HC Deb 04 July 1967 vol 749 cc1630-4
Mr. G. Campbell

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 34, line 40, after the second 'time' to insert: 'after consulting the owners and occupiers of the land through which the route passes'. In Committee, the Minister said that this Amendment was worthy of further consideration, and he asked for time. When discussing Clause 40, on the subject of long-distance routes, the Government assured us that owners and occupiers would be consulted by the Countryside Commission when proposals came to be executed.

On this Clause, we are now dealing with variations of schemes which the Secretary of State has already approved. We are dealing, therefore, with variations of schemes after their original execution. That is why the problem arose which the Minister felt that he ought to consider further. We feel that it would improve the Bill to put it clearly into Clause 42 that there should be this consultation. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion we have given the Minister an opportunity to accept an Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I agree that, when we were arguing the position on Clause 39 in Committee, I drew a distinction between the broad planning stage, when what is involved is an outline proposal, and the implementation stage. I emphasised that, at the implementation stage, owners and occupiers must come into the picture. They will be consulted by local planning authorities who have the duty to translate a proposal into public paths by negotiating agreements with them.

But, at the planning stage, it would not always be necessary for the Commission to consult individual owners and occupiers. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) accepted that and were good enough to withdraw their Amendment, which was exploring the situation at that stage.

I also said that it might sometimes be an advantage if, in some instances, the Commission consulted at the proposal stage. This is on all-fours with our earlier discussions on Clause 12. I emphasised that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent it. I thought that these consultations would go ahead in certain circumstances.

When we come to apply these principles to Clause 39 it is clear that it deals with variations of proposals, but not with the implementation of the variations of proposals. What is not perhaps appreciated as a possibility is that a variation could involve a major change in a large part of a route, and it could be a major exercise. We have had some experience of this in England, but not in Scotland, and, therefore, we have to take lessons from our English friends in this regard.

If it were to be a major exercise of variation, following the reason which I adduced on Clause 39 and, earlier, on Clause 12, it would seem wrong to impose a duty on the Commission to consult all owners and occupiers statutorily who could be involved. I accept that, in the implementation stage, the local planning authority must do this in every circumstance, but it would be a duplication of work if, at the variation stage, we were to make it a statutory obligation on the Commission to consult everyone who might be involved in the variation, because it might transpire ultimately that what was the first, second or third proposal was not the one carried out by the local planning authority on behalf of the Commission to get this variation achieved.

It would be wrong to make this Amendment. It would be cumbersome, it would duplicate work and it might even involve work being done and consultation carried out unnecessarily. I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would want to impose that heavy burden on a Commission which will be hard-worked at the beginning, anyway.

I grasp the point of the Amendment, which is that owners and occupiers must be consulted before these matters are implemented. That is true in every circumstance. They must be consulted at the implementaiton stage, but it is wrong to put in these words at the proposal stage, with all the possible variations. We could not make this precise and definite Amendment now.

Mr. G. Campbell

The rubric to Clause 42 is "Variation of approved proposals." I agree that in the preparatory stages, consultation may not be necessary, but there does not seem to be anything in the Clause which indicates that the implementation stage of a variation of something already approved will include consultation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

If the hon. Gentleman reads the whole of Clause 42—

Mr. Campbell

I have.

6.45 p.m.

Dr. Mabon

Then if he reads it again with a fresh mind, he will see that there are a great many reservations. The proposals having been approved by the Secretary of State, the Commission may from time to time—and here the hon. Gentleman wants to insert his Amendment—prepare and submit to the Secretary of State a report proposing any such variation. The Secretary of State may, for reasons arising from his original confirmation, disagree with the Commission. There is nothing in the Bill which derogates a local planning authority's access to the Secretary of State. It may come to the Secretary of State with its own version and say that it does not think that the Commission's suggestions about a variation are in order. It is very much a stage of discussion, where it might be a complete waste of time to go to owners and occupiers and might even create alarms and excursions among them which are quite unnecessary. The right time would be when a definite proposal was to be made.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise readily that, if a local planning authority comes forward with formal proposals as a result of Clause 42, it can unearth objections from an owner or occupier, because it wants to get these matters by agreement. I cannot exclude the possibility of orders being made, but I hope that we shall not make many, because that would be a negation of the spirit of the legislation. We cannot exclude the possibility. We may be driven to it, as the English are once in 18 years. In trying to seek agreement, something may be unearthed which is not known to the Commission, the Secretary of State or the local planning authority, in which case the Secretary of State would be told that the proposal was not possible.

What hon. Gentlemen opposite are after is sound, but this is not the right place to make it, because it would result in duplication, unnecessary work and cause vexatious inquiries.

Mr. Stodart

Then may we be told where is the right place to make it?

Dr. Mabon

The burden of my argument is that it is not necessary. Owners and occupiers must be consulted. I should be the first to commend to the House that we should make sure that that is so if hon. Gentlemen could point out to me that it is not so.

Mr. G. Campbell

There is a misunderstanding here. The Minister has pointed out that we propose this Amendment in subsection (1) at the stage where the Secretary of State may not approve all the proposals put forward, and that there could be some waste of time. I am with him in not wishing any such waste of time and energy to take place. It seems to me that an Amendment of this kind ought to appear in subsection (5), which is where the Secretary of State approves a variation and where the implementation of that variation will take place. At that implementation stage, there does not seem to be anything which obliges the Commission to take into account the views of owners and occupiers.

We have put down the Amendment moved in Committee, because the Minister invited us to do so. He suggested that we should let the Amendment "lie on the Notice Paper", so to speak. As a result, I did not seek to produce a better one, but simply reproduced it at his invitation. I see from what he has now said, however, that our Amendment would probably be better in subsection (5). I follow his argument and, therefore, I would ask him to look at it again and see whether at the stage of implementation of a variation it is necessary to put in something of this kind.

Having heard what the hon. Gentleman has said about it being inappropriate in subsection (1), I hope that he will consider this before the Bill reaches another place in the light of what I have said, and, accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.