CONSENT FOR DISPOSALS (Hansard, 11 November 1975)

§ Mr. John Silkin

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The effect of the amendment would be to remove the comprehensive control which Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State over all disposals of material interests in land, regardless of the powers under which the land was acquired, by making all such disposals subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. It would substitute a provision that he could make regulations prescribing the terms under which an authority could dispose of any material interest in land which had been acquired under the powers provided by the Bill.

It is unacceptable to the Government to draw a distinction between land acquired under the Bill and land acquired under other statutory provisions. Local authorities will continue to be able to use their existing powers, for example, under the housing and planning Acts, to acquire land for private development. Given this, it would be unacceptable to have a situation under which the disposal of land acquired under the Land Bill and disposed of for private development was subject to control, whereas land acquired under other powers and disposed of for the same purpose was not.

It has been made clear that the intention is to issue general consents to disposals which will give local authorities 1480 wide flexibility to dispose of land without the need for specific reference to the Secretary of State in individual cases. Where a local authority wishes to dispose of land on terms which are not covered by the general consent, it will be free to come to the Secretary of State and seek his consent to other terms. This approach combines the advantages of giving a wide measure of discretion to local authorities with flexibility to deal with special cases on their merits and by reference to the particular circumstances of the case.

If the Secretary of State had to attempt to foresee and provide for all circumstances within the Regulations provided for in the amendment the result would inevitably be that there would be cases in which local authorities would want to dispose on terms which would be precluded by Regulations but which the Secretary of State might be prepared to consent to having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The only answer to that problem would be to have a consent procedure for cases not covered by the Regulations but the effect of that would be to render the amendment nugatory.

The approach to the matter by way of Regulations is, therefore, undesirable, on the ground that it would remove flexibility and the possibility of giving speedy approval for disposals on exceptional terms in circumstances where speed may be important. It is, furthermore, unprecedented in relation to the giving of consents to the disposal of land. The extent of the control over land disposals by local authorities has varied from time to time, but, where control has been exercisable, it has been achieved by a requirement for the consent of a Minister, and not by Regulations.