POWERS OF ACQUISITION AND APPROPRIATION (Hansard, 13 October 1975)

§ Mr. Oakes
I beg to move Amendment No. 345, in page 16, line 15, leave out from 'compulsorily' to end of line 17 and insert—

'(a) any land adjoining that land which is required for the purpose of executing works for facilitating its development or use, or

(b) where that land forms part of a common or open space or fuel or field garden allotment, any land which is required for the purpose of being given in exchange therefor.

In the application of this subsection to Scotland the words "or fuel or field garden allotment" shall be omitted.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 92, in page 16, line 16, leave out 'in their opinion'.

§ Mr. Oakes
The amendment has two separate effects. Clause 18(2) empowers an authority to buy land which is not in itself suitable for development, but which is in its opinion required to facilitate the development of such land. The amendment would omit the words "in their opinion". If land proposed to be acquired compulsorily under Clause 18(1) formed part of a common or open space or fuel or field garden allotment the compulsory purchase order, if confirmed, would be subject to special parliamentary procedure, except in certain limited circumstances, unless suitable alternative land were provided in exchange.
The second part of the amendment introduces the power to acquire land to be exchanged for the special category land.
In Committee the Opposition moved an amendment to delete the words "in their opinion" and argued that they were unnecessary. I confess that I had considerable sympathy with the arguments they put forward and I agreed to consider the point, although I pointed out that the effect of the amendment would be to remove the judgment from an authority and give it not to the Secretary of State, as the Opposition suggested, but to the court.
Despite suggestions which have been made to the contrary, the power in Sec- 1050 tion 18(2) is very limited. It is to provide, for example, for access to a site over land adjacent to the primary site. In most, if not all, cases which one can foresee, once the basic issue whether the primary site is suitable for development has been settled, there should be no scope for dispute whether the land to be acquired under subsection (2) is or is not required for facilitating the development of the other land. In these circumstances, it is a matter not of opinion but of fact. Therefore, there would seem to be no real ground for resisting the deletion of the words "in their opinion". In other words, the Government have changed their mind and accept what the Opposition were saying in Committee.
It is hoped that the Opposition will now see fit to withdraw Amendment No. 92 which was originally put down as a Government amendment but has been overtaken by the more wide-ranging revision of subsection (2) in this amendment.

§ Mr. Rossi
It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Opposition that at least in one place we have been able to remove from the Bill the words "in their opinion" so far as they give an unfettered discretion to local authorities to do what they like.
One of the more dismal aspects of the Bill is that throughout subjective judgments are being made by local authorities instead of objective tests which can be tested elsewhere. Throughout the passage of the Bill, wherever this situation has arisen we have sought to delete those words, and there is a particular reason for doing so here. At the end of the day the authority of the Secretary of State is required for acquisition of this land in the terms contained in subsection (2). Therefore, ultimately it is the opinion not of the local authority but of the Secretary of State. That no doubt has persuaded the Government to accept our argument at least in this instance, although they would not accept it in other instances.
We also welcome the restriction that the acquisition of common land or open space can take place only where exchange land is being provided. That is a welcome addition to the Bill. In those circumstances, I should be happy not to move Amendment No. 92.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 16, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert— '(5) No compulsory order shall be made under this section:—

(a) before the land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the authority has been prepared and approved,

(b) before the first appointed day,

and no land shall be appropriated for the purpose of this Part of this Act before the first appointed day.' This amendment seeks to remove subsection (5) and to insert another subsection (5). The present subsection provides: No compulsory purchase order shall be made under this section before the first appointed day, and no land shall be appropriated for the purposes of this Part of this Act before that day. That is repeated in Amendment No. 95, but there is also added a prohibition of compulsory purchase, before the land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the authority has been prepared and approved. In Clause 19 there are provisions relating to the preparation of the land acquisition and management schemes. I understand that those schemes will give local authorities an overall picture of the land which they will be acquiring in their areas, which authorities will be acquiring it, whether county or district, and generally a full picture not only of the development of the land acquired by the purchase and the intention to farm it out for development, but the total expenditure. Until they have that picture of how the development will run in their areas and what it will cost, it seems premature to make compulsory purchases under Clause 18.
The amendment would say, "First prepare your LAMS"—as we have come to know the land acquisition and management schemes—" then wait for the first appointed day, and then set out on this compulsory purchase". It is not that I want any of the local authorities to do that but, assuming that Clause 18 is passed, we ought to hesitate to do it until they have an overall picture of the purchases and developments that they have to make in their areas.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I cannot help feeling that this amendment is based not just on one misapprehension but on two, because the acquisition power conferred on authorities by Clause 18 is a general and not a particular one. It is not related simply to land scheme purchases; that is, land purchases for private development. It is available for any purchase that an authority may wish to make of land suitable for development, except where the land is being acquired for exempt development. In other words, authorities will be able to acquire land under Clause 18 for what are their present statutory purposes—for their own purposes if one likes. But LAMS are primarily concerned with the operation of the land scheme, not with the operation of the land purchasing functions of authorities for their own use.
The amendment would limit the exercise of the general acquisition power by reference to a factor which relates only, when one thinks of it, to some acquisitions under that power. That is entirely wrong in principle, but we ought perhaps to analyse that acquisition point because there is no reason on earth why authorities should not exercise their powers for land scheme purposes in advance of a land acquisition and management scheme. A LAMS is only a "who does what" functional agreement about how a scheme should work in practice, not a necessary condition of its operation. In practice, of course, all LAMS will be prepared long before the first appointed day, but there is always the possibility, I suppose, of difficulty in some areas. But I doubt it. I think that they will come through very well. They seem to be doing so.
I hope that I have shown the right hon. Gentleman the two basic fallacies in his amendment: first, that we are talking under Clause 18 of all acquisition powers, whether or not for the present statutory functions; secondly, that LAMS as such are merely a delineation of which authorities are undertaking what and are not themselves part of the acquisition machinery.
In the light of that I hope that my hon. Friends will resist the amendment