REINSTATEMENT OF LAND HELD UNDER ACT (Hansard, 10 December 1974)

§ Mr. Grimond
This amendment meets the point embodied in an amendment in my name. I want to refer to a matter of which the Minister of State is aware. Under Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1972 a planning; authority may impose certain conditions on a planning consent, but it may impose conditions for reinstatement of the land only at the end of a specified period. This leads to difficulty in oil-related undertakings, because we do not know 400 the length of the period. I put that on the record and ask the Minister to say that he is considering the matter.

§ Mr. Millan
The effect of Government Amendment No. 77 is to require the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the question of reinstatement, whether or not he is considering use of the land for another purpose as an alternative to reinstatement. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretry of State can proceed to reinstate the land or to secure its reinstatement without consulting local authorities and need carry out the reinstatement only to such extent as in his opinion is reasonably practicable. Local authorities need become involved only if the Secretary of State is contemplating a course of action other than reinstatement. That is how the Bill is drafted at present.
11.30 p.m.
Representations were made to us by the local authorities, among others, to the effect that we ought to consult them beforehand—at the start of the procedure —before we decided whether it was desirable and practicable to reinstate as well as be involved in possible alternative developments. That is what we have now done by the amendment.
Amendment No. 80 is consequential.
The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) would delete the words so far as in his opinion is reasonably practicable ". The question is whether that would be realistic. Reinstatement to the precise condition in which the land was originally is normally a physical impossibility, but that would be the obligation placed on local authorities if the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted. I hope, therefore, that he will not press it, but will accept the Government amendment, which introduces another important element of local authority consultation.

§ Mr. Grimond
I prefer the Government amendment to my own one.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 7, line 22, leave 401 out from 'practicable' to 'reinstate' in line 23.

§ The Chairman
With this amendment we are to take the following amendments:
No. 79, in page 7, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
No. 81, in page 7, line 29, leave out 'or'.
No. 82, in page 7, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 83, in page 7, line 32, leave out from ' in a case within paragraph (a)' and insert' such case '.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
With the concomitant Amendment No. 79 this, in effect, removes the words in subsection (1) "subject to subsection (2)" and removes subsection (2). I am sure that the purpose of the clause is basically in favour of reinstatement. I understand from the Bill that the idea is that the Firth of Cromarty should not be ill-treated like the Firth of Clyde but should be returned to its previous condition.
I think that the words in subsection (1) so far as in his opinion is reasonably practicable are a sufficient safeguard in these circumstances. I would have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were anxious to have a bias in favour of reinstatement, and it would seem reasonable that the additional attempt to take land for another use than reinstatement should be removed.

§ Mr. Millan
As the hon. Member has said, there is a presumption towards reinstatement in the clause. The rubric makes that clear. But that is subject to qualifications. The qualifications are not simply related to the physical condition of the land and the physical possibilities involved in reinstatement; they are also very much related to the whole local situation, because one must remember that one is not dealing simply with a physical problem. In the case of a development which has been going on for some years the land will have been physically affected. A community will have been built up; there will be people working there, and there will be houses and other community facilities. If, at the end of any period, that development is 402 no longer appropriate for that site it does not follow that the only desirable thing —or the desirable thing at all—is to revert to the condition that the land was in before the development originally took place.
There is a possibility of an alternative use for the land, and indeed the local authority will demand it. In some cases the use may be not for industrial but for recreational development. Any alternative embracing industrial development will be subject to normal planning safeguards. Subject to those safeguards, subsection (2) must be included in the Bill to allow these alternative uses to take place.
The effect of the amendments would be to eliminate that possibility altogether. That would very much damage the effect of the clause and, apart from the community as a whole, it would be bitterly and vehemently resisted by the local authority. I ask the Committee not to accede to the amendments.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
Will the Minister clarify one matter? I accept the principle of the Minister's argument that when communities are being built up, tremendous repercussions could result if the whole process came to a grinding halt and there were no employment in the community. There may be the safeguard that if the land use were changed the change of use would be subject to planning approval. These considerations are most important because the Government are using wide compulsory purchase powers initially to take this land out of current use into oil uses.
I believe that it would be wrong to let this process slip into a second type of use. If a dry dock construction is turned into a use for recreational purposes, it is a change of use from industrial to recreational, and in that situation planning procedures would apply. What would worry me would be the case where a dry dock structure could be used for, say, shipbuilding purposes or for an engraving dock—a use similar to the physical nature of the use of the land which would not necessarily require planning approval since it could be regarded as continuing the purpose of that land. However, people living in the area would feel that a considerable change of use had occurred.
403 I am trying to be constructive. I am prepared to accept a ministerial assurance that planning approval would apply to a change of use after the oil development needs had come to an end, but I still have a slight worry there may be circumstances where a change might be of such a marginal nature that planning procedures might not come into play. I should like an assurance from the Minister on this point.

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
I accept the argument that subsection (2)(a) is necessary, but I am not so sure about subsection (2)(b). Can the Minister give us the reason for subsection (2)(b) as at present drafted?

§ Mr. Millan
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked about the planning aspect of the matter. I have already said that the normal planning considerations will apply. In the kind of situation that he suggested might arise, I should think that there would be need for planning permission to be granted. If I am wrong about that, I will let him know. However, my information is that that would happen.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked why we needed paragraph (b), should not for any other reason be reinstated as aforesaid". The simple answer is that, as a result of the use of the site, we may have an area which, although no immediate alternative use is in view, is more valuable than it was originally. For example, we may have a site which was simply rough grazing, now converted into a dry dock, for which there may be no immediate alternative use. Subsection (2)(a) would not apply to that. The effect of the amendment would be to convert the dry dock back to rough grazing. That would be a fairly formidable operation, and quite pointless. Therefore, we need paragraph (b) to give us a certain commonsense flexibility, after consultations with the local authority, with the object of either physical reinstatement or of producing a solution that would be in the interests of the inhabitants of the area if physical reinstatement were not to take place.

§ Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)
I hesistate to intervene in a Scottish debate, but, having had experience of the building of the Mulberry Harbour, for which purpose land was taken for building concrete structures similar to what is proposed to be done here, I find myself disagreeing with the Minister.
For the purpose of building the Mulberry Harbour, land was taken in the New Forest. Later alternative uses were found for that land. If fish farming, for instance, were decided to be carried on after these operations had ceased, would it be necessary to get planning consent? Would such an activity open the gates to make it possible to use such land for other industrial purposes without planning consent? Does "alternative use" mean that the land can be used for any other purpose? If so, it plays absolute havoc with the whole of our planning procedure.

§ Mr. Millan
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has come into the debate rather late to understand what we are attempting to do here. If he had been here for our earlier debates, I think that some of these matters might have been clear to him.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is fair. It follows the point that I made about planning permission. I am not sure that the Minister is right. I accept his undertaking that he will look into the matter again and write to me about it. However, if the use of a site is a continuing industrial use, planning permission is not required. When the building of oil production platforms ceases and the site is used as a graving dock for ships, or whatever else it may be, which is a continuing industrial use, planning permission is not necessary.
The circumstances described by my hon. Friend—using a site as a fish farm —may be construed as a different use. I do not know. Therefore, I should like some clarification on this matter. Would planning permission need to be applied for before the change of use took place?

§ Mr. Millan
I do not think that I said that in every case we would have to have planning permission applied for. 405 But the hon. Gentleman was giving an example in which the previous use and the prospective use were of a very considerably different nature. What I said was that in those circumstances my advice was that planning procedures would have to be gone through. If I am wrong about this, it will be a very appropriate point for the particular amendment I have promised to table on Report on planning procedures generally, and we could then take the matter up. But as I understand the position, I think that what I have said on this matter so far is accurate.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
The more I have listened to the various assurances given by the Minister tonight, the more I have been concerned that the apparent spirit of the Bill will not be kept. Here we have the Minister saying, in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for instance, that if a dry dock is built, say, on the Firth of Cromarty, no use for which dock can be found later, it would be ridiculous to turn it back to rough grazing. But what are we to have instead? We are to have on the Firth of Cromarty a lot of derelict dry docks.
It is because the clause pretends to be in favour of reinstatement and is not in favour of reinstatement that I am suspicious of the whole spirit of the Bill. I ask the Minister urgently to consider the fact that if we merely say that one can have reinstatement, perhaps, but that any excuse will be enough not to have it, we shall not get reinstatement.
As I understood the purpose of the Bill, it was that for a short time we would have, so to speak, to pollute and develop certain valuable parts of the coast of Scotland, which would then be restored. But not at all. We shall be left with all the dry docks. I sincerely urge the Minister to consider that implication.
With great reluctance I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I say "reluctance" because it seems to be contrary to any sensible spirit which the Bill pretends to leave in that subsection. I do this with the greatest misgivings.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 7, line 35, at end add— '(2) Such land as is no longer needed for the purposes of this Act shall be offered to the person or body from whom it was acquired and thereafter exposed to public sale '.

§ The Chairman
With this we are to take Amendment No. 91, in page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (2).

§ Mr. Fairbairn
I shall come later to Amendment No. 91. The purpose of Amendment No. 84 is to ensure that the Government really are interested in reinstatement and that they shall offer the land back to the person or body to whom it previously belonged. This is a slight variation of the Crichel Down procedure, whereby it is offered to other Government Departments and then to the previous owner. However, in view particularly of later clauses with regard to unalienable land, the amendment would seem entirely appropriate.
I come to Amendment 91. Most of the Bill means very little, but this clause definitely means nothing. I shall read it. We must remember that the Bill permits the Secretary of State to acquire land under its provisions only for the purposes set out in Clause 1—namely, for any purpose relating to exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum. That is the only right that he has to obtain this land.
Clause 10(2) reads: The Secretary of State may dispose of the whole of his interest in any land, of which possession has been taken under this Act, to any body or person in order to enable them to provide any such housing, services or facilities as are required in terms of paragraph (d) of section 1(2) of this Act;". However, the Secretary of State is not allowed to do so unless the land is no longer needed for any purpose for which land may be acquired under this Act. In other words, only when the Secretary of State discovers it is not needed may he dispose of it to somebody who needs it for a purpose. The only condition under which the land may be disposed of is one under which the Secretary of State is not allowed to hold the land. That is 407 what the clause says. It says it blandly. It may be that the Mad Hatter wrote this Bill. It would appear so. He certainly wrote this clause, if no other. It says that the only conditions under which land may be held for the purposes of this Bill are those which have ceased to apply. It is a narrow point, but I would not have thought it needed a lawyer to notice it. I should be pleased to have the Minister's observations.

§ Mr. John Smith
The hon. Gentleman moved two amendments. Amendment No. 84 would require the Secretary of State to offer land back to the original owners before it is exposed for public sale. Amendment No. 91 is consequential, and removes the present powers in the Bill dealing with the disposal of land.
If the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) were successful with his amendment there would be no method left to the Secretary of State by which he could dispose of the land. I hope the hon. Gentleman realises the consequences of that amendment.
Perhaps I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the nature of Clause 8(1), which is not to cause reinstatement to be made to the original owners of the land. There has been some misunderstanding about this on the part of the Opposition, and certainly by the hon. Gentleman. This clause will allow the land to be restored and reinstated to its original condition before possession was taken, which is a different matter.
We do not regard it as acceptable that land acquired should simply be offered back to the original owners, as the hon,. Gentleman proposes in his amendment. By virtue of his powers under this Bill the Secretary of State may well have invested large sums of public money in these developments. It would be wrong that this should rebound to the benefit of the original private owners. Apart from that, a debt is owed to the community in whose locality the development has taken place and to those who have found new employment there. Offering the land back to the original owners does not seem to us to be prima facie the best way of ensuring that the community's obligations are met.
That is a fundamental point of opposition to the amendment.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
There is a point of principle here in relation to the Crichel Down procedure.
In the case of land no longer required for the purposes of this Act, would it first be offered to other Government Departments, which is the way the Crichel Down procedure works, or would it be offered to the original owners before being offered to public authorities?

§ Mr. John Smith
As regards the Crichel Down procedure, the general procedure followed in disposing of surplus land by Government Departments is that it is offered, first, to other Government Departments and, secondly, to local authorities, and only if not thus required for public use is it disposed of on the open market. There is an exception to this in the case of surplus agricultural land.
The basis of that policy, which was established in 1954, is that surplus agricultural land acquired by a Government Department under compulsory purchase powers, or with such powers in the background, is offered back to the former owner at current market value unless another Department, on its own behalf or on behalf of a public authority, can satisfy Ministers that it has a stronger claim to the land.
The procedure was modified in 1967 so as to exclude from the offer-back requirement any agricultural land with planning permission for development or likely to obtain that permission. It would be in the last category that any land would be affected under the Bill. So it is a modified procedure.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
If the land had not been developed, presumably it would be offered back and the Crichel Down procedure would apply.

§ Mr. Smith
I do not see that reinstatement would arise from that position. I am dealing with land acquired "for the purposes".

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I do not follow that argument. The Minister says that the land will be reinstated, yet he does not want to offer it back to the original owner, who would thereby get a fat profit out of the money spent on it by the Government in the meantime. How can the owner benefit if the land is reinstated?

§ Mr. Smith
It cannot be reinstated, because development has taken place —

§ Mr. Smith
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The purpose of reinstatement is to restore it. We have to take account of the fact that developments have taken place. But we recognise that platform construction will have come to an end. There will have to be a use for the land at the end of that time, and this provision gives the Secretary of State power to deal with that.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
I do not understand that point. May I refer the Minister to the words of subsection (1): … reinstate it, or secure its reinstatement, to the condition in which it was before such possession was taken. We are back where we started: we start with the Sahara Desert, and we end with it. Why should not the sheikhs get it back when we have finished with it?

§ Mr. Smith
The hon. and learned Gentleman is lowering the tone of the debate with remarks of that kind. In subsection (1) we also find the words so far as in his opinion is reasonably practicable", and that is a considerable qualification.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it is possible to take land which has been used for platform construction and to restore it to its original condition, he is engaged in a foolish pursuit. We will have developments taking place—

§ Mr. Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself? We are giving the Secretary of State powers to reinstate the land so far as reasonably practicable. Those words are stated clearly in the Bill.
There is a problem of what we do with the land after the period for which it has been compulsorily acquired has expired. These provisions give the Secretary of State wide powers to deal with that in a way useful to the community. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) says that priority should be given to the 410 former owners of the land. We believe that they are not the people to be considered first, which is why he resists the amendment—

§ Mr. Fairbairn
Why?

§ Mr. Smith
Because of the interests of the people employed in the developments which have taken place and the interests of the community affected by them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that point, there is too wide a gulf to bridge in this debate.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The Minister has not answered the second amendment, about the meaning of Clause 10(1). The meaning is very difficult to understand. Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I hope that he will speak to that.
However, I return to the main point, which is what "reinstatement" means. I accept the Minister's argument that if the site is to continue in an industrial use and planning permission has been obtained, obviously the Crichel Down procedure will not apply. I accept and understand that.
12 midnight.
The hon. Gentleman has been very short-tempered and impatient about what happens when reinstatement takes place. Does "reinstatement" mean reinstatement, or not? If it does mean reinstatement, surely it means, to the condition in which it was before such possession was taken. I cannot believe that even a Labour Government would reinstate the land back to agricultural condition and then put planning permission on it. That would be a queer way to do it. If the land is worth putting back to its original condition, presumably it is because it is thought right for it to go back into that condition. That is the point to which our questions are directed.
The hon. Gentleman says that once the land has been used for oil purposes, he would not dream of putting it back in the orginial position. But that is not what the Bill says. It is entirely practical in many cases to put land back to its original condition—for example, in Fife, open-cast mines have been reinstated to the original good agricultural land, and the same sort of thing has happened in 411 Wales. Where the land is reinstated, it is the spirit of the clause, which we support, that it should be returned to its original condition, such as agriculture. In these circumstances surely the Crichel Down procedure must apply. We want an assurance on that.

§ Mr. John Smith
I was answering the amendment put to the Committee. The difference between us is not one about precisely what is going to happen. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the purpose is to reinstate the land, but that obligation is qualified with the phrase so far as … is reasonably practicable. in subsection (1) and qualified in subsection (2) to cover circumstances where it may not be possible to do it. We must have a reasonably flexible situation. It may not be possible to restore the land concerned to precisely the use it had before.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
We accept that.

§ Mr. Smith
But the hon. Gentleman says that and then supports an amendment which says that, instead of our having regard for the community, we should have regard for the owners of the land. We do not believe that they should be given priority.
Finally, if we do not have Clause 10, we shall not find it possible to dispose of the land.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I accept that the amendment may not technically, deal precisely with the situation. I also understand that in certain circumstances the land will not be reinstated for good reasons, social and otherwise, to the benefit of the community in the area. But there will be circumstances, if the clause means what it says, in which the land will be reinstated into its original condition—returning to fields or heather or agriculture—and surely that is where the Crichel Down procedure applies. Will that procedure apply or not? If not, why not?

§ Mr. Smith
It depends on the situation when it arises. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing the matter at some length. Perhaps I may now deal with it by saying that I will look into the points which have been raised and will communicate 412 with hon. Members later. I am not saying that there is merit in the amendment, but it is now fairly late and we have had an exchange on this matter, in which it seems that bad temper has been ascribed solely to me. Recent contributions suggest that the bad temper is more universal. We could bandy words about for a considerable time on this subject. I shall look into the position and see whether we cannot bring forward some reassurance to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is someone who rarely loses his temper. I hope that he will not lose it because he has been accused of doing so.
I think that the Minister is missing the purpose of the amendment. There is little difference between us. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State thought that he needed 500 acres and in fact used only 50. Should not the remaining 450 acres be reinstated or offered to the original owner, who may be the surround-farmer, to farm once again? That seems to be a reasonable proposition. Indestructible pyramids will not be built on all the land that is taken.
I accept the Minister's assurance that he will consider the matter at a time of day when tempers are cooler. I urge him to consider more carefully Clause 10(2), which I would remind him means nothing. To dispose of the land the Secretary of State has to dispose of it to those who are to provide facilities, services or housing required in the terms set out in paragraph (d) of Section 1(2) of the Act. If disposal is to be carried out in that way it must be land that is required under Section 1 of the Act. But the only condition placed upon him selling the land for the purposes required under the Act is if it is no longer needed for any purpose under the Act. If that does not mean nothing I do not know what does mean nothing. Even at this time of night I am capable of seeing that. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter again in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the morning."] It is not my morning. It is still my night.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 7, line 35, at end add— '(3) The Secretary of State shall consult the Countryside Commission and any other bodies which he considers appropriate before any land is reinstated'. This amendment is of a probing nature. Where land is to be reinstated—I must return to the question of reinstatement and not re-use—there have been representations from the Countryside Commission and other bodies, as the Minister is probably aware, that they should be consulted. They have experience and knowledge of these matters. Nature Conservancy is another body which I should mention.
It may not be appropriate to write such a requirement into the Bill, but I hope that where reinstatement takes place to the original natural condition, where there was no industrial use beforehand, the Secretary of State will consider consulting bodies such as the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy, whose advice and help can be useful in such circumstances.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I hope that the Committee realises that the cost of reinstatement to what might be called Countryside Commission standards can be considerable. To what extent will be there be emphasis on collecting money in the years of plenty to pay for reinstatement up to the kind of standard that is required? The reinstatement that has been asked for in places such as the Forth Estuary has been found to involve costs which are out of all proportion to anythink that was expected. How will money be gathered as a sort of insurance for reinstatement in the years of plenty?

§ Mr. Millan
There will be general provisions concerning reinstatement and for obtaining the necessary money in connection with any piece of land acquired by the Secretary of State under the Bill. Where planning permission is granted by a local planning authority ofter the Bill is enacted the clause will enable obligations to be placed on the developer to provide the necessary money for reinstatement. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, this can be a very expensive business.
As for the amendment, I am glad that the hon. Member for North Angus and 414 Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has made clear that he is referring to the restrictive circumstances which involve reinstatement and not an alternative development.
On the wider issue, I think that the hon. Member accepts my earlier point that it is the local authority—apart from the Secretary of State, who has the primary obligation—which is the obvious body to be consulted and which is most concerned.
I take the point that if reinstatement is the solution there is something to be said for consulting the Countryside Commission and other bodies which have a specific interest in the matter. There would be no difficulty in consulting the commission by administrative means. It is a statutory body appointed by the Secretary of State.
I am reluctant to write into the Bill specific obligations for particular bodies. If the hon. Member is willing to withdraw his amendment I shall consider writing in the proposition that where reinstatement is involved the Secretary of State might also consult other bodies as he might consider appropriate. If the hon. Member will leave the matter there I shall see whether we could meet the spirit of the amendment in some other way.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I certainly accept the spirit of the Minister of State's assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.