§ Lords Amendment No. 46: In page 24, line 30, at end insert new Clause "C":
§ which has the effect on Schedule 1(1)(b) to the 1946 Act of extending that provision, which at present relates specifically to the widening of an existing highway. What we should like to know is, for what possible purpose is 250 square yards of common land to be put? The Clause would allow it to be put to some use. That is already possible if it is to be for some such matter as a pumping station or a layby. I think that the local authority may have designs for a much larger enterprise, possibly a car park, or one of the Royal forests, or a car park on open heath land or one of the National Parks.
§ It is feasible, as we see it, that the need for Special Parliamentary Procedure built into the Bill could be circumvented by 1441 making a series of essays against an unsuspecting Minister designed to take a bite of 250 square yards on each successive occasion. I might suggest that this Clause could become known as the "nibbler's Clause", under which commoners' rights were first eroded without land being given in substitution and without Parliamentary sanction. It is a dangerous Clause as drafted and that is why we have put down this Amendment.
§ Mr. MacCollThe position here is that at present Orders have to go to Special Parliamentary Procedure unless either a Minister certifies that an exchange of land is practicable or, where the land is needed for road widening, that the Minister certifies that no alternative land is necessary.
The local authority associations have been restless under this limit to their discretion and we are always being told to be careful of the rights of local authorities, but my right hon. Friend has not felt that he could go all the way that they would have liked him to go, and that provisions for amenity should be retained. So, what the new Clause does is to extend the categories where the Minister can give a certificate without the provision of exchange land to cases where the land does not exceed 250 square yards in extent. That might apply whether or not they were used for highway purposes, but where there is no alternative, or where they are small, they should not be subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. That does not, of course, mean that the Minister rubber stamps the order. He has to satisfy himself about it and to make inquiries, if necessary holding a public inquiry to get the position clear.
I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee when these points were discussed, but I looked at the reports of the proceedings and I noted that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that something was to be said for not unnecessarily using the Special Parliamentary Procedure where it would simply clog the work and there was no point in using it. All we are trying to do is to make a workable limitation giving the Minister discretion to deal with these cases without going through the Special Parliamentary Procedure.
§ Mr. Graham PageIt is true that in Committee, when this was suggested, I was prepared to some extent to go along with the Minister and study whether this was a way of cutting down the Special Parliamentary Procedure, but on consideration of it, and having considered the cases which have come before the Joint Committee of both Houses as a result of the Special Parliamentary Procedure, I have come to the conclusion that that is just the sort of case we are dealing with here and that it would be a serious matter to agree to this Amendment and leave a loophole for local authorities to nibble at open spaces.
The position at the moment is that whenever a local authority decides to acquire an open space compulsorily, it is obliged to give some other open space within its area in exchange. The only exception is when the land is required for the widening of an existing highway—I stress that point; it is not for building a new road—and the Minister is satisfied that the giving of other land in exchange is unnecessary, whether in the interests of persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights, or in the interests of the public. A heavy responsibility is placed on the Minister, which in my experience he does not lightly take, in saying that the giving of other land is unnecessary.
Up to the present the practice of the Minister has been not to say that the giving of land was unnecessary but to oblige the local authority to proceed by way of Special Parliamentary Procedure. This means that almost certainly there will be a public inquiry. It means that a statutory instrument will come before the House, for it to consider whether it wishes to object—or, to put it another way, for the amenity societies to have the opportunity to lobby their Members of Parliament, or to bring to the notice of Members of Parliament the feelings of amenity societies about any piece of land.
This has had the effect of one or two cases being fought before the Joint Committee when there has been an objection in the House and the Statutory Instrument has been referred to the Committee. The amenity societies who have objected have sometimes succeeded in persuading the Joint Committee that the order in question should not be made. The right 1443 should be retained for anyone to say that land should not be taken unless other open space is granted in its place.
What would happen if the Amendment were accepted? The local authority could say, "This land is required for widening an existing highway. We are only going to take 250 square yards at this moment. Therefore, we do not need to go to the Minister and ask him to say that it is unnecessary to give any other open space in its place; we can go ahead without asking the Minister to use his discretion in that way". Surely it will be the duty of a local authority, if it is convinced that open space should be taken for road widening, to use the law which is given to it by the Amendment and to say, "We shall take only 250 square yards at a time". As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) has said, the new Clause may well be called a nibbling charter for local authorities.
It is a very serious erosion into a matter of principle, and it is sacrificing too much to streamlining. Many of these orders go through the House unquestioned, but that is not the point, except that those which go through in that way do not take up any time, and there is no difficulty about procedure. The few which are questioned illustrate the fact that this procedure is a very useful one, and is the right and proper way for amenity societies in particular to bring before Parliament points that they wish to make. When they have done so they have sometimes succeeded in getting the House to reject the Statutory Instrument.
I hope that the Government will abandon this proposition. When the question was discussed in Committee I was prepared to consider it. It has been considered both inside and outside the House. We on this side have had a great number of complaints from those who see being whittled away the power of the amenity societies to bring to Parliament's notice their objections to local authorities taking open spaces without providing other open space land in exchange.
I hope that the Government will abandon this Amendment.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. MacCollI want to make only two short points. First, the hon. Gentleman gave the House the impression that the local authorities were able to avoid 1444 satisfying the interests of the public if they kept under 250 square yards. That is not the position. All that happens is that they have to get the Minister's certificate rather than Special Parliamentary procedure. But the Minister has the duty to hold an inquiry where it appears to him expedient to do so, so giving everyone interested an opportunity to make representations. It is not a question of either "ducking" an inquiry, or having to come to Parliament to get a public investigation. The Minister has the duty to hold an inquiry, if necessary, before issuing his certificate.
The other point that I would make, in passing, is that I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of the amenity societies. But I seem to remember that recently we have had a great deal of difficulty in getting the right relationship between the amenity societies and Parliament in dealing with some of the Orders that have been before Parliament. Everyone has been worried about not having full freedom to deploy their views. In the case of a public inquiry, there would be no difficulty. Everyone would be able to attend it. I think that that is a reasonable way to treat the local authorities.
It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite scolding us for being indifferent to the rights of local authorities by ordering them about, not trusting them and not treating them as responsible people. When we have a simple procedure allowing them to exercise their discretion by applying to the Minister for small increases very carefully defined in the Clause, I think that that is reasonable.
§ Mr. Graham PageWe may be at variance in interpreting the wording. With the word "or" in the Amendment to which we have objected in our Amendment to it, it appears that the local authority has only to show that it is not taking more than 250 square yards, in which event it does not have to obtain any assurance from the Minister that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary, because the substitution of the words in the Amendment for the words "that the land is" in the 1946 Act means that there are two conditions. The first is that the land is not more than 250 square yards. The alternative is that it is required for road widening and the Minister does not think that other land in exchange is necessary.
§ Mr. MacCollThere are alternatives. The first leg is that there is the right of exchange. That is common ground. The second point is that it is needed to widen an existing highway. The third is that it is a small amount, not necessarily for a highway, but defined by the area. In all cases, the local authority has to get the Minister's certificate. It does not avoid that requirement.
§ Mr. MurtonI question the principle of widening this at all. In the 1946 Act the Section refers only to highways. I cannot understand why the 250 sq. yds. should come in. Why cannot the Special Parliamentary Procedure continue to obtain? Alternatively, some local authorities have Acts of Parliament which allow them to transfer turvery rights and other things.
§ Question put and negatived.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.