HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1482-5

Lords Amendment No. 125: In page 52, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

This rather tongue-twisting Amendment to the Lords Amendment enshrines a principle about which we on this side are extremely worried. It is obvious that the Lords Amendment has been tailored to fit in with the provisions of the lamentable Transport Bill and we propose to place some curb on any suggestion that there might be a change of user under the provisions of the Transport Bill as reflected in this Bill.

For instance, the Waterways Board might be given permission to include holiday facilities, including caravans and camping sites, which I would have thought was an unlikely activity for the Board. Similarly, a passenger transport executive could acquire land for the purposes of their business; or with the approval of the Authority for the purpose of adding it to and disposing of it with other contiguous land of theirs of which they propose to dispose".

Again, where the use of their land for the purposes of their business can be combined with its use for other purposes, to develop the land by constructing or adapting buildings thereon for use wholly or partly by other persons…

There are various others, such as facilities for warehousing goods other than goods belonging to the authority and the provision of facilities for the purchase and consumption of food and drink and other refreshments. By our Amendment we would allow a transfer of user only to something similar to what had gone before. Otherwise, it would be a gross injustice to the private trader, and we feel that these activities should be curbed.

Mr. Greenwood

I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), but his fears are not wholly justified. I remind the House that certain planning rights accrue to the operational land of statutory undertakers and that Clause 61 provides that no new land shall become "operational" unless certain planning requirements are met.

Under the provisions of the Transport Bill, land may be transferred among existing and new transport undertakings, and we had intended to provide that if this was already operational land, it should not lose that status upon transfer and have to requalify as if it were new land.

Provision was, therefore, made in the former paragraph (2)(b) which went too far and would have covered, for example, the acquisition of railway land by a gas hoard with the intention of putting a gasholder on it. But when we tried to narrow the effect, we had extremely complex drafting problems, and we were forced back into the position that we originally had in mind. That dealt with transfers resulting from the Transport Bill.

The amended paragraph (2)(b) therefore applies only to these. I am told that exchanges of land affected by the new Transport Bill are likely to fall into three groups and any exchanges or transfers outside these groups would be most unlikely. I should add that if any other groups of undertakings were similarly reorganised, this planning point could be covered in their own legislation.

It is the word "similar" in the Amendment which creates the difficulty. For example, the purposes of a railway and a road transport undertaking may be similar in that both are concerned with the carriage of freight, but also different in that one is concerned with the movement of freight by road and the other with its movement by rail if operational land were transferred from one such undertaking to another, it would not be clear within the terms of the Amendment whether the land should stay operational or cease to be so.

The Amendment makes it necessary only that the disposing undertakings shall have "included purposes similar" to those of the acquiring undertakers, and to the extent that all undertakers affected by the Transport Bill include something to do with transport, the Amendment might be held to let in transfers between any of these undertakings and would thus have no modifying effect on the Clause.

It is to avoid needless applications for minor works on land which is already operational land of a transport undertaking that the amended Clause as it comes to us from another place is designed The further Amendment, even if it were capable of precise interpretation—and I am advised that it is not—would have the effect of necessitating for a short time a certain number of applications for minor works until such time as the land qualified for operational status under paragraph (2)(a).

With regret, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment on the grounds that it is imprecise, that what it seeks to do is unnecessary, and that if it had succeeded, the effects would be short term only. Otherwise, it is a good Amendment.

Question put and negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Forward to