HC Deb 04 July 1967 vol 749 cc1596-610
Mr. G. Campbell

I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 8, at the end to insert: (a) the observations of the owners and occupiers of the land, who shall have been consulted by the local planning authority. In Clause 12 the Countryside Commission is required to consult local planning authorities about the availability of land for open air recreation and access to it.

In Committee, we discussed an Amendment which would have obliged the Commission to obtain the views of owners and occupiers. In reply to that the Minister of State said that this would place too much of a burden upon the Countryside Commission, if it had to undertake the task of obtaining the views of owners and occupiers concerned. However, he indicated that the local planning authorities would be expected to have consulted the owners and occupiers. We believe that this should be made clear by being written into the Bill. I said in Committee that I would produce another, more acceptable, Amendment in the light of what the Minister had said, and this is it. It places an obligation clearly upon the local planning authorities to obtain the views of the owners and occupiers of the land in question and it ensures that those views are taken into account.

Mr. W. Baxter

I subscribe to the view that the owner of the land should be consulted by the Commission before a decision is taken. The Clause says that the local planning authority will be consulted in these matters, but it does not necessarily follow that the local planning authority consults the owner of the land before it designates land for a particular purpose. It may designate a piece of land for recreational purposes or for any other purpose without in any way consulting the owner of that land. It is wrong to ride roughshod over the rights of the individual. They must be preserved to the greatest possible extent. The least that we can expect the Commission to do is to consult the owner of the land even though it may he designated for open spaces by the local planning authority of a county or burgh. The Commission, before going further in the matter, should listen to the observations of the owners of the land.

There are many factors which must be borne in mind before a piece of ground is used in the way stipulated under the Bill and under the power which will be vested in the Commission. This Amendment is not unreasonable in the circumstances and in all sincerity I ask my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to the rights not only of the individual who seeks to use the land for recreational purposes, but the individual who happens to be the owner or the occupier of the land. His rights are as important as those of anyone else. There is some justification for this small Amendment being put into the Bill and I ask that serious consideration be given to it.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Brewis

I support the Amendment. Although the need to consult owners and occupiers may well seem formidable, we are dealing largely with hill land, where there is probably only one owner and only a few occupiers. We are not dealing with smallholdings and crofters. As a general rule, if someone's land, whether he be owner or occupier, is to be affected, it is only right, courteous and proper that he should be consulted before an order is made.

Mr. Hannan

The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) provoke me to point out that, on a previous Amendment, it was thought inappropriate that we should add words which seemed to give special favour to the Highlands and islands Development Board. My hon. Friend then seemed to he willing that this should not be done because it would give the Board some precedence ever the Forestry Commission, county councils and the rest. I cannot see the difference between the principle of the argument on that Amendment and the principle of the argument on this Amendment which would give to owners and occupiers of land special consideration over what is intended in the Bill. Clause 12(2) says: In considering what action should be taken as aforesaid, the Commission and the local planning authority shall have regard to all relevant circumstances … Surely those words cover all that is involved in the Amendment.

Mr. W. Baxter

I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that the Commission: … shall consult from time to time with local planning authorities for the purpose of ascertaining what land … in their areas … is likely to be taken over. The difference is that local authorities "shall" designate areas of land that they think should be earmarked for particular developments. Surely we are not prepared to say, "You are under no obligation to consult the owner of this land or the person using it before you designate it." What we are saying is that, in common courtesy and decency, this should be done. If I were taking a piece from my hon. Friend's garden for an open space, I should at least tell him what I am doing and consult him.

Mr. Hannan

The first point in reply to my hon. Friend is that it is mandatory on the Commission to consult from time to time. The word is "shall". This is not a permissive power. Clause 12(1) reads: … the Commission shall consult from time to time with local planning authorities for the purpose of ascertaining … for a limited purpose. That limited purpose is specified in Clause 10(2). It is not to take over any land. Clause 10(2) says: In this Part of this Act 'open country' means any land appearing to the authority …". The purpose is limited to the designation of open country, not to take it over. Clause 10(2) goes on to describe in broad terms what kind of country is meant: … mountain, moor, heath, hill, woodland, cliff or foreshore …". I may be wrong but I think that my interpretation of the significance of the Amendment is as I have described it. There is no need for it.

Right throughout the proceedings of this Bill, I have had some doubts about the way in which people have been so forthcoming in their anxiety to lend their weight and co-operation to the purpose of the Bill. I seem to sense in many of the Amendments adduced—and this is one of them—a spirit of trying to restrict and not advance the scope and aim of the Bill, which is to make the countryside available for all the people.

Mr. Stodart

I must confess that that is the most unexpected speech I have ever heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). He is essentially a most reasonable person and in a way it surprises me to find myself firmly on the side of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). The argument of the hon. Member for Maryhill is astonishing when one considers the simple matter of what we are trying to achieve.

We are trying to achieve access, which has not hitherto been given on the scale that it is going to be given, with as much good will engendered all round as it is possible to get. I am a great believer in people being informed of what is going to happen if one is to carry them with one in something that has a measure of novelty about it.

It would be extraordinary if those who will be asked to agree, or possibly have an order served on them to give access to land, were not brought into the picture by the local planning authority merely as a matter of courtesy at an early stage. Surely one would say to an owner or occupier, "We want access to certain open country. What requirements will be needed to get to that open country?" After all, the Bill is about consultation and access to land. Roads, tracks and paths to such land will inevitably run through land owner or occupied by someone, and it would be on enormous advantage to the local planning authority if, before it returned to the Commission, it asked the various people concerned what the possibilities were.

Mr. Lawson rose—

Mr. Stodart

I am about to sit down, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself a moment longer. I know that what I am saying must be hard for him to bear.

In Committee, the Minister of State expressed agreement with the principle of the Amendment, but criticised the timing. We have tried to put the timing right. The Minister accepted the principle and I am astonished that the hon. Member for Maryhill has not cottoned on to this. I can only imagine that perhaps he has not quite understood what has been going on, althought there is nothing unpardonable about that. I am sure that this Amendment would be to the enormous advantage of the Bill, but no doubt it may add to the suspicions that hon. Members seem to have. I think that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is even more suspicious than usual.

The Bill has universal approval. I am sure that the Minister of State will have been surprised by the good will he has experienced in quarters where he might not have expected it. We are keen for the Bill to work well but it will not get off the ground nearly so effectively if those who are to be concerned are not brought into the picture at an early date.

Mr. Lawson

I accept what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) says about his desire to see the Bill work well. I am not quite as suspicious as he seems to think, although I am suspicious in some respects. I think that the Amendment would make the Bill a bit of nonsense. Clause 12 deals with instructions being given to the Commission to act in a certain way and to consult the local authorities.

The Amendment seeks to impose a condition on local planning authorities. The Commission is to be instructed when discussing these matters with local planning authorities to take all relevant factors into account. Hon. Members opposite are seeking to impose another prior condition, which is that, before discussing these matters with the Commission, the planning authority should have previously discussed them with the owners or occupiers of the land concerned so as to get their observations in order to be able to put those observations before the Commission.

Mr. G. Campbell

We put down the Amendment because in Committee the Minister of State said that planning authorities would do this in any case.

Mr. Lawson

It would be a very strange planning authority which did not approach the people concerned, but it is one thing to expect a planning authority to do that and quite another to impose the condition that the Commission should take account of the observations of owners and occupiers. It is this imposition of a condition which is unnecessary and which will make it difficult to obtain harmonious operation of the Bill. It is not as though the Commission or a planning authority would go ahead with some plan which would not be brought to the notice of the owners and occupiers of the land concerned.

Clause 13 deals with agreements, and those agreements will be made after full discussion with the owners and occupiers. We are all agreed that the Commission will function by agreement and not by imposition—imposition is the last thing required. There will be agreements with the owners and occupiers of the land concerned and that is the stage at which their observations will be taken into account by the Commission and by the Secretary of State, if he is involved.

It is hon. Members opposite who are suspicious of what they think might be local bureaucracy, but they are seeking to impose conditions in the wrong place and making the Bill needlessly difficult to operate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will wipe the floor with these absurd arguments.

Mr. Rankin

I was more than astonished to hear what the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) had to say about my hon. Friend's promise in Committee that owners and occupiers would be consulted. Hon. Members opposite are saying in effect that they do not believe the word of a Member of the Government, the word of a Minister appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. That is a a terrible thing to say about a Minister of honour who has given his word, and it was said by an hon. Member for whom I have a high regard. I was astonished to hear him say that he does not believe a Minister in the Government which I support.

Mr. G. Campbell

Perhaps I can dispel some of the hon. Gentleman's astonishment. In Committee we moved an Amendment to place this obligation on the Commission, and in pointing out that that Amendment was textually incorrect—and "textually" was the word he used—the Minister of State said that the local planning authorities would undertake this consultation. We are not doubting his words, but proposing an Amendment to meet the point.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin

Because the hon. Gentleman is not sure that it will be met; otherwise the Amendment would not be necessary.

Mr. W. Baxter

The only obligation on a planning authority to consult the owner of any land would be a statement by a Minister in the course of debates in the House of Commons, and it would not be binding unless it was specifically stated in the Bill. Local councillors and officials do not read everything which is said in Committee of the House of Commons.

Mr. Rankin

Cannon in front of him, cannon behind him, volley and thunder. I understood that at this stage of the Bill one could make only one speech on any given Amendment. Some of my hon. Friends are managing to make interventions of extreme length and thus to make a number of speeches. I do not mind joining in, because I have been wondering how to get in an extra word.

There is another thing about the Amendment to which I object violently. It refers to the observations by owners. I would have to move an Amendment to the Amendment to exclude absent owners. "Owners" includes absent owners, those who never see the land, except when they come to collect the rent, and some do not even do that.

I have letters in my possession—I went to search for them just now, but could not find them—from which I had intended to quote in connection with this Amendment to demonstrate the atrocities which owners of land in the Highlands of Scotland are now perpetrating and demonstrating; the way in which owners are treating tenants, dispossessing them of their farms and so on. Yet these are the people to whom it is suggested this privilege should be given. I trust the word of my hon. Friend far more than I do any Tory Amendment.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I am projected into the debate by the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) to his having cannons behind him. There were no "cannonistic" attacks from this bench. I believe that we do not in any way want to embarrass the Government by including anything which will make the Bill difficult to work, which might make its application ineffective, or create unnecessary administrative difficulties, including those concerned with legal entitlements. I would not be a party to any Amendment which created such unnecessary trouble for the Government.

Nevertheless, at the same time I should like there to be some system of courtesy so that owners of land, not absent owners, but those who might own small allotments which could be regarded as open ground, or houses in nursery gardens, could be consulted about these things.

I am sure that if my hon. Friends knew that in a certain area, without any notice or warning, a bulldozer would arrive on the scene to flatten the owner's garage they would not take this view. I want an assurance that there will be some warning, some consultation, or some method of communication with those who are about to lose their small businesses in this way. I have in mind someone who has a small business, and without any warning or notice a bulldozer arrives on the scene and flattens his little shop. In a democratic society there should be some method of communicating with people and advising them that this sort of thing is about to happen. They should have every conceivable opportunity to take appropriate action to avoid such a state of affairs developing.

I should like my hon. Friend to assure us that the Bill as it stands will prevent such an incident occurring. If it will, I am sure that we will all be happy about it. If it will not achieve that, the Minister has a certain responsibility in the matter, because when we examine the Bill we are inclined to look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Govan described as the absent owner, and this might cloud our judgment about the principles of the Clause.

Not far away from my constituency there are absentee owners who spend most of their lives in America. There is one absentee owner who was once a prominet figure in the House of Commons. He owns a tremendous amount of land which he never sees, except when he is on a shooting expedition.

The Bill must be watertight to ensure that land which is provided for the benefit of the community is not destroyed without notice to, or consultation with, the owner. I am concerned about the people with small plots of land, or small businesses but I know some people who own vast nurseries in open spaces. They might be seriously affected if there is any possibility of someone merely arriving on the scene without prior notice, and without consultation, for the purpose of tearing up their livelihood. This is not a sport to them. This is their bread and butter. I am concerned about the owners of open ground or land who use it to obtain their livelihood and I would like my hon. Friend to assure us that under the terms of the Bill it will not be possible for people to be treated in the discourteous fashion which I have outlined, that it will not be possible for members of our society, for our ratepayers and taxpayers to be treated in this despicable fashion.

I ask for this assurance because, in spite of the existing planning legislation, some of them are being treated in this way now. It is a disgrace to our society, and to the United Kingdom. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will assure us that there is no prospect of people being treated in the shameful way which I have outlined. If my hon. Friend can assure us that the Bill will do this, I do not think that the Amendment will be necessary.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has asked for assurances of a general kind which are beyond what we are discussing, but I assure him that we do not intend to do any of the dreadful things which he thinks are possible in other circumstances, and which the Bill might perpetuate.

As a Minister I have never been so embarrassed with riches of argument and allies as I am at the moment, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have spoken about this matter in their different ways. The Amendment stems from what is almost a reversal of the normal situation, whereby the Minister gives an undertaking in Committee that he will table an Amendment on Report, and he does so. On this occasion, however, we had an undertaking from the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who was not quite convinced that what I was saying was right, that he would submit a clarifying Amendment on Report, and this is it.

I was too kind when I said that the hon. Gentleman's previous Amendment was textually wrong. If it had been accepted, the Commission would have been obliged to consult the owners and occupiers of 13 million acres of land, even if it did not propose to do anything about them, and the hon. Gentleman admitted that that was asking too much. We must remember that Clauses 12, 13 and 14 must be read together. They cannot be read separately. The Amendment was wrong because it was unnecessary and also because it was the antithesis of common sense. I appeal to the House to recognise that one has to read these Clauses together. On doing so one realises that the Amendment is unnecessary. It is implicit in these Clauses that what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve will be done.

During the discussion on the previous Amendment I said that even if the Amendment was right in what it was seeking to achieve, it was being proposed in the wrong place, and should be considered in relation to Clauses 13 and 14. I think that I will carry everyone with me when I say that if the three Clauses are read together, including subsection (2,a) of Clause 14 as it stands, not as it is sought to amend it, it is clear that the Commission will have regard to the extent to which access is likely to be available without formal action necessarily being taken to secure it.

A local planning authority obviously will not be able to make an access agreement without consulting the other party to it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) demonstrated this very well in his cogent speech. One of the parties to the agreement must be the owner or the occupier, or perhaps both, of the land concerned.

I have shown that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a distaste for access orders, and will have for their use. Clause 14(2,b) requires the planning authority to be satisfied that it is impracticable to secure the making of an agreement, and the planning authority will not be able to say that unless it has consulted the owners or occupiers.

With regard to the power of acquisition provided for in Clause 24, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie hinted, I assure him that my right hon. Friend would want to have it demonstrated that the requisite access could not be obtained by agreement before he would authorise outright compulsory purchase.

There is nothing in the Bill which will inhibit either the Commission or a local planning authority from consulting owners and occupiers whenever this seems desirable. I have no doubt that in all the appropriate cases this will be done. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) always pleads for common sense in Statutes and in organisation. I think that the Commission will want to exercise the maximum amount of commonsense and good will in trying to make Clauses 12, 13 and 14 work, and in trying to make itself accepted generally.

Mr. W. Baxter

Does my hon. Friend realise that there will be no obligation on a planning authority to consult the owner of a piece of ground that is to be designated? The owner of the land may know of some factors which militate against part of the land being designated as an open space or used for the provision of recreational facilities. There may, for instance, be a loch near the ground, and he may consider that the shore should not be designated as an open space because of the dangerous nature—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This is an inordinately long intervention.

Mr. Baxter

This is rather important, because in different parts of the country there are different types of water, some of which may be dangerous for boys and girls if they attempt to swim there. Only the other week a boy was drowned in my area. This should not have been designated as part of the open space, and the local—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We cannot have debate by intervention. I must ask the hon. Member to bring his intervention to a close.

Mr. Baxter

I will bring it to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at your invitation. My point is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I should have chosen my words rather more carefully. I intended to suggest that the hon. Member ought to end his intervention now.

Mr. Baxter

I hope that common sense will prevail and that consultation will take place. That is why I think provision should be made in the Bill.

5.30 p.m.

Dr. Mabon

My hon. Friend is right in his illustration. That situation would appear when the local planning authority under Clause 13, proceeded to carry out consultations in order to secure agreement. The trouble is that under our procedure we must concentrate on one Clause at a time. We cannot amend this Clause without understanding the meaning of Clauses 13 and 14, which impinge upon it. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell argued that the Clause places an obligation upon the Countryside Commission to consult local planning authorities in order to ascertain what land may be consider suitable for acquisition for public access.

There is no question of the Commission's ordering the authority; it is simply a question of discussing what is possible and desirable. In practical terms a local planning authority would seek to come to an agreement, and if the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire arose the planning authority would return to the Countryside Commission and say, "You are wrong. A new situation has arisen which we did not anticipate." Further consultations with the owner-occupiers at the Clause 13 stage may have shown that those who know the area with the intimacy of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire are entitled to tell the Commission, "This is wrong. We ought to go to the owner now and ask for advice."

Clause 12 does not debar them from doing this. The Clause does not need the Amendment to provide the power. Common sense will dictate that this is what would be done if it were felt that there was some doubt about the area that ought to be acquired.

Whatever were the adverse circumstances, if the situation were not covered by this Clause it would be covered by Clause 13. If there were a bull-headed authority which did not want to come to an agreement, or was treating the owner in an unfair way—although I can hardly envisage it—Clause 14 would cover the situation by providing that a case had to be proved to the Secretary of State, who would clearly consult the owner-occupiers. Therefore, Clauses 12, 13 and 14 cover these circumstances.

The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn wants to get the position right, but I can assure him that the Amendment is quite unnecessary. This has been a useful debate in allowing the Clauses to be explained. If the provisions are left as they are, when we are consulted about the situation by others we shall seek to explain how important it is that the three Clauses should be read together.

Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)

It seemed to me that the Minister of State was seeking to escape from an acceptance of the Amendment by suggesting that the words that we were trying to write into the Bill were sufficiently well implied in Clauses 13 and 14 as to make them unnecessary, apart from the fact that the Minister maintains that this is the wrong place in the Bill to insert those words.

The hon. Gentleman is overlooking an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), which is that it is a good thing to spell out fairly clearly the degree of co-operation which authorities should seek. Good will is undoubtedly essential in implementing the provisions of the Bill, and if no harm is done by inserting these words somewhere in the Bill I seriously counsel the Minister to consider whether they could not be inserted somewhere else.

I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but some speeches made by hon. Members on the Government benches reminded me of the ones they made when they were in Opposition. I was beginning to wonder whether they were practising for the next time they would be in Opposition.. I hope that the Minister will consider whether these words, or something similar, could be woven into the Bill in the appropriate place.

Mr. G. Campbell

The Minister has misunderstood one point about the purpose of the Amendment. We recognise that there are procedures in later Clauses concerning access agreements and access orders in respect of which consultations with certain people will take place. But those consultations will take place at a later stage. We believe that at this point the observations of owners and occupiers would be helpful to local planning authorities and, where relevant, to the Commission.

Clause 12 deals with the stage at which lists containing areas of open land are being compiled and maps are being drawn up. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) pointed out that under Clause 10 the land in question may be moor, heath, hill, woodland, and so on and, as the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) pointed out, there may be reasons which only the owners and occupiers would know of which would influence the choice of land acquired.

An owner or occupier may have a plan to plant trees on a piece of open heath, in which case in a short time a lot of young trees could be growing on the land, with the necessary fencing provided against rabbits. That would affect the decision whether the land should be used, and whether there should be access to it.

I was in the House recently when we dealt with the Protection of Birds Bill. We gave considerable attention to the question of several rare birds which nest in Scotland and the desirability of making sure that they were not disturbed, while also allowing the general public to enjoy seeing them. Information of this kind may be known only to the owner or occupier. For instance, the red-necked phalarope nests in Sutherland, but it is easily disturbed and then deserts its nest, and that is a tragedy. It is this kind of information—covering questions of safety and future plans of owners and occupiers—of which local planning authorities might not know until they were thinking in terms of taking action.

That is why we feel that the observations of owners and occupiers at this stage could be useful. If we leave this Clause to be dealt with later it might be difficult to take action because part of the land in question was to be used for something which would make access undesirable. Such a question would better be considered at the earlier stage.

In Committee the Minister said that local planning authorities would consult owner-occupiers at this stage. Today he has been careful about what he said.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I said "in all appropriate cases".

Mr. Campbell

The Minister is now qualifying what he said. He cannot give a general assurance that owners or occupiers at the stage visualised in the Clause would all be consulted, but he hopes that most of them would. We think that this is a pity, because the Amendment would have provided that local planning authorities, when drawing up these lists and making these maps, would consult owners and occupiers. We are sorry that the Government cannot accept the Amendment because this difference remains between us, even though the intention of hon. Members on both sides of the House is the same.

Amendment negatived.