§ Further considered on Report.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 17 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause—
§ Outstanding material interests
§ 3A.—(1) A material interest in land shall be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act unless—
- (a) it is owned by art authority, a local or new town authority, a parish or community council or, in Scotland, the council of a district within the area of a general planning authority, or
- (b) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974and ending with the relevant time, it has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), or
- (c)it is of a description specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.
§ (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a material interest in land shall be treated as owned by any person mentioned in that subsection at any time if at that time that person—
- (a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or
- (b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate,
1084 is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.
§ (3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—(Lord Melchett.)
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Shannon)My Lords, we also have a manuscript Amendment, No. 17A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
§
Lord SANDFORD moved as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert ("(b) it is owned by a charity or");
In line 16, leave out ("or had");
In line 19, leave out ("or was").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate I beg leave to move the manuscript Amendment. Perhaps I should start by explaining the purpose, which is that before we go on to consider the purport and content of the proposed Amendment we must make sure that it reflects the change in the Bill that we have effected by Amendment No. 31 to Clause 4. I beg to move the proposed manuscript Amendment to Amendment No. 17.
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESThere has been proposed a manuscript Amendment to Amendment No. 17, Amendment No. 17A.
Line 8, after ("1974") insert ("or any later date").
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I accept that this manuscript Amendment is consequential on Amendments made during the recommittal proceedings on clauses earlier this afternoon.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I wonder whether for the sake of good order we ought to get this straight. I think the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack has one version and I have another. I think the one I have is the one prepared after discussion with the Government's advisers and should be the right one, but I am quite happy to move the one that the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack has just suggested I move, if that is the best one. I think we ought to get it right.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, if I may by leave speak twice on this manuscript Amendment, I am in agreement 1085 with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that his version is better and it may be for the convenience of the Chairman if someone passed him a copy of Lord Sandford's version.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House generally if the Amendment which we are discussing could be read out in full.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I think that the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack is now in a position to do that.
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESMy Lords, I am now in a position to do so. The proposed Amendment to Amendment No. 17 reads:
Leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert ("(b) is owned by a charity or");In line 16, leave out ("or had");In line 19, leave out ("or was").
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, that is the Amendment that I think we should now accept. I beg to move.
§ Clause 4 [Expressions relating to land and planning law]:
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 en bloc. I spoke to all these Amendments with Amendment No. 1.
§ Amendments moved—
§
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
(" "charity" has the same meaning as in section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and as respects Scotland "charitable" shall be construed as if it were contained in that Act")
§
Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
(" "community council" means a community council in Wales")
§ leave out lines 30 and 31.
§
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
(" "enactment" includes an enactment in any local or private Act of Parliament, and an order, rule, regulation, byelaw or scheme made under an Act of Parliament")—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, we went over so many Amendments so rapidly at the beginning, that I did not ask all the 1086 questions I had it in mind to ask. I do not quite understand why the definition of "development land", which is what Amendment No. 20 relates to, has been removed. Is this going in the other clause or is this simply being taken now under Clause 17?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I think the answer to the question of the noble Baroness is that "development land" has been inserted in the Bill by my Amendment No. 4 to Clause 3; she will see that we have agreed to insert the definition of "development land" at that stage. The noble Baroness can rest assured, unless we have made some ghastly mistake, that there is no substance in these Amendments. They just re-order the Bill.
The Earl of BALFOURMy Lords, I should like to ask a question in connection with Amendment No. 19. I am not familiar with English legislation in this field, but there are community councils in England and Wales. I am a little curious to know why in this case only Wales is concerned. Is it possible to have an answer to that question?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, if I may by leave of the House speak three times on this series of drafting Amendments, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would allow me to answer that question at some later stage when I am moving one of the series of Amendments.
§ 8.9 p.m.
§ Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 22:
§
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("("excepted development" means the development to which section 3(1)(b) and (c) refers.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I beg to move this Amendment. It has in fac been spoken to already with Amendment No. 9 and I do not think it should be necessary to say very much, other than to bear out a point which my noble friend made earlier. So far as Clause 4 is concerned—that is, expressions relating to land and planning law—we believe that inclusion of a definition of the expression "excepted development" is needed. My noble friends have spoken to this Amendment already and I do not 1087 think it needs further amplification. I beg to move.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 9. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, withdrew No. 9 after a considerable debate. So I take it that this Amendment is being withdrawn as well, because it is consequential.
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, there has been a misunderstanding. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.10 p.m.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 en bloc. I spoke to all of these Amendments with Amendment No. 1. It may be convenient if I tell the noble Earl that I understand that in this context community councils occur only in Wales and that this is quite deliberate. That was the point he raised on Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
(" "functions" includes powers and duties").
§
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
(" "government department" includes any Minister of the Crown").
§
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
(" "land acquisition and management scheme" has the meaning given by section 16 of this Act").
§
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
(" "local authority" means—
and this Act shall apply to the Isles of Scilly as if the Council of those Isles were the council of a county").
§
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
(" "Minister" means any Minister of the Crown or other government department").
§
Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
(" "new town authority" means a development corporation as defined in section 2 of the New Towns Act 1965, or in section 2 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968").
§
Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
(" "parish council" includes a parish meeting and the parish trustees of a parish,
planning permission" means permission granted (or to be deemed or treated as granted) under Part III of the Act of 1971 or of the Scottish Act of 1972, and in construing references to planning permission to develop or to carry out development of land, or to applications for such permission, regard shall be had to section 32(2) of the Act of 1971 or section 29(2) of the Scottish Act of 1972 (permission to retain development),
prescribed", in relation to the form of any document, means prescribed by regulations under section 53 of this Act").
§ Page 5, line 36, leave out from beginnning to end of line 18 on page 6.—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
§ Page 6, line 28, leave out ("or for any other kind of development")
§ Page 6, line 30, leave out ("that kind of") and insert ("relevant")
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for not moving Amendment No. 32. I hope that means he is content with Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 which I should like to speak to now and which cover this point. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 clarify Clause 4(8). They have been put down as a result of the debate at col. 1470 during the Committee stage. The Amendments clarify the situation where there is a planning application or planning permission for development which includes both non-relevant and relevant development. In this kind of case, the application or permission is to be regarded as for relevant development. For example, if there was an application for planning permission for a development which included only some relevant development, the application would be subject to the procedure in Clause 20. I hope that these two Amendments make the situation clearer and meet the points which were raised in Committee. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
§ Lord MIDDLETONMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained, the Government have honoured the undertaking that was given in Committee to look again at the wording of Clause 4(8)—in the amended Bill it is now Clause 4(7)—and, as the noble Lord has explained, have produced the 1089 new wording in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. I am not wholly convinced that that which I offered in Committee is not better, but one thing is certain: that any change to the original wording must be for the better, provided that it can be understood by those who will have to interpret this subsection. The new wording is now intelligible—just!
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 35 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("(10) References in this Act to any enactment shall, except where the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended or extended by or under any other enactment, including this Act.")—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 36:
§ Leave out Clause 4.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36. Four undertakings were given on this clause and we have dealt with three of them. The last one relates to an exchange that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when I asked him what exactly was in mind when provision was made in the Bill for—
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but if he is going to refer to the exchanges in Committee, could he give me the reference so that I may keep an eye on things?
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I apologise. I have exchanged a note with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but we are moving fairly fast, so I can well understand that we may have missed it. I will not press the noble Lord if he is unable to answer this question off-the-cuff, but if he can I shall be grateful. At the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord for what purpose Clause 4(3)(c) had been provided and he said that it would cover bodies like the Welsh Land Authority but that he might be able to go further. I am wondering whether he may care to take this opportunity to go further. If he could, perhaps he would deal also with a similar question which was asked 1090 by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, when we were discussing Clause 5. The reference is col. 1479 of Hansard. These are not very important matters, but if the information is forthcoming it would be helpful to have it on the record.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I shall be happy to give noble Lords further examples. I am advised that the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies are two more examples, and also housing associations and new town commissions. I do not pretend for one moment that I am giving an exhaustive list to the noble Lord but I hope that those further examples are of some help.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, they are indeed. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 37 when I dealt with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 4 to after Clause 5.—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Clause 5 [Statutory undertakers]:
§
Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 38:
Leave out Clause 5.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38. Three undertakings were given on this clause and we have just dealt with the first. We do not wish to pursue the second undertaking. The third led to a quite important letter from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. It may well be that they may care to have something on record in the Official Report relating to this matter. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could advise the House of a letter which I found very helpful. The query which was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill related to the question of the surplus land that statutory authorities hold. The point that was made in Committee was whether 1091 the Government have any record of the surplus land that statutory authorities hold, what will be the future relationship that they will have with the authorities and whether they will be required by the Bill to dispose of any surplus land which they do not want. One of the points which was raised time and time again by many Members of this House was that it is known that statutory authorities are very loth to part with land for reasons which one can understand; they never know whether in years to come the land may prove to be useful. One sees that under the management scheme of this Bill the authorities themselves are subject to a five-year rolling programme. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether the statutory authorities would also be subject to a five-year rolling programme which they would have to report to the local authorities and which could be discussed by those who were interested in it.
I have two points to make. First, as regards statutory authorities, the public should be made aware of who owns what. May I cite to the noble Lord a case within my personal knowledge of a certain water company which, as a result of the reorganisation of the water authorities, now looks after sewage. This company now farms over 4,000 acres. It farms this enormous amount of land because it says—possibly rightly—that it has to have the land in order to spread the sewage, if it needs to do so. Here is a case where it could be argued that none of the ratepayers in this area knows that this water company owns this enormous amount of land, and I think that under this Bill there should be a relationship between the authorities concerned with the land and the statutory authorities. I hope the noble Lord will be able to advise us later as to this.
Another point I should like to raise with the noble Lord is on the correct definition of, "operational land". I think there has been some trouble in the past as to what is operational land with statutory authority, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to shed some light on that.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I confess I am somewhat mystified by this 1092 procedure. I am not clear whether it is the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that I should read out in totothe letter that I sent to the noble Earl with copies for him to circulate to his noble friends, and it might be helpful if I had some guidance on that before I embark on a rather lengthy reading.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to expand a little on what I said at the beginning of the proceedings. Because of the pressure that has been put on us by the Government, we are in the position of not having time to consult people outside and although the procedure of the Ministers writing to us about undertakings is the best and the most normal way of proceeding, it hardly meets the case at the moment. We have to prepare for the next stage next Monday and there certainly is not time to exchange correspondence. Some of the points made in these letters are made by way of reassurance to those of us in this House and can be left at that, but in some cases they are points for consideration either by my noble friends who have asked the question or by Ministers who are responding, and it might be worth having at least some part of this correspondence on the Record. If the noble Lord feels that what he has put in his letter is important but that it would be tedious to read it all out, there is the device of including it in the Official Report. I do not think that applies in this case. There is the alternative of just acknowledging the fact that there has been correspondence and leaving it at that, and then people reading our Report know that there is a letter which can be looked at if they want to pursue the matter.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification and I take it that in this instance I shall not have to read the letter out from start to finish, because it is a long letter on a technical point which, although relevant to the Bill, does not arise directly from the provisions of the Bill which we are now discussing.
The noble Earl asked me about five-year rolling programmes. He will know that there is no provision in the Bill to make statutory undertakers submit five-year rolling programmes. I confess that 1093 I do not see any justification for statutory undertakers submitting five-year rolling programmes any more than private industry or property companies or many other people who own large amounts of land. The answer to the noble Earl is that there is no provision in the Bill to that effect.
The noble Earl also asked me about the definition of "operational land", and I take the point that there is some difficulty. He will know, as I said in my letter —and this might be a convenient paragraph to read out—that there has been difficulty sometimes in establishing whether or not land is surplus, and this is illustrated by the fact that there have been long-standing provisions in Statutes simply to resolve this question in doubtful or disputed cases. One of these is repeated in Clause 5(5) of the Bill, where there is a provision for the Minister responsible for nationalised industries to determine the question.
There is another which can operate in compulsory purchase cases, as in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Authorisation Procedure Act 1946. The definition of "operational land" is the same as in Section 222 of the 1971 Act. It has somewhat less relevance in the context of the acquisition of surplus land because of the abolition of special Parliamentary procedure. That was something which I mentioned in my letter to the noble Earl, but it was also dealt with at considerable length at the Committee stage and I do not think it would be helpful to go over that ground again.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I asked the noble Lord one other question which I think is relevant to this letter; that is, what is the future relationship between the Government and statutory authorities, and indeed whether the Government have records at the moment of the land being held by such authorities?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, as I said in my letter, the answer to that is that the Department do not in fact collect this information because their responsibilities do not call for it.
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, before we leave this point, I should like to express my thanks for receiving a copy of the letter sent by the noble Lord to my noble 1094 friend Lord Kinnoull. There is one point I should like to raise. The noble Lord mentioned in his letter that he did not feel that periodic reports on the amounts of surplus land would be helpful. I think the Survey of Derelict and Despoiled Land in England, 1974—there were two volumes published—was a helpful one, and I should not like the noble Lord to leave this point with no appreciation of this survey. We attach great importance to it.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 6 [Other interpretation]:
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Clause 7 [The appointed days etc.]:
§ 8.28 p.m.
§ Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 40:
§
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
("(1A) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than the first date when a draft of regulations under section 3 of this Act excepting one or more classes of development from relevant development has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to preclude the first appointed day when the transitional arrangements of the scheme come into force from being appointed before a draft of the relevant development regulations, which will be made under Clause 3, has been approved by Parliament. This Amendment is, in effect, a redrafting of a similar Amendment (No. 31) tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and as we made clear at that time the Government accept the validity of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The reference is Hansard, 22nd October 1975; columns 1496 to 1499. We have now tabled our own Amendment to deal with the matter. We have always accepted the necessity for the relevant development regulations to be available publicly before the first appointed day and would, 1095 in any case, have ensured that this was done, although we did not regard it as essential that such provisions should be written into the Bill. However, the Government took note of the concern expressed by the Opposition, and on consideration we are now prepared to give statutory force to those intentions. I beg to move.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I am most grateful for another step along the road of repentance.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, I should like to ask one question on this issue, but first I wish to congratulate my noble friend on persuading the Government to move this Amendment. I should like to come back to the subject of the first appointed day. I do not know whether an announcement has been made as to the date of the first appointed day, or indeed the date of the regulations, but already this afternoon we have seen that the regulations are a matter of extreme importance. They represent a large chunk of the Bill and affect many people. I believe I am right in saying that no date has yet been given. I hope to draw the noble Baroness by asking her when these regulations are to be published. When is the first appointed day? We want to know this so that all persons affected by the Bill will be able to take the course of action that they wish to take. I would remind the noble Baroness that aspects of this Bill and various dates connected with it are very important for those outside this House who are concerned with land. I am thinking, in particular, of those who have to try to advise clients and, indeed, of the clients themselves who are worried by so many of the matters in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness can say when the first appointed day will be known.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I do not see this Amendment as a step on the way to repentance. I think the noble Lord should graciously accept it as an acceptance of something which he put forward. As regards the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I would refer again to what I said at column 1499 of Hansard, to which I 1096 have already referred, when I gave an assurance which I repeat today, that the first appointed day would not be before 1st April 1976. It is hoped that the regulations can be made available in draft for consultation before the end of the year, but we have promised consultation. It is not just a case of sitting down and writing out the regulations. Consultation must take place with other bodies before the regulations will be ready. We have already passed an Amendment which lays down that the regulations will be drafted before the first appointed day. Although we still consider it unnecessary to write the date into the legislation, I can give a firm assurance for the Record that the first appointed day will not be before 1st April 1976. It was along those lines that I wrote a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, I speak with the leave of the House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for what she has said, but I must stress that this is a very important point. The noble Baroness said that regulations are to be a matter for consultation. Can I take it from her that under Appendix A these will be the minimum regulations and that there will be no question of taking out some of them, but of simply adding to them after consultation?
§ Baroness BIRKYes, my Lords. These are the regulations, which are not spelled out in the Bill, about which we had a debate earlier this evening and also in Committee. These will be in more detail—and there is a blanket cover in the Bill—and will then be discussed. It was for that reason that we discussed this subject in Committee. I myself made the point that in order for there to be flexibility and a width of possibility in drafting the regulations, consultation is necessary. The latest date I have is that they will be available for consultation before the end of the year, and we have already given an undertaking within the Bill—this Amendment has now been passed—that the regulations will be drafted before the first appointed day. I am now giving the House an assurance that the first appointed day will not be before1st April 1976.
§ 8.34 p.m.
§ The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 41:
§
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than 1st April 1976").
§
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am still going to move this Amendment briefly. May I at the same time take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her letter to me on this Amendment. In her letter, the noble Baroness stated:
I am prepared to give a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State will not bring in the first appointed day before 1st April next, but I really do not feel it is either necessary or desirable to write this into the Bill.
I am quite prepared to accept that, but may I ask the noble Baroness to make certain that the local authorities, or any authorities functioning under this Bill, are aware of that fact so as to let developers know that in the case of, I think, Clause 19 they must have planning permission in before that date to take advantage of a development which would come outside the provisions of this Bill. This is something that needs the maximum amount of publicity. Once again, I am grateful that this sort of thing will be recorded in Hansard. I have raised the point with no desire to waste your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I am grateful for the brevity and tolerance with which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, moved his Amendment. I can assure him that this matter will receive the maximum amount of publicity. In fact, the date and the assurance have now been written about and given so frequently that I am certain that this will get around. By all the administrative means at its disposal, the Department of the Environment will certainly make it quite clear to the local authorities, who will be quite cognisant of this.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, can the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, say why it should not be written into the Bill? One must remember that the first appointed day brings in the new acquisition powers under Clause 17, and this is a major step in this Bill. I do not see why this first appointed day should not be written into the Bill, unless it is 1098 to be changed. Although the noble Baroness says that it is now widely known, I have not seen it. I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who received that letter knew about it beforehand. I doubt whether any of my noble friends knew it. It is an important point. Can the noble Baroness say whether it has also been announced in another place?
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, it will be helpful if at this stage I may speak again by leave of the House, because it will both expedite matters and put them in a better pattern. However, I hesitated before getting up, because we do not want to keep bobbing up more often than we need on our Front Bench. I do not understand why the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, says that this is the first he has heard of it, because I remember him sitting faithfully through the whole of the Committee stage, when I gave an undertaking—quite apart from the letter I sent to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour —at column 1499 of Hansard for 22nd October 1975, that the first appointed day would not be before 1st April 1976.
One of the difficulties about writing it into the Bill is that onceit becomes a Statute it goes on and lays down everything for the Act. To write in something which, in a way, is almost a transitory thing by the time 1st April comes—we are not giving a date, but are saying, "Not before 1st April 1976"—does not fit in with the drafting of a piece of legislation of this kind. In any case, the wording of the Amendment of the noble Earl is defective. But there is nothing sinister about it. We are saying, "Not before 1st April". I should have thought the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would have been pleased, because once one starts to write in something rigidity is apt to set in. He at least knows the earliest date about which he was concerned; unless he was anxious that the first appointed day should be earlier than that, though I do not think that that was his intention.
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for making that statement, and for making it so clearly at this stage. I am sure that the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, who has been so assiduous in watching this point, was following the debate when this point was raised before. 1099 But it has been a long and concentrated procedure, and if one's attention wanders occasionally, it is not because we are not listening to what the Government are saying. It is just that human frailty sometimes overtakes one at the end of a long day's proceedings. I do hope I have not missed the point. I wondered whether the noble Baroness could go further and say when the Government expect to be able to announce when the first appointed day will be.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I do not think I can at this moment go any further, but if during the proceedings in this House I have any further information I shall not hesitate to make an announcement in the House.
The Earl of BALFOURMy Lords, I am very grateful for this discussion, and I am sure it will be of tremendous value to the local authorities, in fact to every authority, and, for that matter, every developer. I sincerely hope that it will be as late a date as possible, and the fact that it is put off until not before the 1st April is very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 2 [Commencement dates, etc.]:
§
Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 52, line 4, after first ("Act") insert ("in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves as to").
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendment No. 41 and speak to Nos. 43, 45 and 46. These Amendments are all designed to give greater publicity to the relevant date orders which bring in the full duty or prohibition provisions of Clauses 18 and 21. Amendments Nos. 43 and 46 strengthen the provision governing the registers of such orders which the Secretary of State must keep by requiring them to be available at all reasonable hours, and to be kept in such a way as to enable the public to inform themselves of the details of the orders. Amendment No. 45 inserts a new provision requiring each of the authorities affected by an order to publish a notice of its effect in the Press and also to keep a copy of the order available for free 1100 public inspection at their main office at all reasonable hours. Amendment No. 42 is simply a drafting Amendment which puts the provisions affecting the Secretary of State and authorities respectively into separate paragraphs.
§ When Schedule 2 was debated in Committee the Opposition put down a number of Amendments which sought to ensure greater public knowledge of the making of relevant date orders. My noble friend Lord Melchett accepted the need to ensure this maximum publicity for such orders and for the public to have easy access to them. He undertook to reconsider the provisions, which, as your Lordships see, we have done. First, we have taken up the Amendment No. 33 moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which imports from the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the requirement that the register which the Secretary of State is required to keep is kept "in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves" as to the details of the orders. To this we have added the requirement that the register must be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal offices of the Secretaries of State. Secondly, we have met the points made by the noble Baroness. Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about local publicity, by requiring authorities to publish notices about the orders in local newspapers and to make copies available free for public inspection at their principal offices. These requirements, in addition to those already provided in the Bill, and the administrative arrangements which will be made for registers to be kept in the Department's regional offices, should provide all that is necessary to ensure that members of the public have all the information they need. I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOURMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for these Amendments. I am sure they are absolutely necessary. In particular, I am very pleased at Amendment No. 46, paragraph 2(b) of which says that the authorities:
…shall deposit a copy of the order at their principal office and shall keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment.I wonder whether I could take this opportunity, without wishing to delay the House 1101 at all, to ask the noble Baroness if she and her colleagues would investigate a complication that has cropped up from time to time. Somebody may wish to take an extract from these orders, and even though it is for his own use I understand that, strictly speaking, he may be contravening copyright regulations.This is a complicated matter, and I am not necessarily asking for an answer at this moment. If it could be made possible for people to take copies of extracts for their own use, I am sure that is something that would be very much appreciated by a great many people. I have struck this complication in taking extracts from Ordnance Survey maps when applying for planning permission; I have been faced with the fact that I am supposed to buy a copy of the map or whatever it might be, which is extremely expensive and very often far more than I actually need when it is to be used purely and simply for the purpose of obtaining planning permission. If somebody does take extracts I hope they will not be faced with this complication of contravening copyright regulations.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, my noble friend has raised a very interesting point. In my experience, when copying a plan one stamps the plan with a duty stamp. I very much welcome these Amendments, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the undertaking that he has given. I should like to ask about one point. Paragraph 2(a) of Amendment No. 46 reads:
shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality, of which one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper, —".When putting in this form of wording I think it is quite common to say that such notice shall be for two or three consecutive weeks. It is very helpful when advertising on a matter of this importance if it is not put in for just one insertion, because it may well be that this is a holiday period and the advertisement does not receive wide readership. I hope the noble Baroness will consider that point. Secondly, the sub-paragraph says "if practicable, …a local newspaper". I do not know what this implies, whether one looks at the circulation of local papers. I would hope that "local newspaper" would come at the beginning 1102 rather than putting it at the end; in other words,shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more local newspapers".
§ Baroness BIRKWith regard to the noble Earl's point about the extract, I am very sympathetic to the point and would like to check further this question of copyright. I can tell the noble Earl that people can certainly buy a copy at the Stationery Office, but that is a slightly different point.
So far as the newspapers are concerned, we have to say "where practicable" because there are not always local newspapers, and with the state of the industry at the moment, one does not know whether there will be local newspapers in the future. I think that the noble Earl will agree that we are quite right to emphasise the need for it to be in a local newspaper, or indeed perhaps more than one depending on the district and the number of papers. This can only happen if there is a paper circulating in the area, and also, I imagine, if it is considered that it has the sort of circulation which will make it worth while and will reach a sufficient number of readers.
As to how often this ought to be done, I imagine that would need to be considered as a question both of cost and of how many people one could reach, and on the particular practical problems. Notice will be taken of this because the whole object of these Amendments—and the object behind them will be made clear—is that the public should know and should have access, so that we shall adopt any way by which this can be promoted. There is no need to write into the Bill anything more about how many times. If in fact one did that and said "twice", one might find that those in some areas would be happy and would have done some deal with the local paper to insert an advertisement for, say, three or even four issues. Therefore, it is right to leave it in this way so that arrangements can be made. I have carefully noted all of these points, and the point about copyright I shall certainly look into.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, with the leave of the House—and this is an Amendment we have not discussed before—may I say that under planning legislation I think words are to be found to the effect that the planning application 1103 should not be published in less than two issues of the local Press. I have not got the wording right, but they put in a minimum figure rather than no figure at all.
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, before we conclude the discussion on this Amendment, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness because the point I raised in Committee on her Amendment No. 46 is met. I should like to say how grateful we are for this, and also for the assurances she has given to my noble friend Lord Kinnoullabout looking at this other point. I am sure I have seen written somewhere words as to the minimum number of issues in which a notice should be published. If the noble Baroness will look at that, we shall be grateful.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I shall certainly look at that. I cannot help feeling that there is probably some good reason behind it. It was probably thought that the way it is now worded is an improvement. However, I shall look into it and be in touch with the noble Earl and the noble Baroness.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 7, leave out ("2.—(1)") and insert ("(1A)").—(Baroness Birk.)
§ 8.55 p.m.
§
Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 52, line 10, at end insert ("and registers covering the whole region or metropolitan county, as the case may be, shall be kept at some convenient and central office in Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first like to add my thanks to the Government for the arrangements they have made for the publication and advertisement of these important orders. What has been achieved by their Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 goes a long way to meet the points we were concerned about. May I revert to my particular concern, which is for the big cities. There will be developers, builders, others concerned with land and development in the 1104 big cities whose needs we need to consider. May I cite the example of Liverpool. Liverpool is a large metropolitan county area where there does not happen to be a regional office of the Department of the Environment, so people in Liverpool will not be able to find in the DOE regional office what the citizens of Manchester can find, or what the citizens of Leeds can find; nor will the citizens of Sheffield, because there is not a regional office there.
§ I want to ask for a reassurance that the point will be met, because the requirement contained in Amendment No. 46 only requires each authority to publicise and put on display at their principal office the order which applies to them, so that the Metropolitan County of Merseyside, strictly speaking, will be required by the Bill only to put out a copy of the order that refers to them. My feeling is that the metropolitan counties will probably not be exercising very many powers or duties under this Bill. The major part of them will be undertaken by the metropolitan districts; and there is no obligation on the metropolitan county to publish orders applying to the metropolitan districts in their area. Anybody who is just working within a single metropolitan district is covered; he can find all the information required. But almost certainly there are builders and developers and others working across the whole of the Merseyside metropolitan county whose needs will not, strictly speaking, be met unless my Amendment No. 44 is provided for in some way or another.
§ I do not think that it is necessary to move this into the Bill because it is rather a technical and administrative point, but it would be reassuring to know that the needs of people doing building and development work across the whole of the big metropolitan counties, and in Glasgow, the regional authority in Scotland, will have their needs met by comprehensive registers covering the whole of each of those respective areas. I do not want to press this Amendment, but it would be nice if the noble Baroness could give us some reassurance on this point.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, this is of course a similar Amendment to the one the noble Lord put down on Committee. As was explained then, the purpose of the 1105 central register provision is simply to provide a central reference point which will give an overall view of the progress of the scheme over the country. I think he will probably agree that in this case it is mainly for those engaged in development on a national scale. Therefore, this sort of register really only acts as an index. What developers and their professional advisers will need and want to see are the statutory instruments making the individual orders.
We took note of the noble Lord's point, and because it is very much more in the nature of an index we do not accept the need for the regional registers which the noble Lord's Amendment would provide. By bringing forward our own Amendments which, among other things, provide that all authorities shall keep copies of the orders affecting their areas available for free inspection at their offices, we have covered somewhat the same point. In addition, the Government Amendments would require authorities to give publicity to all such orders. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord's concern, for instance, about metropolitan counties, would be amply met by the fact that the metropolitan county council will have to conform with these requirements. I think he will agree that it would be better for local authorities to do it than to set up another set of regional organisations, or to put around another set of regional summaries. When he looks at our Amendments I think he will see that his points are covered as fully as he can possibly expect.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, if the noble Baroness would do the same and look at my Amendment, which is different from the Amendment I moved at Committee, in the respect that it is now asking for the metropolitan counties to carry the registers rather than the DOE regional offices, I shall certainly look at her Amendments and see whether they meet my point. I am still left with the feeling that there will not be a single central place in each of the metropolitan counties and the Scottish region of Glasgow, unless something like my Amendment is accepted. I am quite content to leave it for the noble Baroness to see that it is done by some administrative means. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1106§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45, to which I have already spoken.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 11, at end insert ("all")—(Baroness Birk.)
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46, to which I have already spoken.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 52, line 12, at end insert—
2. As soon as practicable after the making of an order under section 18 of this Act, each of the authorities whose areas include land to which the order applies—
§ Clause 8 [The Authority]:
§ 9.1 p.m.
§
Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 47:
Leave out Clause 8.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an opportunity to say something more about the undertaking which he gave to my noble friend Lord Aberdare about laying before Parliament directions to the Land Authority for Wales.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the Government gave consideration to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in relation to his Amendment at an earlier stage imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to lay copies of directions given to the Land Authority for Wales before both Houses of Parliament. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, butas he received the letter only today, it is not surprising, in the hurly burly of the legislation we are considering, that that news, which will not be regarded by the Opposition Front Bench as good news, has not seeped through to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
1107 The matter was debated in Committee and I then put forward a number of difficulties in the way of what was proposed. I called in aid the fact that there were respectable precedents for not at once laying copies of directions before Parliament, in the Maplin Development Act 1973 and the Water Act 1973. It was also the case, as I submitted, that it was normal for copies of directions involving national security—there will not be many of those, I agree, but there will be a few—not to be notified to Parliament even in annual reports, though his then Amendment did not provide for this, and that otherwise the Land Authority was already required in the Bill to include directions in its annual reports which would, of course, be laid before Parliament. It is also the case that meetings of the Land Authority will be open to the Press and public so that information about directions which will be ventilated and discussed at those meetings, would become public knowledge as a result of that. I also indicated that the duty would place an additional burden on the Land Authority and, indeed, on Parliament itself, which would outweigh any benefits likely to arise.
The issue has been reconsidered since then, but I am afraid that we have come to the conclusion that the objections that we made earlier and the difficulties that we then indicated remain. In the case of directions given to the Land Authority under Clause 8(3), it is true that the burden of work involved in that would not in itself be likely to be heavy, but the difficulty is that if the principle were accepted, it could be argued that directions given to the Land Authority under other powers in the Bill and directions given under the Bill to local authorities in England and Scotland should similarly be laid, and then we should be faced with a very significant burden.
As I said, the precedents point the other way, in spite of the apparent departures in the Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Industry Bill, which were treated as exceptions to the general rule for very special reasons in that they involve the expenditure of public funds supporting private industrial undertakings or in undertaking new enterprises. The 28-day period allowed for laying copies of directions in those cases was directly 1108 related to issues of commercial confidentiality arising from new operations of that kind, and the further point should be made that meetings of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish Development Agency, unlike meetings of the Land Authority for Wales, are not required to be open to the Press and public. For all the reasons I have given, we still take the view that an Amendment on this point would be unacceptable; that the present arrangements provide sufficiently for these directions to become publicly known at a reasonable point of time and that the Bill should stand as it is.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The object in moving this Amendment, as I said at the outset, is not solely to inform myself about these matters but to get some of these things on the Record. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:
§ 9.6 p.m.
§ Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 48:
§
Page 12, leave out lines 4 to 24 and insert—
(2) Sections 154 to 166 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the Authority as if it was a local authority within the meaning of that Act.
§ The noble Baroness said: This and the subsequent Amendment, No. 49, deal with the same point but put two alternatives to the Government. On reflection, after the Committee stage, my noble friends and I felt that the position of individuals in Wales had not in any way been helped by the establishment of a Land Authority. Not only is it a non-electedbody—although I understand there will be four local authority members on it—it cannot in any sense be described as a democratic body. However, the fact is that the powers of local authorities in regard to planning have been taken away, and with those powers and rights of individuals has been taken away their right to question the accounts at a district audit.
§ In effect, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who replied to my noble friend Lord Colville at the Committee stage, gave three reasons why the Government had decided that it would be all right to do away with these rights for individuals. 1109 However, on reading over the account, I did not find any of those reasons very satisfactory. The first reason, so far as I could see, was that the Government will be keeping an eye on the Land Authority, so that there is no need for the individual to do so. Although I have faith in all Governments, even Socialist ones, and believe that they will act meticulously in these matters, I do not really feel that it is good enough in legislation to say that just because the Government are watching there is no need for anybody else to worry. It is always a system of checks and balances, and in this case it is equally arguable that the individual should have a say.
§ The second reason given was that local authorities are elected bodies and that it is therefore right that the public should have the chance to check up on the accounts at a district audit and to ask questions and make complaints if they wish to do so, whereas, as the Land Authority are an appointed body, the same need will not arise. That again assumes the argument that because the Land Authority are a Government organisation no individual need object at all. Finally, we are told that the whole process will be subject to scrutiny by the Government's own auditors and that therefore nobody need worry at all, but that if they did need to worry they could write to their Member of Parliament. I am still not satisfied that this is giving equal rights to people inWales, and as compared with England certainly not in this limbo before devolution—if devolution takes place. It seems to me that very real rights which will be enjoyed by people in England and Scotland have been taken away from people in Wales, and I feel that this is a matter which ought, in their interest, to be aired once again.
§ I do not feel that it is good enough to say that any question about the accounts can be raised either through a Member of Parliament or with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is hardly likely to devote much Parliamentary time to debating an audit in part of the Land Authority's accounts. Finally, I feel that it is a very long way round to appeal to the local Commissioner, though I agree that that is the ultimate long stop. I am not a person who feels that we should take all matters to a local Commissioner. I 1110 believe that there are other and far more straightforward ways. I should like to know more of the Government's justification for taking away these rights from the Welsh people. I beg to move.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I do not believe that it is a question of taking away rights. The position in Wales is different from that which will obtain in the rest of the country when the Bill becomes an Act because there is a Land Authority in Wales while there is no Land Authority in England or Scotland. So I cannot accept that any rights are being taken away by the Bill. There is one other point which I should like to make in beginning my reply to the noble Baroness. It is that I feel that she may inadvertently have said that the planning powers of Welsh local authorities were being taken away. Of course, the planning powers of Welsh local authorities will not be affected by the setting up of the Land Authority. Ifelt that the record should be put straight on that point.
It is true that the provisions in the Bill do not give the public at large the rights in relation to the Land Authority which they have in relation to transactions by local authorities. However, the Land Authority are a different organisation from a local authority. The provisions dealing with its accounts and audit are similar to those adopted for nationalised industries, Statutory undertakings and many other appointed bodies carrying out public functions, such as new town development corporations and the Civil Aviation Authority. Local authorities carry out a wide range of functions which are financed in many different ways including rates, Government grants, loans from private and Government sources, profits, rents and so on. The activities of the Land Authority, on the other hand, will be considerably more circumscribed (though the activities of local authorities will include those of the Land Authority). Its sources of finance will be more restricted. They will not include rates, so the Welsh public will not be concerned as ratepayers in the Land Authority's activities.
The Authority's activities will, moreover, be under strict control by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. Their annual reports and accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's 1111 reports on their accounts have to be laid before Parliament, which is not so in the case of local authorities. The Secretary of State has to keep an account of his loans to the Land Authority and Parliament sees these and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on them. Once again this is not so in the case of local authorities. In short, the arrangements set out in the Local Government Act 1972 are designed to cover a wide range of local authority activities, partly financed from ratepayers, and most of which have little or no relevance to activities under the community land scheme. It is convenient in England to apply the provisions en bloc to the community land scheme; that is because the authorities which will be operating the scheme in England and Scotland will, on the whole, be local authorities.
It does not follow, however, that the whole range of powers and provisions of the Local Government Act will provide the best method of dealing with the Land Authority. That is why I took some exception to the noble Baroness saying that rights were being taken away. The Bill confers rights on individuals in England and Scotland—and this is a point I made at the Committee stage—because the authorities operating the scheme in England will on the whole, be local authorities and Wales, where there is a Land Authority, is not in the same position.
The Welsh public who are concerned with particular transactions of the Land Authority will be protected. They will have the same rights as in England, for example, to object to compulsory purchase orders on their land. They will have the same rights to go to the Lands Tribunal on questions of compensation. They will also have the right to complain to the Secretary of State about the actions of the Land Authority, either directly, or through their Member of Parliament; and the Secretary of State has power to give the Land Authority general or limited directions.
Should anyone allege maladministration, as the noble Baroness said, he would be able to bring the matter to the attention of the Commissioner for Local Administration through any member of the Land Authority, in the same way as a complaint against a local authority can 1112 be brought through a councillor. In the event of criminal activity by a member or official of the Land Authority, legal proceedings could be taken under appropriate legislation, and there is nothing in the Bill to protect individuals from the penalties prescribed by law.
If there is any loss of rights in Wales it is, in effect, in relation to rights as ratepayers. Since, however, the finances of the community land scheme in England are separated completely from the finances of other local authority activities, and in Wales the Land Authority is also separately financed—so that in neither country will there be any call on the rates—we do not consider that in practice the public at large will be deprived of any significant rights. Since the interests of the Welsh public will be additionally safeguarded by the special role of the Secretary of State and of Parliament, I do not feel that either of the two Amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken—Nos. 48 and 49—are necessary. I hope that the reasons which I have set out at some length will assist the noble Baroness in feeling that she can withdraw the two Amendments.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke, I thought rather smugly, of the Land Authority being a different organisation from local authorities. Of course it is; that is perfectly true. But he omitted to refer to the great dissatisfaction in the country at the remote ways of behaviour frequently followed by the nationalised industries and the appointed bodies, of which we have an ever increasing number in this country. I should have thought that where we have had experience—not least in relation to the Northern Economic Planning Council—we ought to have some regard to this, especially in financial matters. Surely, after having heard—certainly in the days of the last Labour Government, if not this one—a good deal about participation in planning, and about bringing people ever closer to the authorities which have to make the decisions, the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord is most extraordinary.
If the noble Lord had ever been a Member of another place he would have appreciated the difficulties with which Members struggled week after week, 1113 month after month, trying to get, not necessarily satisfaction for their constituents, but at least an explanation. But, apparently, those things mean little to him. I hope that at least the noble Baroness who moved the Amendment will not be taken in by the noble Lord's reply.
§ Baroness HORNSBY-SMITHMy Lords, I find great difficulty in reconciling the case put up by the noble Lord with what has been said about the Government considering seriously in what form they will provide for greater devolution in Wales. Here, at the same time, they are treating Wales quite differently. The noble Lord referred to the Land Authority and said that local authorities would have certain rights. But this nationalised body is very different from a local authority where there is a majority Party, one or two Opposition Parties and debates on issues in the council chamber, as well as a public gallery, and the local Press faithfully reporting the decisions of the local authority.
It is taking away so much which is provided for the local authorities in England and Scotland, that it seems to me quite incredible that Wales should be treated so differently, and it will have an even greater reason for saying how desperately remote is the Authority which will control the development land acquired under this Bill.
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not expect me to say that I am very happy with his reply, although I accept that he has given a very full one. I am bound to disagree with my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, in that I think the analogy with the nationalised industries was not the happiest of analogies to draw. Although it is not strictly a nationalised industry, I think there are plenty of people who would like to be able to question, for example, the accounts of the Post Office in considerable detail, considering what we have all had to put up with by way of increased postage. But that is another issue.
I am very glad that at the end of his argument the noble Lord accepted that individuals in England and Scotland will be able to exercise the right to question the accounts, and recognised that individuals in Wales will not have a similar 1114 advantage. This is an issue which deserved to be aired. This is a right which, in the course of time, when they see how the Land Authority is working, people will come to regret they have not got; and it is particularly unfortunate now, when so many constitutional arrangements are being discussed, that something which had formerly existed is to be taken away from the Welsh. I do not intend to press this Amendment this evening, but at least it is something to have it on the Record so that when we come to monitor the effects of the Bill we shall know how individuals have been affected by it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 9.22 p.m.
§ Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49:
§
Page 12, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 159 and 165 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the accounts of the Authority as if
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this concerns a very similar point but it is not a similar Amendment, and I should like to speak briefly to it. Again, it is obviously in the interest of the individual in Wales. As the powers under this Bill are to be exercised by a Land Authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, and therefore individuals cannot go to a district audit if they wish to question the accounts, I have suggested in this Amendment applying Sections 159 and 165 of the Local Government Act to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Section 159 says, in effect, that a person may inspect the accounts and make copies of them, that he may question the accounts and object to them, and, furthermore, that he may make representations to the Secretary of State asking for an extraordinary audit under Section 165, if he thinks that to be necessary. This is, in effect, taking a part of the Local Government Act and applying it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it seems to my noble friends and myself that this would be a way in which individuals in Wales could be put in the same position as individuals in England and Scotland. I beg to move.
1115§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. This seems to answer the point that arose on the last Amendment, which did not seem to be wholly satisfactorily answered by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I should like to ask the noble Lord—because in the discussion on the last Amendment he seemed not to accept this—this question. Does he accept that the individual in Wales will not have the same right as the individual in Scotland or in England, as regards questioning the accounts of the authorities under this Bill and, in particular, the Welsh Land Authority? It seems that if this is correct my noble friend's Amendment will be the only recourse that an individual in Wales will have, and for that reason I very much hope that it will be accepted.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I had thought that I had dealt with this point when replying to the previous Amendment, because the arguments are, by and large, exactly the same. The answer to the point which the noble Earl asked me is that of course the rights of individuals in Wales, so far as local authorities arc concerned, are totally unaffected by the Bill. It is true that the individual's rights so far as the Land Authority is concerned are not the same as the individual's rights so far as the local authority is concerned. I have already spelled out at some length the arguments for that.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, my noble friend asked a specific question: whether the rights of the individual in Wales were the same as those of the individual elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, replied by referring to an individual's rights as against his rights so far as a local authority is concerned. Surely the point that is raised is that of the rights of a Welshman as against the rights of an Englishman. It is as simple as that.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, as the noble Lord intervened after I had answered the question which he has now asked me, I have no doubt that after he studies the Official Report he will see that I answered the noble Earl's question fully. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to read what I have said, and will come back if he is not satisfied.
1116 The procedures for auditing or questioning the accounts of bodies like local authorities and water authorities which can raise revenue by rates or precepts have been different traditionally from those in relation to other public bodies without this right. This is the basic point that I made on a previous Amendment. It applies to this Amendment as well. The provisions in relation to the Land Authority are based on those of new town development corporations, the Civil Aviation Authority and other similar public bodies operating on a quasi-commercial basis. We are not depriving the public of any rights that they normally have in relation to statutory bodies established to meet public purposes. It must be unprecedented for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be subject to questioning by members of the public about the accounts of bodies whose accounts lie is auditing. The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible to Parliament, and the accounts of the Land Authority are presented, like those of similar public bodies but unlike the accounts of local authorities, to Parliament. That was a point that I went into in detail in a previous Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord has not said when discussing these Welsh bodies that all the arguments he has put forward have the acceptance of the Secretary of State for Wales. Unless he has disappeared there is, in the other place, a Secretary of State for Wales; and presumably, before the noble Lord answered all the questions raised about Wales he must have had some consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales. Does the Secretary of State for Wales accept exactly what the noble Lord is saying about the position? If he is satisfied, then presumably the noble Lord is entitled to be satisfied; but surely the answer to the points which have arisen must come after discussion with the Secretary of State for Wales. There have been arguments put forward about Wales being different from England and Scotland. Has the noble Lord had any expression of support from the Secretary of State for Wales for the answer he has given?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORI hope that my noble friend Lord Melchett will 1117 permit me to answer the question of the noble Baroness. I have been listening with rapt attention to the discussion in the last few minutes as to whether Welshmen are treated at least as well as Englishmen. That this question should have been raised on a day when my native team of Llanelli drew with Australia, 28 points each, is naturally a matter which rings a bell in my mind. I can assure the noble Baroness that there have been close consultations with the Secretary of State for Wales, who regards with enthusiasm and admiration the proposals of the setting up of a Land Authority for Wales. If he were here he would say in Welsh, "Clwych, clwych"—which, being translated, means, "I entirely agree."
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, I cannot match the noble and learned Lord and say something in Welsh, though I may add as a postscript to this debate that although I do not normally take part in Welsh affairs, my mother's family all came from Pembrokeshire—Dyfed as I think it should be called—and as that was sometimes known as "Little England beyond Wales", I feel I have some connection with Wales. I am not at all surprised to hear that the Secretary of State is very pleased with these arrangements, because he is going to run Wales in this respect, so I should think he is very pleased indeed.
Turning to the argument about this proposal, the suggestion in my Amendment is unprecedented; but, as noble Lords on the Government Benches have told us on many occasions, this is a major reform Bill, so it probably calls for major reforming Amendments in order to redress the balance. We have had a very full discussion on this matter. I am sorry that the Government will not consider the points that we have made. As I said on the earlier Amendment, this is a matter that we shall watch, and it will be of interest to know how many people exercise these extraordinary and obscure rights that they will have via their Member of Parliament, or whether they will complain once more again of how out of touch Government are with what ordinary people are thinking and doing. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1118§ Clause 14 [Management, etc., of land held by the Authority]:
§ 9.32 p.m.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 50:
§
Page 13, line 16, at end insert—
("(4A) As soon as practicable after the making of any arrangements under subsection (4) above for the discharge of any functions of the Authority by a local authority, the local authority shall—
§ The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would require every county council which has entered into an agency arrangement with the Land Authority for Wales to send a copy to every district council within the county and to make it available for public inspection without charge, and it would similarly require every district council to send a copy of any Agency arrangement to the county council (or to any neighbouring district council if the Agency were to be operated in their area) and to make it available for public inspection. In this way extra publicity will be achieved for Agency arrangements additional to the publicity which will in any case arise through the openness of the proceedings of the Land Authority and local authorities. The Amendment arises from a proposal of Lord Sandford's at Committee stage. The Government are, of course, at all times eager to encourage publicity and openness in Government, and they had proposed to achieve this for agency arrangements by requiring the Land Authority to keep and make available a register of agency arrangements into which they had entered. That was criticised as being remote, and I hope that while the earlier Opposition Amendment was deemed to be unsatisfactory, that which is now proposed will give full satisfaction to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, as we are so keen and eager to welcome this Amendment, may I do so in so many words. I feel that whatever else the 1119 vigilant and eager democrats in Wales may be deprived of, they will not be deprived here.
Lord INGLEWOODMay I raise one small point on this Amendment? Wales is not an island surrounded by the sea and therefore there are certain counties in Wales which have a common Border with England. This is a point I have raised in this House on many occasions under many different Governments when we have been discussing separate arrangements for Scotland, England and Wales. I believe it says in the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the local authority shall:
…send a copy of the arrangements to every other local authority within whose area th functions are to be so discharged, …".Since planning—at least in an intelligent world such as I hope we are living in—does not stop at a county boundary, it can be just as important to an English authority to know what a Welsh county authority is doing as it is for a neighbouring Welsh county to know. There is no mention at all of England in this Amendment and therefore I assume that the obligation being imposed on the counties in Wales ceases with the border with England. I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord either that I am mistaken or, if I am not mistaken, that he thinks this Amendment is wrong.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the Amendment relates to Clause 14, which, in turn, refers to the duties and functions of the Land Authority for Wales. I am bound to say that it had not occurred to me that we should spread the gospel over the border into the adjoining English counties as well. I should have thought that was not really necessary, but I am certainly willing to look at the point. There is nothing insular about the Welsh, as the noble Lord will know well! However, I should have thought that in the context of a clause dealing with the duties and functions of the Land Authority for Wales, to require them in addition to deal with the impact of planning upon all neighbouring authorities would be imposing quite a burden. The planning aspect will in any event be the responsibility of local authorities. What mutual arrangements 1120 exist between authorities on the Welsh and English sides of the border. I know not. I imagine that they are on a basis of mutual exchange of information where there is any possibility of a development, as it were, overlapping two planning authorities; but in any event that will be the function of the local authorities. We are concerned in this Amendment with the Land Authority's duties and functions in respect of Wales.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for saying that he will look at this again, and although I think, with him, that it would be a mistake—
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, we are in the Report stage—a matter to which I ventured to refer earlier.
§
Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 13 leave out lines 17 to 21.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in dealing with Amendment No. 51, if I may I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 93, 109 and 110. Amendments Nos. 51 and 93 would delete two Amendments which were carried by noble Lords opposite at the Committee stage. In both cases I indicate that the Government supported the basic objectives behind the Amendments, but had reservations on specific points. Amendment No. 51 deals with the provision that would require the Land Authority, in respect of land which it has acquired but not yet developed, to manage the land in a way which would encourage its agricultural use, but to consult the Ministry of Agriculture on how this should be done.
§ I opposed the Amendment at Committee stage not because I opposed its spirit but because we considered that the provisions in the Bill already place the Land Authority under a duty to have regard to the interests of agriculture in managing their land and in considering its development. I also said that the specific obligation to consult the Ministry of Agriculture in every single case would be cumbersome, wasteful, unrealistic and 1121 unnecessary to achieve the purpose behind the Amendment. Finally, we felt it was wrong in principle to place duties, obligations or restraintson the Land Authority for Wales which did not apply to other authorities carrying out identical functions. Amendment No. 93 would delete paragraph 3(1)(dd), which added to the contents of the Land Acquisition and Management Scheme reference to arrangements for the management of land held by an authority pending development, with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farmland which has been acquired in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.
§ Again, I indicated that there was no real difference between us on this matter apart from the point on consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, which I indicated would be nonsensical if applied to every land purchase by authorities, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, took this point on board. However, on reflection there is another problem with paragraph 3(1)(dd) and that is that in our view it does not go far enough. It extends only to land acquisition and management schemes, yet authorities ought, in our view, to be thinking about land management not only when preparing their LAMS but, even more important, when they are operating the scheme. So some kind of wider requirement needs to be placed on authorities to manage land. This is the object of Amendments Nos. 109 and 110. These work by amending paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6 so that authorities must have regard for factors set out there, not only in disposing of land but also when managing land prior to disposal. So in this important respect we are attempting to go further in these two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 109 and 110, than noble Lords opposite did in their two Amendments which I am seeking to delete.
§ The particularly important factor in the context of the Amendments which were moved by noble Lords opposite is, of course, in paragraph (1)(c) of Schedule 6, which requires authorities to have regard to, "the needs of agriculture and forestry". This, taken together with the new Amendments, will mean that authorities in exercising their functions under the LAMS scheme must have regard to 1122 the management of agricultural land in their ownership. It seems to the Government that this approach will achieve the result which noble Lords opposite intended in their Committee stage Amendments, but without the undesirable features which I indicated at the time those contained. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was kind enough on both occasions at the Committee stage to say that these Amendments were put forward in a helpful spirit. May I say that the Amendments I am now moving and speaking to are put forward in an equally helpful spirit; I hope they will be acceptable to noble Lords opposite.
§ 9.43 p.m.
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, I must confess to being much surprised at the Amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for two reasons. One is due to an incompatibility we discerned between this Bill and the Welsh Development Agency Bill when we were reviewing Amendments from another place. Amendment 4 from another place said this:
In exercising their functions the Agency shall have regard to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land managementYour Lordships accepted that as entirely necessary and beneficial, and there appears to be an inconsistency between what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just said and that which was written into the Welsh Development Agency Bill.Secondly, as Lord Melchett said, we attempted in Committee to make our Amendment in helpful manner. We believed that by placing squarely in the middle of Clause 14 the provisions for consultation for the proper agricultural use of any farmland, this was a means of emphasising the obvious, which is a very desirable thing to do in the case of setting out the requirements laid before an authority. We accept what the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, said in his reply at cols. 1550 and 1551 extending into col. 1552 of the Official Report of 22nd October, which we read in detail.
In his closing remarks at col. 1553 he said:
A failure to keep the land in farming use would therefore reflect a serious failure of management by the authority and in that case it is our view that a directive from the Secretary of State would probably be needed rather 1123 than mere consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.We should pre-empt the possibility of failure by arguing once again before your Lordships that subsection (5) of Clause 14 of the Bill is eminently satisfactory and desirable. Although we shall not press the point at this stage, we believe that at a later stage it maybe desirable to return to it.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for what he has said. When I first saw his Amendment on the Marshalled List, I thought that it was a "fast one" and that he was trying to reverse an Amendment which we had inserted at Committee stage. Unfortunately, while the noble Lord was giving his explanation, I was subjected to the kind of interruption to which one is periodically subjected and I missed the operative part. I shall certainly look at the report of what he said, as will my noble friend. I was interested to hear him say that the Amendment which he has moved not only accepts the same spirit as the one we had wished to be accepted, but goes further. If that is so we are grateful. Our immediate impression, as my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, was that something of a specific nature should be written into the middle of the Bill. However, we are grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
§ 9.46 p.m.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. When they read the Schedule as amended by Amendments Nos. 109 and 110, they will see that it goes wider, that it achieves everything that is common ground between us and underlines the Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite without the slightly ludicrous idea that for every single piece of land consultations have to take place with the Ministry of Agriculture. There was a great deal of common ground. It is that which we have sought to meet in this series of Amendments and I am glad that they are accepted by noble Lords opposite.
§ Clause 15 [Powers of acquisition and appropriation]:
§
Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 52:
1124
Page 14, line 8, leave out from ("any") to end of line 8 and insert ("development land").
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment similar in nature to that which we moved at Committee stage. I recall saying then that we were concerned that this Amendment should be written into the Bill. The noble and learned Lord who spoke on that occasion gave us a fairly detailed explanation which required study. I said to him that we would return to this matter on Report, because one of the Amendments, that relating to single plot dwelling-houses which came later in the Committee stage, slightly muddied the waters of this Amendment. However, we dealt earlier with that matter.
§
In this Amendment and the following two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, we are concerned with the powers of acquisition which local authorities are given by this clause. The powers of acquisition are such that they can acquire any land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development. We wish to see the words "development land "inserted instead of" "land suitable for development". If we look further down the page, subsection (3) says:
Where an authority exercise their powers under subsection (1) above in relation to any land…".
We believe that those powers are very wide indeed. In every other clause of this Bill the reference is to "relevant development". This is the only clause where the reference is to "any development".
§ The Bill gives the authority power to acquire land which in their opinion is suitable for development. The words "development land" are defined in Amendment No. 4, and development land is land which is needed for relevant development. "Development" as opposed to "development land" is a much wider concept, and that is defined under Clause 4 and also under the Act of 1971. So we believe that if we were to put in the words "development land" the local authority's powers would be restricted to acquiring land which is needed for relevant development.
§ If your Lordships accept this Amendment it will restrict the powers to relevant development, but as it stands the Bill allows local authorities not only to buy any land, but any land which in their opinion is suitable for any development. 1125 Again we think this is too wide because it is in their opinion and their opinion only; in nobody's else's opinion: not the owner's opinion, not the opinion of the people in the locality, not the opinion of the people who might be affected. It is their opinion—the local authority's opinion—and they can acquire land which is suitable for development. It does not have to be shown that it is needed for development, or that it is required for development, or that it is desirable for development or that people would benefit from the development. It has only to be land which is suitable for development.
§
As was mentioned by a number of noble Lords on all sides during the Committee stage, these are very wide powers indeed, and I would ask noble Lords opposite quite seriously to consider this Amendment. If it is argued that by inserting the words,
which in their opinion is suitable for development",
that includes not only relevant development but also exempt and excepted development, I would suggest that in time to come that might prove to be far wider because these powers are being given for any development of any nature whatsoever.
§ It is a curious thing that only in this clause do we get these very wide powers, and I respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate for those powers of acquisition to be restricted to relevant development, since the local authorities have all the powers necessary for acquisition of other types of land (which otherwise would be excluded were these words put into the Bill) under other measures. These are wide powers, and I hope the noble Baroness, if she is going to answer, will agree that they are too wide. I accept that she may find this Amendment slightly less helpful than some of the others which we have moved from this side of the House. Nevertheless I hope she will realise that they are moved in a spirit of sincerity, to try to make the Bill, when it becomes an Act, as workable as possible, and to prevent putting into the Bill powers which may appear to be appropriate now but which, in years to come, may prove to be far wider than was anticipated. I beg to move.
1126§ Lord SANDYSI should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. I believe it to be a most important Amendment. I do not believe that the Government can claim that it follows in the direct and historic line of previous legislation. I think at one stage the noble Baroness suggested that the whole Bill followed closely the Uthwatt Committee recommendations. I do not believe that they contemplated wide powers, because we seriously believe that in Clause 15 powers of acquisition have been set out in such a manner that an authority can do what it likes.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has described, these phrases are disguised in terms which are somewhat difficult for an individual not particularly well versed in the law, to discern at first sight. Nevertheless, on closer examination it will be quite apparent that the use of the word "any in subsection (3) is a very important one to exclude. We believe that this Amendment should have the support of your Lordships. We believe that it is not appropriate to vest in an authority the powers set out in Clause 15. We adduced arguments to this end both on Second Reading and Committee stage.
§ Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOODMy Lords, I should like to support my noble friends in this Amendment. I have had a good long experience with local authorities. Local authorities with no restrictions as to what they think they would like to do, or sometimes at least with no idea of the importance of the land they want to get in relation to other interests such as agriculture, can be very —I was going to say "dangerous", which perhaps is not the right word, but can be very frustrating in any given area. I do not think we should give local authorities as much power as there is here.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, "any land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development" is a very wide power indeed, whereas the words "development land" which is more restricted and more under control in relation to other interests in the areas concerned, is a better definition. Of course, when talking about land, one is apt to think in terms of agriculture. In the course of life, on many occasions I have been written to by people in connection, 1127 for instance, with enormous new roads; people who have had to fight very hard in order to get a road line which does not damage very seriously indeed their agricultural developments. I know that probably here we are thinking in terms of land around towns for the development of either factories or housing. Nevertheless, it would be better, I think, not to give such a wide power to local authorities. Some may be very wise in these things, and some may be not so wise.
My Lords, even although I speak as someone who has had a great deal of experience in local government, I would be happier that the powers given to any local authority were more closely defined and more restricted than the powers given in this Bill. I hope the Government will think again about this, because it is something which frightens many people who think that their livelihood and the value of their land, and so on, are going to be seriously interfered with, not really to the benefit of the whole community.
§ 9.59 p.m.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, at this time of night I shall try to be as brief as I can with what are really some quite complicated Amendments. First of all, in answer mainly to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—although the points were made in different ways by noble Lords opposite—authorities already have very wide powers to buy land by agreement. They can buy land for the benefit, improvement or development of their area. This derives from an Act of 1963. So far as compulsory powers are concerned—and if I may say so, unless I misheard, it sounded to me as though the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rather missed the point—an authority can exercise these powers compulsorily only if the Secretary of State confirms the compulsory purchase order. This does not apply to exempt developments. I thought I would get that out of the way.
My Lords, the effect of the Amendments which have been moved would be two-fold: first, they would remove the powers for authorities to buy land for excepted development which would destroy the whole basis behind this category of development. For all types of development within this category there 1128 are circumstances where it could be right for an authority to acquire land for such development. I think there was also a certain amount of confusion which could be avoided if we used the phrase in the Bill, "relevant development", instead of "suitable development land", which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, used. If an authority could not do that, it would be at a serious disadvantage. To take two examples, it may be needed to facilitate the provision of recreational facilities—this has been raised many times during these discussions—where this can be achieved only by public acquisition; or for reasons of positive planning, which is one of the principles underlying the Bill, where the development proposed consists of rebuilding with a 10 per cent. enlargement; and here there may well be need for public acquisition in order to obtain the best result in planning terms. Any restriction of this sort must have an effect on these developments.
Secondly, the Amendment would remove in any circumstances the power for authorities to buy land for relevant development which was not needed for ten years. Generally, of course, this would not matter. But suppose that an owner wished to sell such land by agreement; then it could well make sense for the authority to acquire the land and allow it to continue in its existing use until required for development. In those circumstances, it may be socially and economically wise for the authority to acquire it, but the Amendment would remove the possibility of the authority doing so. Also it should not be assumed that buying this far in advance would necessarily be expensive. For example, an authority might buy a shop in a town centre that was due for redevelopment and be able to cover the costs of acquisition by letting it for use as a shop until the time for redevelopment arrived.
For these reasons alone, the Amendments are quite unacceptable in principle. On a further point, that new powers to acquire other than development land are unnecessary, which I think was mentioned by one noble Lord, since authorities can always rely on their existing powers, here again there are two flaws to this argument. First, there is the problem of fragmented compulsory purchase orders. Of course, related orders can be considered together at a 1129 single inquiry, but this is much more cumbersome, and while it may be unavoidable where an authority is buying for specific purposes, it does not seem sensible in the circumstances of a wide acquisition power such as is provided for in the Bill. Thus if an authority was buying, say, 50 acres of land with the intention of making 40 acres available for private housing and laying out ten acres as a recreation ground, it seems to me that it would be quite wrong that it should not be able to use the new acquisition power to buy the whole 50 acres.
The second point is even more fundamental. If authorities already have similar powers, then, it may be asked, what objection is there to restating those powers in the Bill? It is therefore necessary for the Opposition to justify withholding those powers. The whole concept is within the context of public ownership through the community and positive planning. These Amendments, which I can quite see would be favourably regarded by people who are against the principles underlying the Bill, nevertheless are quite contrary to what is being achieved within this Bill, and therefore they are quite unacceptable. It takes the level at which it is possible to go into relevant development far too low, and it completely stymies the whole objective of the Bill and turns it into something entirely different. Although the noble Lords putting forward the Amendment could argue that they consider that in their terms it might make a better Bill, it would certainly not be the Community Land Bill, based on the principles of public ownership and positive planning on which this Bill is based. I have been as brief as I can at this time of night, but I have made the fundamental points in order to establish why it is that these Amendments are quite unacceptable to the Government.
§ 10.6 p.m.
§ Lord MIDDLETONMy Lords, to sum up the argument of the noble Baroness, it runs like this: the acquisition power must extend not only to land for relevant development, it must cover and embrace land for excepted development as well. I think that is a summary of what she said, and it also repeats what was said in Committee in a slightly different 1130 way. The noble Baroness also produced what I might call the fragmented CPOs argument, which was also produced on Committee. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had disposed of that. If the acquiring authority wanted to take the land for development that would fall under the heading of development excepted by virtue of regulations to be made under Clause 3(1)(c), there is absolutely nothing to stop them. They can merely use powers given them by other legislation (these are many) just as they do now. Indeed, we have had Annex A, but also Annex B, which says:
Normal compulsory purchase procedure, will apply in any case where an authority wish to use the new compulsory acquisition power to buy land for the purposes of excepted development.I do not see that we have got any further by the noble Baroness's argument, and I am not convinced at all.
The Earl of BALFOURMy Lords, could I say a few more words here? One of the important things that a local authority has to do before it acquires any land, even by agreement, is to make quite certain that that land is within a development plan and that it can be generally programmed satisfactorily. But I am sure that this should not be further than 10 years ahead. The noble Baroness mentioned buying a shop, but I argue that this is not development. I feel that her answer has been unsatisfactory.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for having given her reasons for finding these Amendments unsatisfactory. She said that if these Amendments were passed they would stymie the objective of the Bill. I do not believe that they would do that. She said that land which was suitable for development would stop the local authorities from buying in advance, and that there may be occasions when the local authorities would have to buy 10 years in advance, and if this Amendment were to be pressed that this would prevent them from doing this. She also said that if the local authority wished to make some areas recreation areas, they would need the authority given under this clause. With the greatest respect, the local authorities have huge powers of acquisition which would enable them to acquire such 1131 land as they required for recreation without the provisions which this clause has at present.
One comes back to two basic points on this clause: you are giving to the local authorities power of acquisition for any land whatsoever, and you are giving them powers to acquire any land which, in their opinion and nobody else's, is suitable. We believe that those powers are too wide to
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Ferrers.)
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("any") and insert ("development").—(Earl Ferrers.)
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be adjourned.
§ give and that they should be restricted somewhat; and that they should be restricted by this Amendment. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support us in the Lobby.
§ 10.10 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 18.
1131| CONTENTS | ||
| Aberdare, L. | Elliot of Harwood, B. | Merrivale, L. |
| Balerno, L. | Elton, L. [Teller.] | Middleton, L. |
| Balfour, E. | Exeter, M. | Monk Bretton, L. |
| Bathurst, E. | Falkland, V. | O'Neill of the Main, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Ferrers, E. | Rankeillour, L. |
| Berkeley, B. | Gowrie, E. | Redesdale, L. |
| Campbell of Croy, L. | Gridley, L. | Sandford, L. |
| Cork and Orrery, E. | Hornsby-Smith, B. | Sandys, L. |
| Cowley, E. | Inglewood, L. | Selkirk, E. |
| Crawshaw, L. | Kemsley, V. | Somers, L. |
| Denham, L. [Teller.] | Kinnoull, E. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Devonshire, D. | Long, V. | Vernon, L. |
| Digby, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. | Vickers, B. |
| Drogheda, E. | Luke, L. | Vivian, L. |
| Dundee, E. | Macleod of Borve, B. | Young, B. |
| Elles, B. | Mansfield, E. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Bernstein, L. | Hughes, L. | Morris of Kenwood, L. |
| Birk, B. | Kirkhill, L. | Segal, L. |
| Blyton, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.] | Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal) |
| Collison, L. | Stewart of Alvechurch, B. | |
| Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor) | Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.] | Strabolgi, L. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Melchett, L. | Winterbottom, L. |
| Hoy, L. |
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.