard to rights of way. If the normal entrance to a dwelling-house, or to a factory, or to a farm, is interfered with, life is made intolerable, and yet if the physical damage is put right, apparently this is all that the Clause is intended to cater for.

The Minister was very reasonable in Committee. He said: Notwithstanding the difficulties, I am prepared to reconsider the position. I do not want to accept the Amendments as they stand, for reasons I have given, but I accept them in principle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 2nd August, 1966; c. 817.] I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment, because he certainly gave us to understand that it was his intention to do so.

Mr. Willey

As the hon. Gentleman said, we discussed this matter in Committee. I was not unsympathetic, and did not quarrel with the general trend of the argument put forward by Members of the Opposition. I do not, however, propose to accept the Amendment, and perhaps I might tell the House why.

First, from the inquiries which I have made—this is not the substantial reason, but this seriously affects how one should regard the matter—I have had no criticism of the effect of the present provisions. Secondly, this is part of the general law. The most recent precedent is the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and one must hesitate, if one is changing the general law, before taking any actions. I have taken note of the discussion which we had in Committee upstairs, but this must be considered when there is a question of the general provisions.

Mr. Allason

Perhaps I might have the leave of the House to speak again.

The right hon. Gentleman's reply seems to leave the matter in an unsatisfactory position. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that resort must be had to common law on every occasion when damage occurs. Clearly there is that possibility, but it means that the Commission will have to be sued. Is this really what the right hon. Gentleman wants?

If the right hon. Gentleman has consulted various bodies, and if the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. have read our discussions in Committee, I shall be surprised to learn that they are sastisfied with the Bill. Either they have not read the report of our discussions or the Minister has been even more persuasive with them than he has been with us. I ask him to think again about this.

Mr. Willey

I have not been persuasive; I am a rapporteur. I am saying that this is a situation in which we must consider the general provisions, and we feel that we cannot alter the situation in this case without considering the general position. This point has been raised in connection with other matters—for instance, in our discussions about compulsory purchase.

Amendment negatived.