LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES (Hansard, 13 October 1975)

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I beg to move Amendment No. 354, in page 17, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert: (4) The Secretary of State shall decide the dates on which preparation of individual schemes should commence and be completed. We come now to the clause dealing with what are called Land acquisition and management schemes which each authority is proposed to prepare for its area. Subsection (2) states that such schemes shall be prepared, and from time to time revised, by all the authorities in the area of the county authority acting jointly. Subsection (4) states: The scheme shall be prepared not later than 31st December 1975, or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case. That is wishful thinking and it would be much better if the date did not appear. During the passage of the Bill we have heard a good deal about flexibility. Some very odd things have been happening in local authorities. Recently some authorities have been advertising building land for sale. Only in the last month an authority in Sussex has been offering some for tender or auction. I know that one of the authorities in my area has over 31 sites, some of which it has had for a considerable period. It seems to have given a lot of money for some of them, and has done very little with them.
It seems unnecessary to be putting this requirement on to the authorities. In my constituency there happens to be one 1091 planning authority dealing with three councils, but in other areas that is not the case. It is clear that what is proposed will lead to a considerable amount of extra work and additional staff appointments. I should have thought it would have been better to consider each area in order to decide whether there is a need for management schemes to be drawn up.
The clause provides that the acquisition of land by the authorities shall be done with a view to they themselves developing the land or making it available for development by others. Would it not be better to take soundings round the country to determine the position of different authorities? I know that there are some authorities in Hampshire which have no land or very little land available, but there are others that have surplus land.
Is it necessary to put this requirement on the authorities at this time? Would it not be much better to deal with the matter as the need arises? I am hoping that the Minister will consider making variations from county to county. Surely he will agree that the 31st December 1975, which is only about two months away, is not on. There is another amendment tabled by the Conservative Opposition that seeks to extend the date for a further six months, but that in itself is too short a period.

§ Mr. Raison
I understand the point of view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), but on this matter I prefer my party's approach. I realise that to suggest the date of 30th June 1976 is very modest, and it may well be that it is too early a date, but I prefer that approach to what seems an arbitrary extension of the Secretary of State's power as embodied in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. We have put forward a reasonable amendment and I would have thought it was one which the Government could easily accept.
Our amendment seeks to defer by six months the date on which land acquisition and management schemes have to be prepared. The case seems to be uncontrovertible given that the Bill cannot reach the statute book, assuming it ever does, until some time in November. There is still no need for local authorities to do anything about setting up these lands until the Bill comes law. We know that many authorities have embarked on 1092 the process, but there has been no necessity for them to do so. It is likely that others have not embarked on it, but they are in no way to blame for not having done so. After all, the Bill has been mightily contentious from the word go. There has been no certainty of it reaching the statute book this Session. If a local authority has felt no desire to embark on such an expensive business I see no reason for any blame being attached to it.
Assuming the Bill becomes law, it will reach the statute book early in November. That leaves approximately six weeks for the lands to be prepared, including the Christmas period. That is obviously an inadequate period. I recognise that this section of the Bill was debated earlier in the summer. No doubt it was the Minister's hope that it would reach the statute book very much earlier than is likely to be the case. I understand that the Minister may have felt 31st December was a reasonable date, but I am sure he now recognises that the Bill will not reach the statute book until well on in November. The date of 31st December has become quite unreasonable. I hope that the Minister will recognise that point and accept this meaningful amendment.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I am afraid that I can do nothing of the sort. The fact is that local authorities—and I have been in constant consultation with them, more so than any other Minister on any other Bill in history—have been well aware of the date throughout. I am not concerned with those in other political parties—and I know some—who have tried to persuade authorities of their own political persuasion that they should not implement the lands. If they did that, on their own heads be it.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of local authorities are prepared to do this. If they are not prepared to do this by 31st December my right hon. Friend is prepared to do it for them. My right hon. Friend has quite a lot of power in this matter. Not only can he step in; he can create organisations that can step in and he can even find other local authorities—there are plenty of good local authorities all over the country—who would be prepared to step in on this basis.
1093 I am sorry that it is early in the morning because I should like every local authority that is deliberately dragging its heels to listen to what I have to say. They know perfectly well, and have known for the past eight months or so, that this is exactly what the situation would be. I see no reason whatever to alter the date. I say to my hon. Friends that if Conservative Members want to challenge us in the Division Lobby let them do so.

§ Mr. Raison
By leave of the House. We have just heard a most disgraceful piece of blackmail from the Minister. If he had said that there is a power to give an extension I would have understood. That would have conceivably been a reasonable argument. He has not said that. He has resorted to vulgar blackmail and I think it is a disgrace.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 17, line 19, at beginning insert: 'Except if and so far as the Secretary of State, on the application of all the authorities in the area of the county authority, otherwise directs, a scheme under'. In Committee two points of view were expressed during the course of the debate on the land acquisition and management schemes. One was that the schemes should be enforceable as between the various authorities when they came to agree a scheme and the public generally, while the other point of view—held by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould)—was that they should be enforceable as between the authorities. At that time neither proposition was correct.
We have considered this matter carefully and gone as far as we can, because we want to see that the lands are preserved and not to create a legal enforce-ability in rem, that is in general terms against the public as a whole. Otherwise, where there was a disagreement of some sort any member of the public could prevent any scheme from going ahead by applying to the courts. We are proposing under this amendment, and the consequential amendment flowing from it, that where all the authorities in a particular area wish to make a land acquisition and management scheme enforceable this may be done after the Secretary of State has 1094 considered it. It gives my right hon. Friend a certain amount of ability to look at the situation and be flexible. It also means that if there is a general wish that this should be done it can be made into an enforceable agreement. I hope my hon Friends will be satisfied with this.

§ Mr. Graham Page
How is the Secretary of State to give this direction? This is rather an important matter. By this direction, he will bring into operation a legal status for something which the Bill says shall have no legal status. Presumably, after this it will be enforceable as between authorities and as between individuals and the authorities—

§ Mr. John Silkin
No.

§ Mr. Graham Page
At the moment, the clause says that the section shall not create any obligation enforceable in law. By the amendment, it goes on to say that the Secretary of State, by a direction, shall make it create an obligation enforceable by law. I presume that the obligation is between authorities and between authorities and individuals. The individuals concerned and the district can say, "You have not prepared the land. I shall take action against you because you have failed in your obligation to do so." Is that what is meant? If not, what is meant by saying that the Secretary of State can direct that this section shall create an obligation enforceable in law? This is an important direction. The public will want to know. Does the Secretary of State intend to do it merely by writing a letter to the county concerned or to the county and districts concerned? Are the directions to be put in no form such as a statutory instrument? This is a very casual way to create an obligation enforceable by law. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman considers saying in another place that these directions shall be done by statutory instrument.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I believe that it is enforceable by the Secretary of State in respect of the authorities concerned. I think that that is the position. But when the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) passionately and eloquently presents me with a legal dilemma, I always think it wise to look at it again, just in case. I am fairly certain that I am right, but I undertake to look at it again and, if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his 1095 assertions, no doubt another place will be able to remedy it.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I know that we are all very happy here at the moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.