HL Deb 05 November 1975 vol 365 cc1149-253

2.54 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, that the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 15 [Powers of acquisition and appropriation]:

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56:

Leave out Clause 15.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I would refer to a point of which I gave the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor notice yesterday. The note may well have been mislaid overnight, but I hope he has had another one which I sent him just now. At Committee stage we left Clause 15 in the situation where the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had an open mind, as he put it, as to whether he or my noble friend Lord Colville was right on a technical matter to do with single plots. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord's mind is still open, is shut or is changed, or whether he would like to tell us about it. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

My Lords, this matter was discussed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, yesterday, and he moved an Amendment which was carried. That really has overtaken the point which occupied us at Committee stage. The effect of his Amendments, which were carried, was to take all single dwelling-houses outside the acquisition power in Clause 15; so the matter has been resolved at any rate to the satisfaction of the Opposition, but to the dissatisfaction of the Government, and there the matter must presently rest.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Without having the legal training of either my noble friend or the noble and learned Lord, I was not quite sow whether there was anything more to be said about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 [Acquisition and appropriation of land]:

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 57: Page 55, line 43, leave out ("2").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I now move Amendment No. 57, but with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 61 as well. The effect of these Amendments would be to restore, in respect of compulsory purchase orders under the Bill relating to development land, the requirements of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Acts or regulations made under it, that the purpose for which the land is required is to be specified. The first Amendment removes the reference to paragraph 2 from sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 4, and is consequential upon the second Amendment, No. 61, which omits paragraph 2 from the Schedule.

The total result is that for all compulsory purchase orders made under the Bill, whether for development land or land for excepted development, the modification to specify the reasons for which the authority propose to acquire the land, instead of the purposes for which the land is required, will be deleted, and the existing procedures will apply. At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of nullifying the provision, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, that a compulsory purchase order under the Bill for development land would not need to specify the purpose of acquisition but would instead have to specify the reasons. In reply I said that the Government were looking again at the provisions of the paragraph, and on this basis Lord Kinnoull withdrew his Amendment. The Government have looked at it again and have accepted the spirit of the Amendment, which is interpreted in the Government Amendments I now put before your Lordships. I beg to move Amendment No. 57.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Briefly, my Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to support her Amendments. It is always a great pleasure to hear that an Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee is ultimately accepted in principle by the Government. It is particularly pleasant on this Bill as so sadly it is all too rare an occasion to have some agreement on the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.0 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 58: Page 55, line 47, leave out from ("land") to end of line 2 on page 56.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58. This is a point that we discussed on Committee, and I should like to begin by saying that I am grateful for the letter I received from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, setting out more fully the Government's view on this matter. It is a rather complicated matter, one on which I am not certain that we have the right answer, and therefore I felt it right to raise it again.

As I understand this part of the Schedule, this paragraph enables a local authority to certify that a particular piece of land is or is not development land. As a consequence of the decision it takes on that, whether or not the Schedule applies to it, the local authority then issues a certificate which cannot be challenged by anyone. The certificate must be confirmed by the Secretary of State. I and my noble friends asked on Committee whether it would be possible for an owner who might feel aggrieved by this decision to have any redress under this part of the Schedule.

As I understand the noble Lord's letter, he is saying, first, that the Government do not foresee there being many, if any, borderline cases. I think it is difficult at this stage to make judgments and to say that there would not be any borderline cases; because it is on the borderline case where the individual would want to challenge the issue of the certificate.

Secondly, the noble Lord says that the opinion of the local authority is absolute in the matter of what is or is not development land. The point at issue is whether it is absolute decision and whether an individual can challenge that decision. Thirdly, the noble Lord says that the individual can make representations to the Secretary of State asking him not to confirm the decision to certify the land as development land. What I do not quite follow is what happens if the Secretary of State does not agree with the representations made to him and does not want to alter his decision about the certificate. Where does that leave the owner who may have made the representation? It seems to me that he remains directly affected by the issue of the certificate without any redress at all to the courts.

I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can say what is the Government view on a borderline case; whether the local authority can say conclusively that in every case land is development land; and, lastly, what happens to the individual if he makes representations which are not accepted by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is a point that we went over in Committee and also one on which Iwrote to her. She raised first the question of borderline cases. This is the borderline on the definition of relevant development. As I said in Committee and in my letters, I do not see there being many borderline cases but, as I said also in Committee, obviously I am not saying that there will not be any. We have drawn up the categories of development with great care to try to avoid there being left any grey areas over which a lot of disputes could arise. I agree that disputes may be possible, but I do not see any reason to alter the view that I have twice expressed that these are unlikely to be many and may not occur at all.

My Lords, the second point is the question of the local authority certifying that the land is suitable for relevant development and of that being the final say in the matter. I imagine the noble Baroness is suggesting that it should be possible for the decision to be questioned in the courts. As I said in the letter and in Committee, the problem is that this is a planning issue, and we do not think that it would appropriate for planning issues to be taken to the courts. Thirdly, there is the matter of the significance of the certificate. The certificate is not the end of the matter; it merely allows the Secretary of State, if he so wishes, to exercise a discretion not to hold a public inquiry. It is not absolute in the sense that once the certificate has been issued that is the end of the matter; it is merely something to enable the Secretary of State to exercise a discretion if he so wishes.

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked what happens if the Secretary of State does exercise his discretion not to hold a public inquiry. That is the end of the matter. There is no further redress, as I understand it. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will be very unwilling (as have been all Secretaries of State) not to hold a public inquiry if any objections are raised to the certificate. On the whole, the certificate will be something produced in a fairly routine way.

The noble Baroness did not speak to the Amendment. I do not know whether she would like me to go on in some detail about the effect of the Amendment; but I can say briefly that it would probably have the opposite effect from what she intends and would not provide a solution to the problem which she sees.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, although I do not invite the noble Lord to give it, it would have been as well to have had the explanation; because one of the explanations already given disturbs me. The whole burden of his argument at the beginning was that there would not be many cases, that there would he only a few—that there may be none; but there may be some. Since when has it been unimportant because only a few cases of hardship may be involved? Even if there is only one involved, it is worthy of some thought. I do not push for any further reply, for I know we want to get on; but I hope that the defence that there would not be many is not the sort of defence to be introduced very often.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I do not regard this as a very satisfactory situation. I accept that the drafting of my Amendment may not be correct, but I put it down to draw attention to what seems to be an injustice, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said. There seem to be two cases in which it is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the individual. It is unsatisfactory in the borderline case—on the Government's admission the certificate could be issued on a borderline case—in which the individual might have no right of redress and the owner of the land, obviously, could feel himself to be aggrieved because he had no right to question the issue of the certificate.

Secondly, it could be unsatisfactory because, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, if representations are made to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State does not accept the representations and confirms the certificate, that is the end of the matter. In that case, the individual aggrieved has reached, as it were, the end of the road. His only consolation must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggested, that the Secretary of State is unlikely to make a mistake and would listen carefully to what everybody said. I do not think that that would be very satisfactory. I do not intend to press this Amendment, but I have drawn attention to something on which I hope the Government will reflect and see whether anything could be done about it even at this late stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.10 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 59: Page 56, line 1, after ("above") insert ("for the purposes of any proceedings in the Courts").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a narrow point regarding the certificate. Indeed, Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 cover the same point and, knowing the skill of my noble friend Viscount Colville I suspect his wording is better than mine. During the Committee stage it was questioned that under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph I in Schedule 4 the words, A certificate under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it could imply not only that an individual could not take that to court against the Authority on the grounds that the land was not suitable for development but also that the Secretary of State could not consider whether the land was suitable for development because it was conclusive evidence under the certificate. I recall that both the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is a distinguished lawyer, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who is a distinguished barrister, questioned the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this point. The noble Lord. Lord Melchett, said that—I am sure rightly—the best evidence he had was that the wording was suitable. I have again put down this Amendment because I wondered, as lawyers tend to disagree, whether by now the advisers of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had had time to reconsider the matter. I beg to move.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, it may be convenient if I now speak to my Amendment No. 60 on this point because, as my noble friend has said, it covers the same issue. I have taken a formula which is widely used in the Town and Country Planning Act and which cuts out a reopening of something at a later date for various purposes, validity of various actions taken by the Secretary of State and matters of that kind; so the form of words I have used is one with which everybody in this field is familiar.

We had a considerable debate about this matter in Committee. The point was a narrow one. In order to establish that there should be a public inquiry, there will be cases—I do not think it is necessary to go into what they will be—whether under the definition of what the land may be in Clause 15 as it is now drafted as a result of last night's Amendment, or under the Bill as drafted before (I do not think it matters which), where the Secretary of State, in deciding whether or not to hold a public inquiry, will wish to consider whether the land certified as development land by the local authority comes into that category. This is an administrative action and I do not suppose that the question of evidence is relevant to it; whether or not the certificate is conclusive evidence probably does not matter. What matters is that people who wish to put a point of this kind in their objections with a view to persuading the Secretary of State to hold the public inquiry on these grounds, must know whether or not they are able to challenge the certificate only for this limited and narrow purpose.

The way I read the paragraph as at present drafted is they would say against me, and for the purposes of writing my objection to the Secretary of State against this compulsory purchase order, and asking him to hold the public inquiry, that I have to accept the certificate. It is a conclusive evidence against me that is what the opinion of the local authority is, and therefore I am not entitled to take the point. Those who are sufficiently assiduous to read all the debates that have occurred in Parliament on this Bill (they will have some work to do that!) may find enwrapped in the small print in the Official Report some indications that this strictness is not truly applicable.

I am anxious we should also provide on the face of the Statute for those who do not have immediate access to all the documents which your Lordships and Members of another place are lucky enough to have. If a solicitor anywhere in the country, or in London, who has not studied this matter in the Parliamentary proceedings, wishes to draft an objection on behalf of his client—or any other person doing it on behalf of a client—against a compulsory purchase order, he ought to be able to see on the face of the Act whether or not he is entitled to take this point. People will want public inquiries; they always want them. People dislike being deprived of them on compulsory acquisitions of their land. Looking carefully at the reason for this paragraph being put in, which is to prevent the matter being reopened ages later and upsetting a compulsory purchase order which has already been approved, it would be all right if we prevented the certificate being challenged in legal proceedings; but that would leave it open for everybody on the face of the Bill to know they could take this point for the narrow purpose we have been discussing.

I do not think it matters very much which of the Amendments is taken, but I hope that the Government will recognise that this is not supposed to be in any way an assault upon them, but an attempt to deal with the problem in the way apparently they want it dealt with, and make it clear to everybody what exactly their rights are. I hope we shall have some sympathy and possibly acceptance of one of the Amendments from noble Lords opposite.

Lord SLATER

My Lords, the mover of the Amendment seemed to give the impression that his noble friend, who happens to be a barrister, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who happens to be a prominent lawyer, were, because of their professions, able to give answers to the points that he was concerned about regarding these forms of licence. It so happens that lawyers are not always right. They try to interpret the law; but many of us who have come from the other place have had cases passed to us where lawyers have said, "You had better see your Member of Parliament; he will deal with it, and take up the matter elsewhere". From the debate which has taken place, and particularly from what the noble Viscount, who is a barrister, has said on this issue, justice is not being paid to the planning officers of local authorities. The planning officers of local authorities have had to pass important examinations to aspire to that position. I sat on district authorities where planning committees were subject to the guidance of the planning officers.

I think it is carrying this a little too far when we bring the professions into it. We think that because the lawyers state this or that they are right on every issue so far as these matters are concerned. But we must not forget that in the professional field there are many forms of professions in which judgments are formed. One finds, as has been said, that seldom do two economists agree on one issue. This often happens so far as the legal profession is concerned. I am not prepared to accept from the noble Earl who moved this Amendment that the observations made by his noble friend, or the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in Committee, carry with them the conviction that the Government ought to give way and agree to the Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says about lawyers not always being right—indeed, some may go further than that—but on this occasion there is some common ground between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. On Amendment No. 57, the noble Earl said, in his usual kind and generous way, when my noble friend accepted a proposition put forward at Committee stage, that we did not do that often. I hesitate to prove him wrong by saying that I intend to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. We still do not think that this is really necessary, but we accept that the Amendment would make the position absolutely clear and we certainly do not object to it. However, I wonder whether the noble Viscount and I could come to an agreement over the printing error which appears in the Marshalled List— "legal proceeding" should be "legal proceedings". If we can accept that as a printing error which can be put right when the Bill is printed, I shall be happy to accept Amendment No. 60.

Lord FOOT

My Lords. may I make one or two observations about the two Amendments which we have been discussing, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that I fully accept that lawyers very often make mistakes—on average, probably in about 50 per cent. of our cases. But I do not think that he really followed what the noble Viscount was saying, because the effect of either of these Amendments would be to remove the likelihood of solicitors or barristers in future making mistakes when advising their clients. That was the substance of the noble Viscount's argument, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Slater, correctly understood the point that he was making.

As regards the wording of the two Amendments, I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount say that the words he has used are common form in planning legislation. I myself am much more familiar with the words 'for the purpose of any proceeding in the courts", and I should have thought that was the preferable form of wording. But even if Amendment No. 60 is accepted, I suggest that the word "whatsoever" is otiose. It adds nothing and is therefore objectionable. If I had to make a choice, I would prefer the Government to accept Amendment No. 59, but, if they are to accept Amendment No. 60, then I hope we shall strike out the word "whatsoever".

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, by leave of the House, perhaps it would help if I indicated that the reason for our preference for Amendment No. 60 is that it is in line with the form of words already used in paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 7 to this Bill, and the same wording is found in the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. That is why we prefer Amendment No. 60.

Lord FOOT

My Lords, with the leave of the House, might I add the comment that if that is right, and if these words appear in some earlier enactments, then, if there is substance in my point that "whatsoever" is otiose and we accept this wording because it is found in earlier legislation, all we are doing is perpetuating a mistake.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for indicating his acceptance of one of these Amendments, and I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for his support of my Amendment. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Government have indicated that they will accept the Amendment of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.23 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 60: Page 56, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 2 and insert ("not be questioned in any legal proceeding whatsoever").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not need to delay the noble Lord, except to thank him very much. I have merely followed the drafting of the legislation as it is recorded in the place to which he referred us—paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 7—so whatever has to come out of the wording of my Amendment must come out there as well. I followed what I believed to be a well tried and tested form of words. I do not know whether in moving this Amendment I am allowed to move also a manuscript substitution of the word" proceedings" for "proceeding". I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees might permit that, but we could then put the whole matter right in one go. I beg to move.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Amendment proposed: page 56, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 2 and insert ("not to be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61 formally. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 57.

Amendment moved— Page 56, leave out lines 2 to 9.—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 62: Page 56, line 26, after ("unless") insert ("within the five years preceding the making of the order").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, which are consequential. I put down these Amendments because I thought it would be helpful to know the Government's intentions regarding this part of the Schedule, whereby there will not be a public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order if there has already been a public local inquiry in to the development plan. So far as I can see, the Bill does not indicate whether this means a recent public inquiry and a recent development plan. My Amendment states that this should apply provided the development plan inquiry has been held within the last five years.

I have not had time to make extensive inquiries as to how many development plans are now between 10 and 15 years old, but my noble friend Lord Colville just told me that most of them are of that age, and certainly such inquiries as I have made have led me to think that that is so. Therefore, the public inquiry will have taken place a very long time ago and a great deal may have happened in the meantime. So I wonder whether the Government would consider this to be a reasonable Amendment, which in no way goes against the principle of what they wish to do in the Schedule, but will at least mean that when there is not to be a further public inquiry the evidence will be as recent as within the last five years. I beg to move.

Lord FOOT

My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness has really done justice to the Amendments she has been discussing. I understand we are here dealing with three Amendments. It is right to say that Amendment No. 62 does a great deal more than just insert the words: within the five years preceding the making of the order", because, if I have correctly understood the subsequent Amendment, No. 63, it strikes out from the subsection the words unless the confirming authority is satisfied". That has very considerable implications, and perhaps it might be helpful if I tried to remind the House of what we are dealing with.

Paragraph 3 introduces the new procedure under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act, and in paragraph 3(3) we have set out those cases in which the Secretary of State need not hold a public inquiry, in spite of the fact that there is an objection which has not been withdrawn. That is what paragraph 3(3) is all about. As the Bill is drawn at the moment, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether any particular case falls within head (a), (b) or (c). The effect of the second Amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 63, would be to strike out the reference at the very beginning to the confirming authority—that is the Secretary of State—so that it would then read: This sub-paragraph applies unless within five years preceding the making of the order— (a) planning permission …"— et cetera. Therefore, that eliminates the Secretary of State as the person who decides whether the particular case in issue falls within sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (c). If the Secretary of State is eliminated as the arbiter of that matter, who is going to decide? The only people who could decide it, so far as I can see, would be the courts.

Two very serious consequences would, I suggest, follow from that. The first is that the door would be opened to a flood of litigation. For example, I take head (b) on the question as to whether the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would he in accordance with the provisions of that plan"— the local plan. If the Secretary of State is cut out as the arbiter of that matter and it is left to the courts, then there is nothing to stop anybody from going to the courts, and saying: 'I dispute that this is a case in which planning permission would be in accordance with the provisions of the local plan." I think everybody has agreed hitherto that it is desirable to avoid a flood of litigation upon this matter, and I think it is a matter of general agreement in the House now that on these matters, which are essentially planning matters, the courts are singularly unqualified to make decisions of this kind. Therefore, I should have thought that if we are considering all these three Amendments together we must consider them in that light, and that there are manifest objections to what the noble Baroness is proposing.

May I add that I am afraid that the way in which these Amendments are framed is verbally totally defective. I will not weary the House by trying to read out in extenso how this subparagraph would read with the noble Baroness's Amendments, but if anybody cares to do that exercise in his own mind he will find that it simply is not grammatical and does not make any sense at all. To try to illustrate that by an extraction, it would read: This sub-paragraph applies unless within five years preceding the making of the order"— and now I go on to head (b)— where a local plan for the district in which the land is situated has been adopted or approved under Part IT of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971"— we have to leave out the word "that" to make it grammatical— the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would be in accordance with the provisions of that plan". The words, "within five years preceding the making of the order", may possibly make sense in relation to head (a) where one is speaking about a planning permission and saying planning permission must have been given within five years. But it makes no sense at all when one is speaking about a notional grant of planning permission, as one is in head (b) and indeed in head (c). Therefore, apart from the fundamental objections, as I see it, to this proposal, it seems to me that the whole of these Amendments would have to be rewritten, even if the arguments advanced and the idea the noble Baroness has in mind are a valid and good point.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, while criticising the words and the meaning that could flow from this proposal—which may well be very sound because he has obviously given a lot of study to it and I imagine his argument is well based—found the principle behind these Amendments acceptable. Whatever views he may have on Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, the point behind No. 62 is well based, it is good sense, and if it is good sense words can always be found to make it good law. It is obvious to anybody who works in this field that great changes take place both in the desires and wishes of local authorities and in planning generally over a five-year period. Things are happening, and they are happening quickly. I believe that to make it ultra vires without inserting some period—and five years seems to be a reasonable period—would not be reflecting the problems that face people who have to work in this field at the present time. So I would hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in giving consideration to the arguments on these Amendments, and while she will no doubt take into account the accuracy of the wording, for it is right that that should be done, would be prepared to accept the principle behind Amendment No. 62. It is sound and I believe it would make the Bill much better in its application in future years.

3.36 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, perhaps I may speak first to Amendment No. 62 and then to Nos. 63 and 64. As has already been pointed out, so I will not dwell on it, the drafting of No. 62 is defective, so in any case it could not be accepted as it stands. Nevertheless, what is more important, and what I think the noble Baroness had most in mind, is the intention behind the Amendment. I would immediately agree that the basic intention is an entirely reasonable one; that is, that the Secretary of State should not dispense with an inquiry on the basis of planning information that is so far out of date that it no longer presents a fair picture of the planning background in an area. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, also made that point.

However, unfortunately it is not quite so simple or straightforward as that because trouble starts when there is an attempt to tie this down to any fixed period; for instance, the period of five years mentioned in the Amendment. Although the noble Lord said he thought this was quite enough and it was fair enough, I am afraid that in practice it would not work out quite so simply as he appeared to think. So far as planning permissions are concerned, the Amendment is in itself unnecessary. That is because the Secretary of State can dispense with a public inquiry only where a planning permission is in force, and the validity of a planning permission is generally limited to five years. So in normal circumstances there could not be a planning permission in force which was granted more than five years before the making of the CPO. This I think we all know and are agreed upon.

In the other two cases, which is where local plans or development plans are involved, the argument is rather more generalised. Any specific time limit attached to the period of usefulness of these plans for the purpose of dispensing with inquiries must run the risk, as I think noble Lords will have to agree, of cutting out good plans as well as bad ones. This risk exists and it is impossible to get round it in this way. The trouble is that the pace of considerably from one area to another. Obviously, a plan for an area where little development is planning, as I think we are all agreed, varies taking place will have a much longer validity than one in an area scheduled for heavy development and where planning approaches may be changing the whole time. Therefore, a generalised time limit cannot encompass these variations, and yet it would be wrong not to allow the Secretary of State to dispense with the public inquiry on the basis of a plan which, though old, was still in those circumstances perfectly valid.

It seems to us that the answer to the genuine point underlying the Amendments is that, in each case, in deciding whether or not to dispense with a public inquiry, the Secretary of State will have to consider the adequacy of the planning background. The age of the plans will be a material factor in his consideration, and where a plan was simply out of date the Secretary of State would certainly not want to rely on it and would therefore not exercise his discretion to dispense with an inquiry. It is for these, I submit, very strong, practical reasons, that I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment—not because there is any policy disagreement, but because we do not think it would be practical, and also it could be inhibiting and produce results which are not wanted by anybody.

If we may turn to the next two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has answered most, if not all, of the points raised. However, the Amendment has raised an issue which has recurred several times during the debates on this Bill; namely, where the line should be drawn between those decisions which ought to be left to the Secretary of State and those which should rest with the courts. The point which has been generally accepted and was expounded very well by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is that matters which involve an element of planning judgment should be left to the Secretary of State since, as the noble Lord himself said, the courts are not equipped to make such judgments. This is true of the present case where judgment as to whether the grant of planning permission would be in accordance with a local plan will not usually be an absolutely clear-cut issue. Therefore it would be inappropriate to give the courts any role, as the Amendment seeks to do. However, it must be remembered that in reaching his decision the Secretary of State is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and must make a reasoned decision on the merits of the case.

For all the reasons which I have expounded, and also for the reasons which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I hope that after this very useful debate on the principle, the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment.

Baroness YOUNG

May I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for that answer. I appreciate that the Amendments are not correctly drafted. On many occasions during the course of this Bill one has had to prepare Amendments late at night and in a hurry and, not being a lawyer, I am afraid that they are not always as accurate as they should be. I must accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, although I am glad to think that he feels I have raised a point of importance.

This debate has shown that what could be construed as a very real misunderstanding about the interpretation of this part of the Schedule has been cleared up, and I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her clear explanation. It will be useful to local authorities and to individuals who read the Schedule to have had this very full and detailed explanation of what are the Government's intentions with regard to the new procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.42 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, Amendment No. 65 could be described as consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 29, leave out from first ("the") to ("is") in line 30 and insert ("purpose specified as that for which the land is required").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Viscount would remove the requirement which was inserted at Committee stage, that where a public inquiry is dispensed with on the basis of the planning permission, the planning permission should be consistent with the reasons given by the authority before the acquisition, and would substitute the requirement that the planning permission should be consistent with the purpose specified as that for which the land is required. Most of us remember that after a long debate in Committee the original Amendment was carried against the Government in a Division. However, in the light of the Government Amendments which were agreed to this afternoon—Amendments Nos. 57 and 61—which remove the requirement for an authority to state the reasons for the acquisition and go back to the existing procedure of stating the purpose, obviously the original Amendment could no longer stand.

By this Amendment the noble Viscount is bringing the change into line with the Government Amendments. However, the Government are still considering the implications of the basic change brought about by the original Amendment that was carried in Committee. Until this consideration is completed the Government cannot take a view on the present Amendment, except to say that, given what the House has decided up to this moment, it follows from the Government Amendments that this change is necessary. I do not propose to resist the Amendment but I should point out that my failure to divide the House must clearly be without prejudice to the view that the Government will take on the basic issue.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.45 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 66: Page 56, line 35, after ("approved") insert ("after a local inquiry or hearing").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we come now to the circumstances in which a public inquiry can be dispensed with, and again I should like to draw the attention of the House to the case where there is a local plan. Last time I suggested that only those local plans which had been approved by the Secretary of State should qualify as local plans on the basis of which the Secretary of State could dispense with the subsequent public inquiry upon an acquisition under this Bill. The noble Baroness and I did not see entirely eye to eye on how that would work out in practice. However, she has written me a very helpful and useful letter and we are now in agreement about how it would work. I have not gone back to that point but have raised a slightly different one which I hope will be more acceptable to the Government.

The point is that if the Secretary of State dispenses with a public inquiry upon a subsequent compulsory purchase order after there has been a local plan and when the compulsory purchase order for the land which is to be acquired under this Bill is in accordance with the local plan, it seems to me to be right that one should have had a public inquiry in the case of the local plan. I dare say that almost always this will have been so. Nevertheless, I suspect that there will be cases, perhaps relating to very small areas which at the time were uncontroversial and since have raised more controversial issues, when there was not originally a public inquiry into the local plan. In those cases, the Secretary of State could still dispense with a public inquiry in the case of a compulsory purchase order and there would be no public inquiry. I do not think that is right.

Although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will tell me that administratively the Secretary of State would probably hold the public inquiry on the compulsory purchase order if there had not been an inquiry on the local plan itself, if that is going to be so administratively why do we not provide for it in the Bill? It seems to me to be the sensible thing to do. Almost always it willbe a situation that will have been fulfilled in fact, so it will not cause any great difficulty. However, I should like to think that we are trying to make plain to people who will be affected by this Bill how the machinery will work and the occasions upon which they can generally, and with some degree of anticipation of success, ask for a public inquiry to be held.

I hope this will not be thought to go nearly so far as my last attempt in this field and that it might prove acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.

Lord FOOT

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down may I ask him to explain the significance of the words he has used? What is the difference between a public inquiry and a hearing?

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I do not have the faintest idea. I have taken the words straight out of the local plans provision of the Town and Country Planning Act. One is formal and the other is less formal.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, may I support my noble friend on this issue and make two additional points? I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree that if the planning framework of the place and the acquisition of land in a particular area are to be the subject of one inquiry, there is a great deal to be said for so arranging matters and so arranging the law—this Bill in particular—that the inquiry should take place in a planning and not in a land acquisition context. That is a point upon which my views are reinforced by the Town and Country Planning Association.

At the earlier stage of the Bill, I was not entirely satisfied with the noble Lord's description of the attitude of the Town and Country Planning Association, nor that of the Royal Town Planning Institute. At that moment we on this side were chiefly in touch with those bodies which we knew were dissatisfied with the Bill. It was not until after we had grappled with all that, that speaking for myself, I was able to make contact with other bodies concerned, which we had been led to understand were satisfied. On this issue the Town and Country Planning Association are strongly in support of what my noble friend is seeking to introduce by this Amendment, because they, too, agree that if the land acquisition schemes are to be led by the planning process then, wherever possible, the inquiry should be into the planning process and not into the acquisition process, and this will be secured if this Amendment is imported into the Bill. I hope that the Government, who have expressed themselves as wanting to have the land acquisition planning-led, will see that this Amendment helps them to achieve that purpose. I beg to support the Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I accept that this Amendment does not go as far as the Amendment to which the noble Viscount referred and which he moved at the Committee stage. However, I have to tell him that this Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. The intention of the Government is that the ability to dispense with an inquiry should, apart from the reserve procedure in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, be available only where there has already been a public inquiry into the planning issues. If there are no objections to a local plan, there will always have been a public inquiry into that plan. Thus there seems to be no difference of intention between the Government and noble Lords opposite. In the view of the Government, this situation is already achieved by the Bill and the Amendment is therefore not necessary.

I should like to emphasise that Section 13(1) of the 1971 Act requires that the local planning authority shall hold a local inquiry which by virtue of Regulation 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1974 has to be a public inquiry, in the case of any objection made in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State. Under these regulations, by virtue of Regulation 5 and Form 7, any objection is valid provided that it is made within the specified period, which is to be not less than the six-week period; and states the matter to which the objection relates and the grounds of the objection.

To put all that simply, if there is any valid objection to a local plan there will always have to be a public inquiry into the plan. Therefore, it is our view that the Amendment is not necessary. If there are no objections to local plans—if someone has had the right to object to a local plan and thereby force an inquiry and has not done so—we take the view that the Secretary of State should have the power to dispense with an inquiry. My understanding is that the Council on Tribunals take the same view as we do about this matter. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.

3.54 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, somehow I thinkit was the wrong script at the beginning of that speech, because of course there will not be a public inquiry or hearing unless there are objections, and something which the noble Lord said at the beginning tended to blur that point, although he put it right at the end. The noble Lord must forgive me for differing about this. I appreciate, as I think I said, that it will probably be fairly rare for a local plan to be approved without a public inquiry. But it may happen, and I am also concerned about the time factor. I personally hope that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be disposed of as quickly as possible upon the change of Administration. But let us suppose that it is not, and that we are going to live with the wretched thing for a long time. We do not yet know how the procedure for the local plans, and the updated local plans, will proceed. It was lovely at the beginning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Everybody thought that there really were to be quinquennial reviews of the development plans, and look at what has happened. I suppose that most of them have had one review in the course of about 25 years, but some of them have not had even that.

Oxfordshire is still working on a development plan, the preparatory work for which was done in 1948. Nobody has changed it since. There have been various informal documents, but there has been no proper development plan since the one which was approved in 1954. We do not in the least know what is to happen under local plans. We do not know whether the timetable for revisions will be kept up. We could therefore have a situation where a local plan—and, after all, a local plan can be for quite a small area; it is not the same as the plan for the whole of the county or the whole of the district; we can have a series of local plans for quite small areas—has been put forward and dealt with and been entirely unexceptionable at the time, but has become hopelessly out of date. If in those circumstances, many years later, the local authority having perhaps changed other local plans, or the district having changed, the Secretary of State says, "We still do not need a public inquiry, because it is in accordance with this ancient, out of date local plan", then that is wrong. At any rate, there will be one safeguard in those circumstances if we provide that there had to be a public inquiry in the first place.

I do not know what the House thinks about this, but it seems to me that if the noble Lord is saying that he thinks there ought to have been—and there usually will have been—a public inquiry or hearing in the first instance, then I cannot see what harm there would be in putting it into the Bill which would make clear what everybody desires to happen. I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.

Lord FOOT

My Lords, may I say that this is one of the very rare cases where the logic of the noble Viscount does not carry. As I understand the argument he is using it is this. He is saying: "What worries me is that there may have been a local plan adopted back in the 1950s and that is the local plan to which you will have to look when you are considering a case under sub-paragraph (3)(b)."He goes on to say that it may well be that circumstances have completely changed since then and that therefore it would be wrong not to allow a public inquiry on the compulsory purchase order which is now in mind. But he is really reverting to the point made by the noble Baroness about having a five-year limit—or some limit in time. It is no protection to insert the words that the noble Lord is suggesting, that there must have been a public inquiry back in 1948, because the plan in 1976, if it was adopted in 1948 after a public inquiry, may be just as deficient when one is considering whether there ought to be a public inquiry under a case coming under sub-paragraph (3)(b); therefore it really is not a safeguard.

Having said that, although I think that is a bad argument, I am nevertheless a supporter of what the noble Viscount is trying to do because I cannot see why the Government should be unwilling to accept this. As I understand it, the case put forward by the Government is this: they say that under some previous legislation wherever there is a valid objection there must have been a public inquiry, and it is only in such cases where a local plan is drawn up and nobody makes any objection that one could do without a public inquiry. But I should have thought it was all too easy for a local plan to go through without objection, simply because the people who may many years later find themselves very much affected by it do not apprehend the way in which they are threatened.

People do not go into local council offices to inspect local plans in detail to see how they might conceivably at some future time affect their property. People get "up in arms" and object when they suddenly find their own property pinpointed by some compulsory purchase order, or something of that kind. Therefore, I cannot really see why the Government should resist this Amendment. It does not do them any harm to let it go in, and the number of cases in which it will be of any consequence, on the Government's own admission, are probably minimal, trifling and trivial. It does not seem to me that the insertion of these words can do any harm, and, indeed, can do anything but good.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, by leave of the House, may I first echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about the argument advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on whether or not something is out of date? I do not think that was a valid point on this Amendment. It referred back to a short discussion we had a little time ago, and as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, a plan can get equally out of date whether or not there was a public inquiry at the time it was made. The basic disadvantage of this Amendment is that it will interfere with the existing planning system, and that is something we have all along very strongly resisted, and not wanted the Bill to do.

My Lords, one effect of the Amendment, in our view, would be to deter people from objecting to local plans on planning grounds so that if there had to be an inquiry at the acquisition stage they could then raise planning argument. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is making noises about that.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I was saying that that is far-fetched.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, there is no doubt that it would be a sensible thing, if people were going to object to acquisition, not to object at the planning stage but to cause a lot of trouble at the acquisition stage. The other point, which is another limb of that argument, is that it seems to me that if the planning issues have been settled without any objections raised—and that is what we are talking about—then, once someone comes along and wants to purchase some of the land along the lines of those planning decisions

already made without any objection, any reopening of the argument will in practice be based on objections to public acquisition and not on planning grounds. The planning issues will have been settled when the plan was originally drawn up.

My Lords, so far as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is concerned, this is something which came up in Committee. It may be true that at present not enough attention is paid by the general public to planning issues. I hope that this Bill, by strengthening planning, will increase the amount of public participation in planning issues. That is all to the good. It is not something that we should try to stop by passing an Amendment which I think will decrease the amount of participation at the planning stage so that people are left free to object at some later stage about issues which should already have been decided.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I have already made two speeches; I had better not make another.

4.7 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Dundee, E. Killearn, L.
Airedale, L. Eccles, V. Kinloss, Ly.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Effingham, E. Kinnaird, L.
Alport, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Kinnoull, E.
Amherst, E. Elton, L. Lauderdale, E.
Arran, E. Emmet of Amberley, B. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Balerno, L. Erskine of Rerrick, L. Long, V.
Balfour, E. Exeter, M. Loudoun, C.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Fairhaven, L. Lyell, L.
Banks, L. Falkland, V. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Barnby, L. Ferrers, E. Macpherson of Drumochter, L
Barrington, V. Foot, L. Mansfield, E.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Margadale, L.
Belstead, L. Gage, V. Masham of Ilton, B.
Berkeley, B. Glendevon, L. Merrivale, L.
Birdwood, L. Glenkinglas, L. Middleton, L.
Boothby, L. Goschen, V. Monck, V.
Bourne, L. Grantchester, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Byers, L. Grenfell, L. Newall, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Gridley, L. Northchurch, B.
Carrington, L. Grimston of Westbury, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Chesham, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Ogmore, L.
Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.] Orr-Ewing, L.
Cowley, E. Hampton, L. Platt, L.
Craigton, L. Hankey, L. Porritt, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L. Rankeillour, L.
Daventry, V. Hawke, L. Rathcavan, L.
de Freyne, L. Henley, L. Roberthall, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Hylton-Foster, B. Rochdale, V.
Drumalbyn, L. Inglewood, L. Sackville, L.
Dudley, B. Kemsley, V. St. Aldwyn, E.
St. Davids, V. Somers, L. Vickers, B.
St. Helens, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Vivian, L.
Sandford, L. Strathcarron, L. Wade, L.
Sandys, L. Strathclyde, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Savile, L. Strathspey, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Selkirk, E. Tenby, V. Wigoder, L.
Sempill, Ly. Thomas, L. Wise, L.
Sherfield, L. Tranmire, L. Yarborough, E.
Simon, V. Vernon, L. Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Arwyn, L. Gaitskell, B. Pargiter, L.
Balogh, L. Geddes of Epsom, L. Peddie, L.
Birk, B. Goronwy-Roberts, L. Phillips, B.
Brockway, L. Hale, L. Popplewell, L.
Bruce of Donnington, L. Henderson, L. Raglan, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hoy, L. Rhodes, L.
Burntwood, L. Hughes, L. Rusholme, L.
Castle, L. Janner, L. Sainsbury, L.
Champion, L. Kirkhill, L. Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Chorley, L. Leatherland, L. Shinwell, L.
Clwyd, L. Lee of Newton, L. Slater, L.
Collison, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Snow, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Crook, L. Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.] Stow Hill, L.
Crowther-Hunt, L. Lyons of Brighton, L. Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Darling of Hillsborough, L. MacLeod of Fuinary, L. Summerskill, B.
Darwen, L. Maybray-King, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Melchett, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) Milford, L. Winlerbottom, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L. Morris of Grasmere, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Noel-Buxton, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Fulton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.12 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 56, leave out lines 40 to 44.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns development plans. I do not feel so strongly about this one, but I should like to explore it a little more than we did in Committee in order to get the Government's views. Development plans are not likely to be nearly so often relevant for the purposes of doing away with the subsequent public inquiry as are local plans. For the purposes of this definition, a local plan is a development plan, according to the definition in the Town and Country Planning Acts, so we really have local plans in twice. I shall concentrate more upon the sort of plans which count as development plans under the definition but which are not local plans. I think I am right in saying that they are, first of all, the old-style local plans before structure plans were invented; and, secondly, structure plans now that they have been invented. It would be helpful for those who wish to follow the debates and understand what is the Government's policy if the noble Baroness would indicate what the Department and the Secretary of State will have in mind when deciding that the second public inquiry may be dispensed with if the development the local authority is seeking is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan.

First of all, would she concede that where we are dealing with the old style development plan it is almost always going to be completely out of date? She may tell me that there are some reviews of county development plans or town maps under the old procedure which have been approved comparatively recently by the Secretary of State. I think I saw one in Hertfordshire the other day which was approved in 1971, but the difficulty about it was that it was submitted for approval in 1964; it had taken all that time. Of course, it was based upon material which was prepared even before it was submitted for approval. So even that sort of development plan is out of date. I should like, therefore, the noble Baroness to give an indication as to whether or not it would be usual for the Secretary of State to rely on the provisions of the old style development plans and to say that as the acquisition is in accordance with that he will not have a second public inquiry. I should have thought that that would be an unusual step to take; I think he would usually say, "We had better have another look at it".

Then we come to the new style structure plans. It is no doubt my loss, but I am not familiar with the West Midlands one which was referred to in Committee. The ordinary structure plans are not really ordnance survey-based at all (or only very small parts of them are), and it will not be possible accurately to pinpoint what is the proposed use intended for a particular piece of land in accordance with that plan. There may be circumstances, perhaps in regard to town centres, where there is something in the structure plan which is sufficiently precise, but even then I should have expected the structure plans to be a little vague about the actual definition, in terms of geography, about the town centre. Would the noble Baroness confirm that it is going to be very unusual—perhaps she could give us examples as to where it would happen—for the structure plans to be a reliable basis for dispensing with the second public inquiry? Perhaps also she would be so kind as to tell us what it is about this West Midlands case which is different from all the others and which allows it to be used as a basis for dispensing with the public inquiry if there is to be a compulsory acquisition to accord with it. I am seeking further information to enable people to prepare their objections on sensible grounds which accord with the thinking of the Government, and to understand how the Government will decide whether or not to hold a public inquiry. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the effect of his Amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to dispense with a public inquiry on the basis of any development plan other than an approved or adopted local plan. Amendment No. 69 is consequential. This provision was discussed at Committee stage, and the Amendment to remove this power was designed to seek elucidation on how it would be used and was withdrawn on that basis. I feel that we are really going over somewhat the same ground again. I explained then the inten- tions behind the provision, and frankly there is really nothing further to add.

Where the existing old style development plan is ordnance survey-based and gives detailed proposals for the use of land, there is an expectation, until such time as it may be superseded by a local plan, that the land will be developed according to the allocations in the plan. If relevant development would clearly be consistent with the allocations for the particular land—and these allocations will have been decided after an inquiry—it is inappropriate that the CPO inquiry should be used as an occasion for debate on the planning policies for the area. So it would be quite wrong to remove the provision from the Bill.

As the noble Viscount pointed out, and and as I have argued before, it can be argued that a structure plan is too vague for the purpose of this provision, and that the examination in public does not go into the kind of detail that would enable the owner of the land to know how this land would be affected. We accept that a structure plan would generally be too vague to form the basis for acquisition, and this is in fact stated in the note on the planning framework.

But there would be technical difficulty in attempting to depart from the planning Act definition of what is the development plan before a local plan is in existence. The Secretary of State—I think that probably this is the main point—would certainly take into account the nature of the structure plan in deciding whether to exercise his discretion, and would hold an inquiry if this was necessary. It is often true that old style development plans are out of date and this would be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to hold an inquiry at all, but there are some areas—and this is the reference to the West Midlands, which I think I made on Committee stage—where there have been recent amendments to old style development plans which could certainly form an adequate planning basis for acquisition.

To sum it up, the reason for it is that we need this to cover the period until there are new plans everywhere. To put anything else into the Bill would create more difficulties than it would ease. I hope I have assured the noble Viscount on the point that the Secretary of State would take this into account, and also the point that there have been, and are, continuous recent amendments to old style development plans and that these would form an adequate planning basis during what would be a kind of interim period.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I had not appreciated that the reference to the West Midlands was not a reference to structure plans but to the old-style development plan. That makes it clearer because I could not think of what was going on in the structure plan for the West Midlands that made it so different from anywhere else. The noble Baroness said that where the proposals of the compulsory purchase order complied with the old-style development plan, then that might be good enough, but she must appreciate that that would not do on its own, first, if the old-style development plan is ancient and out-of-date and, secondly, and perhaps even more important, if that matter, at the time when the development plan was presented to the Secretary of State and was open to objection, was not subject of a public inquiry on this point.

Take something which is very old and out-of-date and where there is still, for some reason, a piece of land allocated for industrial purposes, but which has never been taken up for those purposes. I can think of a piece of land in London with which I have been recently dealing. the allocation on the old-style development plan is not only old and out-of-date but is now totally irrelevant. It was put there to reflect an existing use which happened to exist at the time. Everything is changed, not body wants to use it for those purposes any more but for some totally different purpose, and I do not think that there was ever a public inquiry into it. Would the noble Baroness tell the House that that would be an occasion when the Secretary of State would almost certainly be wrong in dispensing with a public inquiry, supposing that the local authority tried to come along now and buy it for the original purpose which most other people thought was totally inapposite. That is what I want to get at. I do not know whether she will be allowed by leave to deal with that.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, have I the leave of the House to speak again? I thought I covered this. I can only repeat what I said, which seemed to me to meet adequately the point the noble Viscount makes. In the circumstances which he outlines in the development plan, the Secretary of State would certainly take into account the nature of the plan when he is deciding whether to exercise his discretion, and he would hold an inquiry if this was necessary. Whatever were the reasons, and these would be among them, he would still have the discretion to hold an inquiry. I can give the reassurance to the noble Viscount that the points he enumerated, which I will not take up the time of the House by going into again, would be factors which the Secretary of State would have to take into account, and would take into account, when he decides whether an inquiry ought to be held.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I think that that is a much better and clearer assurance, and a very helpful one, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.26 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 67C: Page 57, line 18, leave out ("or inexpedient") and insert ("to ensure development of the land.")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, no one has been very fond of "unnecessary or inexpedient" and certainly this is not an occasion to go back into the New Towns Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that if somebody could think of something better which was not open to the sort of criticisms that were presented to the suggestions we made in Committee, he would consider it. I do not know whether I have been any more successful this time than we were before, but it is really to follow up the precise delineation of the point which he himself put forward that I venture to suggest this Amendment might be some good, and would actually describe the circumstances where the inquiry could be dispensed with on this ground. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, as the noble Viscount says, I did say at Committee stage that we would consider alter- native wordings, if the alternative wordings reflected the spirit of the Government's intentions in this matter. Our intentions are that it should be possible to disregard an objection where an owner was effectively arguing either against the principle of public acquisition or that public acquisition was unnecessary in that case. I am sure that the noble Viscount has taken that point. Indeed, he has made a valiant attempt to meet it. I am advised that this is the first real attempt that has been made to get to grips with the problem.

Unfortunately, however, it does not go far enough, because it would still leave it open to the owner to argue that although the acquisition is unnecessary to ensure that development takes place, nevertheless if the land were not acquired, he or she would be able to ensure that the land was developed more quickly or in a better manner than if it were publicly acquired. On that narrow ground there may still be some room for doubt. That, of course, would clearly not be within the spirit of the Government's intentions. I fully accept that the noble Viscount has made a genuine attempt to meet the point. On the other hand, I hope he will accept that many expert advisers to Her Majesty's Government have also spent many hours seeing whether any alternative form of words could be devised, and they have not had any success. None of us seems to have been able to improve on the words in the New Towns Act 1965, and I am afraid we would rather rest with those words.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I expect that with a little ingenuity I may be able to put the necessary caveat which the noble Lord has hinted is still required. Every time he describes this it is helpful because it goes a little further in trying to pin down the area of prohibition upon which one must not go, and if one does one loses one's public inquiry. I shall study what he says, and we have time for one more try at this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 67A: Page 57, leave out from line 34 to end of line 2 on page 58.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 67B and 68A. We debated this matter in Committee and I have explained that, unfortunately, I inserted my Amendment in the wrong part of Schedule 4. These three Amendments are tabled to put that wrong insertion right.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I cannot let this occasion go by without referring to some rather extraordinary points surrounding this group of Amendments, which has made rather tortuous progress up to now. On 24th October, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved the original Amendment and, at the end of the discussion—in which I had raised several points and made it clear that the Government did not accept the Opposition's arguments on the matter—I did not receive a satisfactory answer. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for a further explanation but still no reply was given. There seemed to be an air of confusion and disarray on the Benches opposite over this whole issue. However, the Question was then put and there was a Division.

On Monday. 27th October, the noble Baroness moved a consequential Amendment and explained that she had inserted her Amendment in the wrong place and would move an Amendment to put that right. When it appeared on the Marshalled List, it was again down in the same place. It was taken out of that place and we now see the same Amendment down in a different place. I find the whole process rather extraordinary, particularly as it was a fundamental Amendment from the point of view of the Opposition. It was an attack on the Government's attitude to the owner-occupier which has been the basis of so much propaganda and bogey-raising both inside and outside Parliament. It is extraordinary that noble Lords opposite should have conducted the issue in this way. If it had not been the noble Baroness who was doing it—and she is certainly not ham-handed—I would have said that the matter had been handled in a ham-handed way. The only conclusion I can draw is that some Freudian influence is at work, and that the noble Baroness would rather not change anything but leave matters as they are. If so, it would be wrong if I did not give her an opportunity to withdraw the whole lot.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I can see that this is not my afternoon from the drafting point of view, but perhaps I can put my side of the case. I tabled the Amendment originally and, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will accept, we have been working to a very tight timetable on this Bill. We went into Committee one week after this Schedule had been debated and altered by Amendment in another place. I had misread the Schedule and therefore inserted the Amendment in the wrong place. I am prepared to accept that I made a mistake; I am never one to try to pretend to be perfect, in this or in any other matter. I recognised my mistake and said so the following day; I said I had inserted my Amendment in the wrong place, I apologised to the Committee and said I would come back to it on Report. I came back on Report and, while I am not criticising anybody else, my Amendment was put down incorrectly yesterday. As soon as I saw that it was incorrect, I amended it and I have done my best to bring it forward today. This illustrates the difficulties under which we are working. Those of us who do not have a large number of advisors behind us, but who have to work as best we can on our own may not always get it right.

I am prepared to speak to my Amendment again. Some difficulties arose, not surprisingly, on the last occasion because it was inserted in the wrong place, and therefore it clearly read somewhat strangely. However, the point at issue is simple. Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B are paving Amendments for No. 68A and the point of No. 68A is to give the owner-occupier the right to object at a public inquiry—the right he has today. It does not improve or alter his position in any way. It simply maintains the status quo, and that is why we inserted it. The arguments were well gone over. The whole proceedings under Schedule 4 mean that in certain circumstances the owner-occupier does not have a right to object at a public inquiry where there has already been an approved development plan or a local plan. We debated this at great length. My Amendment would maintain that right, and I hope that I have at least now inserted it in the right place and that the difficulties that were apparent on the last occasion will not arise today.

Lord GRIDLEY

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Young and I rise to put a Back-Bench point of view. What has really disturbed me about this Bill is the fact that for the first time we have a measure by which Parliament is delegating considerable powers to local authorities, and I should have thought that it was the duty of Parliament to make absolutely clear the precise powers under which they can act. Under Clause 15, there are powers of acquisition and these are to some extent elaborated in Schedule 4. I cannot see, where an authority has considerable powers under the Bill, why the Government should object to an Amendment which, as my noble friend Lady Young rightly said, is designed to allay fears in the country. These fears have not been aroused by the Opposition. Fears exist on the part of the single householder and we have not been responsible for causing them.

Several Noble Lords: Oh?

Lord GRIDLEY

My Lords, I absolutely refute such a charge and, if it is levelled against us, I should like to know the occasion on which we have been responsible. People throughout the country are concerned about the rights of the individual householder and, as I say, powers are being given in this Bill in no uncertain fashion to local authorities, and we are simply asking for protection to be given to the rights of the individual in respect of property.

Lord HYLTON

My Lords, having heard the difficulties under which we are labouring. may I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to withdraw the words "ham-handed" which perhaps fell inadvertently from her lips?

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will make a brief comment. I do not propose to resist this Amendment, because we voted on an Amendment in exactly the same terms the other day, when the Opposition got it through by a very small majority. I therefore do not propose to put the House to the time and trouble of doing it again. I made it clear that in using the term "ham-handed" I was not referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I said specifically that it struck me that the whole procedure had been handled rather ham-handedly.

However, what has not yet been answered—and I do not propose to prolong this discussion further, having made my point—is the initial matter with which I was concerned; that when the matter was put to the House previously no answer was given to the points raised by myself and noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I certainly would not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, of behaving in the way I described. Nevertheless, there has been a Tory political broadcast and many things have constantly been said about this matter, but I was referring to comments and various remarks that have been said and written by the Opposition.

I was quite rightly making the point that, if this was one of the "big flags" of the Opposition in regard to this Bill, I did not think that it had been handled in the right or most effective way. I was pointing out that we had still had no answers to the quite substantial points which I had made on the merits of the Amendment, and which were quite apart from the principle or policy behind them. However. I do not intend to take this any further, and I shall leave any other action which needs to be taken to be considered in another place.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for saying that she will accept the Amendment, and to add a further word of explanation. I am quite prepared to answer all the points which the noble Baroness has raised and I would do so this afternoon, but I had thought that we wanted to get on now. The reason why I did not make an extensive speech was that all this arose at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, at a time when we had agreed to conclude the business of the day after a very long week. I am in no way afraid to answer the points which have been raised, and I should be very happy to do so now or on Third Reading if that was called for. However, I felt that we had gone over this fairly thoroughly and I had not intended to pursue it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will not oppose the Amendment.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67B.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 11, leave out paragraph 13.—(Baroness Young.)

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 68A.

Amendment moved—

Page 58, line 19, at end insert— ("( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-house and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph. ( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-house together with other land and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory purchase order without excluding the dwelling-house from that order. ( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of, or comprises with other land, a dwelling-house, the Secretary of State may disregard for the purpose of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 any objection made by the occupier of the dwelling-house which in the opinion of the Secretary of State amounts in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of the dwelling-house or any other land. ( ) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent.").—(Baroness Young.)

4.43 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 69: Page 58, line 24, leave out ("development plan in sub-paragraph (3)(c)") and insert ("local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b).").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, thought that this was a consequential Amendment. If so, she has another think coming, because it is a point of substance and I hope she has an answer to it. The noble Baroness is probably already aware that the definition of "development plan" for the purposes of this Schedule is that which is to be found in the Town and Country Planning Act. I said just now that the definition of "development plan" in the Town and Country Planning Act includes local plans. Section 20(1)(c) states that the development plan includes, any provisions of a local plan for the time being applicable to the district, together with the copy of the … approval thereof". In paragraph 4(1) on page 58, we apparently have some other kind of local plan, which is being used instead of the development plan for the purpose of seeing whether the Secretary of State will dispense with a public inquiry. I am not at all sure why it is that the kind of local plan referred to in paragraph 4(1)(a) on page 58 is being substituted for the whole of the development plan, rather than for the local plan referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(b) on page 56. It it not a matter of a consequential Amendment. It would, incidentally, have been consequential to what I moved earlier, but it is also a point of substance and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain it, because otherwise it seems to me that what we want is a reference to the local plan rather than to the development plan. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I referred to it as being consequential because it seemed to me to be very much on the same point, because Amendment No. 67, as I understood it, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to dispense with a public inquiry on the basis of any development plan other than approved or adopted local plans. I was dealing with them together. I believe that they are all part and parcel of the same thing because, until there is a local plan, the "development plan" for an area means the old-style plan as overlaid by the approved structure plan, if there is one. We then come back to the same argument about the structure plan. I do not believe that it will be of very great consequence whether this is in or out of the Bill and, if the noble Viscount feels strongly about Amendment No. 69, having disposed of the main Amendment which was Amendment No. 67, I do not feel that at this stage it will make very much difference if this alteration is made to the Bill. I am prepared to accept it.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that the Amendment clarifies the position and on that basis I am very happy that it should go into the Bill.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should perhaps explain a point which I overlooked. The Amendment should read, "a local plan" rather than "the local plan". I regret the mistake which occurred because I bracketed the words which the noble Viscount was moving to delete. We should need a manuscript Amendment to make the necessary alteration.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, again, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the House will allow me to move a manuscript Amendment, I beg to move the following in place of Amendment No. 69: Page 58, line 24, leave out the words ("the development plan in sub-paragraph (31(c)") and insert ("a local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b).")

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: moved Aendment No. 69A: Page 58, line 30, leave out ("confirming authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have moved this Amendment so that there may be on the Record the answer which I now know, but which may also have eluded some other people. As I understand it, the "confirming authority" both in line 30 and in line 35 is the confirming authority for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land Act and not for the purposes of the local plan part of the Town and Country Planning Act. In other words, the confirming authority is not the authority which confirms the local plan—that is, the local planning authority—but is, rather, the Secretary of State. If that can be confirmed, I believe it may be useful and dispose of one possible doubt in people's minds. For the purposes of obtaining confirmation, I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I hope I am not shortly to be told that Amendment No. 70 is on a point of substance.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

No, my Lords.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, the noble Viscount has said that it was felt that the drafting throughout the subparagraph should be consistent in referring either to the Secretary of State or to the confirming authority. It may be helpful if I read out the explanation for the use of these two phrases in the sub-paragraph so that, as the noble Viscount has said, it is on the Record.

The sub-paragraph does two distinct things. First, it gives a power to bring in a reserve procedure in certain circumstances; this is a power under the present Bill and therefore should be exercised by the Secretary of State (as in the first line of paragraph 4(1)). But, secondly, that reserve procedure has the practical effect of inserting sub-paragraphs 4(1)(a) and (b) into Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. The term used throughout that Schedule is" the confirming authority", and that term is defined as, the authority having power under the enactment in question to authorise the purchase". For these complex reasons, the dual terminology is necessary.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 58, line 38, leave out ("the occupier") and insert ("the owner occupier, the occupier or the owner temporarily absent but who comes within the scope of sections 2 and 3 of the Rent Act 1974.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point was discussed in Committee when it was pointed out that under paragraph 4(2) the occupier of a house would be notified under the special procedure and, if he objected, would have the right to a public inquiry. The point which was made in Committee was that only the occupier was mentioned in this sub-paragraph and that the owner-occupier and, perhaps more important, the person who owned the property but who might be tempor- arily abroad—perhaps serving abroad—was not mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explained how this had arisen in the Bill and said that this sub-paragraph had been inserted in another place at the instigation of the Opposition. He subsequently wrote to me, for which I am most grateful, and said that if a house was to be compulsorily purchased the owner would be served with a compulsory purchase order. But the purpose of the Amendment—which I am sure is defective in its character—still comes back to the point where an occupier under subparagraph (2) will have the automatic right of inquiry, it appears that the owner, if not an occupier, may not. I hope that for that reason the noble Lord can give me an explanation. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, as the noble Earl said, at the Committee stage he asked me whether an owner-occupier of a house serving abroad would receive notice where, while he was away, the property was deemed to be development land. The answer is that he or she would receive notice of the making of the compulsory purchase order, and that was the point on which I corresponded with the noble Earl. However, the present Amendment would go further, and give to certain types of temporarily absent owner-occupier a right to a public inquiry when the reserve procedures were in operation. We accept the spirit behind the Amendment, that where an owner-occupier is bona fide temporarily away from his house (for instance, a Serviceman abroad, which was the example given by the noble Earl at the Committee stage) but fully intends to return to his house, then he should in practice receive the same treatment as if he were still in residence. But there are problems in defining this arrangement in precise legal terms so that it covers all the cases which ought to be covered, on the one hand, but on the other hand does not go too wide and bring in cases where the absence could not really be described as a temporary one. The present Amendment goes too wide; we do not believe that it achieves the right result, and we are not clear that the sensible result, which I think both the noble Earl and the Government want, can be achieved in leglislation.

We therefore propose to achieve the spirit of the Amendment administratively so that, where an owner-occupier was genuinely temporarily absent, the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion to hold a public inquiry, so that such a person would be put in the same position as if he or she were a residential occupier. I hope that with that clear assurance on this important point which the noble Earl has raised he will not press this Amendment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. It gives me great pleasure to be grateful, as it happens so rarely. But I wish to make the point that I presume that the acquiring authority would serve the CPO notice on the temporarily absent owner, or indeed, on any owner who was away, thus alerting him to the right which, for administrative reasons, would be brought in at a later date. This action would ensure that the owner knows of his right automatically to have an inquiry. If such action were not taken, he may not know that.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him to repeat the early part of what he has just said. I was so astonished at the gratitude with which he greeted my remarks that I confess I did not hear the earlier part of what he said.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I am always delighted to repeat what perhaps I did not put too clearly. I was saying that I am very grateful for the spirit of the noble Lord's reply. I understood him to say that the Secretary of State would accept the point—but not put it into legislation—that if there was an absentee owner, who was serving abroad on Her Majesty's service for one reason or another, he would have the right under this sub-paragraph (2), as the occupier. The point I am putting to the noble Lord is how will such an owner know that he has that right? Would information on that right be included in the notice which, I presume, would be served on him in connection with the compulsory purchase order?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may attempt to answer the noble Earl's question, I should say that this would not be attached to the compulsory purchase order in an addendum or note, but the owner, when he or she received the notice of the making of the compulsory purchase order would, as I think the noble Viscount said earlier, probably wish to object; this would be the normal course of events. It would be at that stage that the Secretary of State would exercise the discretion which I have indicated he would exercise in these cases.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.56 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 72: Page 60, line 13, at end insert—

Special Parliamentary Procedure

("7A.—(1) For paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Land Acquisitions Act 1946 there shall be substituted the following paragraph: 12.—(1) A compulsory purchase order, in so far as it authorises the purchase of land being, or being the site of, an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State certifies that the acquiring authority has entered into an undertaking with the Secretary of State to observe such conditions as to the use of the land as in his opinion are requisite having regard to the nature thereof (2) Within twelve months of the first appointed day under Clause 7 of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an order specifying the land to which paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1946 shall apply. (3) An order made under the last subparagraph shall not be effective until a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (4) Before making the above draft order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Statutory advisory bodies concerned, and such other bodies as may seem to him expedient.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72 and at the same time speak to a manuscript Amendment to sub-paragraph (2) of it to delete the words: Within twelve months of the first appointed day under Clause 7 of this Act … Speaking now to the suggested Amendment to Amendment No. 72, I invite the House to consider with me the usefulness of special Parliamentary procedure for protecting special categories of land and the issue of whether the use of special Parliamentary procedure should, because of the appearance of this Bill, in due course be extended. We have had one previous short debate on my Amendment No. 206B to Clause 40, which appears in columns 461 to 465 of the Official Report of the Committee stage. I recognise that in moving that Amendment I gave the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite very little notice of my intentions. But the short debate which we then had has given me useful material to digest and reflect upon, and I now put forward—and I apologise for needing to take a little time over it—a refinement of my earlier proposals, which I hope will be acceptable to the House and to the Government.

Referring to the previous debate, I accept particularly and entirely that we cannot take decisions now, at this stage, on this Bill, about what further categories of land, besides sites of ancient monuments, commons and National Trust land, should be protected by the special Parliamentary procedure. I also accept—this is another point that the noble Baroness made—that Clause 40 is not the best place in the Bill to deal with this matter. Therefore I come at it in Schedule 4, where we are making other modifications to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, which is the original source of special Parliamentary procedure.

The situation we are dealing with is this. Under the 1946 Act—Part III of Schedule 1 in particular—there are four main categories of land which are given extra protection against compulsory purchase. First, there is land owned by the National Trust; that is, inalienable land, which is referred to in paragraph 9. Secondly, there is the land of statutory undertakers, referred to in paragraph 10. Thirdly, there is land forming part of commons or allotment, referred to in paragraph 11, and land which is designated as the site of an ancient monument. Protection of National Trust land, which is mentioned in this Bill, remains unchanged. Protection of commons remains unchanged by the Bill, though mentioned in it, although the special Parliamentary procedure could always be avoided where the Secretary of State certified that he was satisfied that land had been given in exchange for that taken by the compulsory purchase order. The protection of the special Parliamentary procedure for the land belonging to the statutory undertakers is being removed by this Bill; that was what Clause 10 dealt with. So this leaves the protection of special Parliamentary procedure for designated land; that is in paragraph 12.

My first submission to the House is that this last category of designated land is, in any case, badly overdue for consideration and that while no conclusions about what should be done can possibly be reached here and now it would be wrong, in a Bill which does so much to promote and indeed to require the compulsory acquisition of land, not to take the opportunity to start and to stimulate a consideration of the protection of designated land and to provide now for possible changes in due course to meet the new situation.

May I remind the House of how matters stood in 1946, when this legislation was first put on the Statute Book, and how they stand now? In 1946 the inalienable land of the National Trust, commons land, land of statutory undertakers and ancient monument sites were subject to special Parliamentaray procedure. The only land protected, irrespective of who owned it and how it was used, comprised the ancient monuments, and the reason for that was that in 1946 this was the only kind of nationally designated land that existed. In 1946 there were no National Parks; it was several years before there were any areas of outstanding natural beauty; we had no heritage coasts; and, in the urban areas, there were no conservation areas and we had not begun on the process of listing historic buildings.

Yet, despite those tremendous changes, there has been only one change to paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Land Acquisition Act 1946, in which the application of special Parliamentary procedure to designated land was considered. That was in the case of compulsory purchase orders by water undertakers in the National Parks, and that matter was considered in the Water Resources Act 1971. There, Parliament took the view—and took it quite emphatically—that special Parliamentary procedure should be applied; applied it was, and applied it is. So we now have a situation which is lone overdue for overhaul and highly anomalous. My Amendment makes possible a start—a very gentle and modest start—to putting it right.

Perhaps your Lordships would be kind enough now to look at the terms of my Amendment. There, in the proposed new paragraph 12, by adding the words, of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State", to the existing paragraph, it provides for other kinds of land to be covered by the protection of special Parliamentary procedure under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Act, and that is all at this stage.

My Amendment then goes on, in sub-paragraph (4), to invite the Secretary of State to consult with other statutory bodies, such as the Countryside Commission and the Historic Buildings Councils, and other non-statutory bodies, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Civic Trust and the amenity societies, and, in the light of what they say and of what he thinks, to decide what kinds of land to bring into the protection afforded by paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 and to do that by order. My Amendment then goes on, in paragraphs (2) and (3), to invite Parliament to approve those orders whenever they are laid; and your Lordships will notice that by the manuscript Amendment I am not asking the Secretary of State to achieve this by any time, though I think it would be as well for it to be done before the effects of this Bill begin to bite hard. Parliament, I think, should approve the orders, because after all it is their Parliamentary procedure which will be involved.

My Lords, I accept that it will be difficult to decide how to draw the lines among these various categories of designated land; yet it would be impossible to draw them more anomalously than they are drawn now. What will be helpful, however, is the fact that paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act provides as an alternative to special Parliamentary procedure a certificate from the Secretary of State to the effect that special Parliamentary procedure can, in his view, be dispensed with where he is satisfied that a suitable undertaking or agreement about the management of the land in question by the authority that is in the process of acquiring it has been entered into. This kind of agreement about management—a management agreement—is just the kind of thing which the Countryside Commission, in particular, are always trying to secure to protect the best of our countryside while leaving its ownership undisturbed. My Lords, I commend this Amendment to the House and hope that it finds favour with the Government. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD moved manuscript Amendment 72B to Amendment No. 72: In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 leave out from the beginning to "the" in line 2.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this Manuscript Amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I was intrigued by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he reminded us that he had moved a similar Amendment to Clause 40 and when he said that he had found it was the wrong place and that he had now "come at it" in Schedule 4. He has certainly "come at it" as if on a white charger, and has taken us for a conservationist trip around the legislation from 1946 onwards, which I found extremely interesting but which, if he will forgive me for saying so, is completely irrelevant to the Bill which we are discussing today. His Amendment, as he is possibly aware, has a certain number of technical defects, one of which he has certainly righted in his manuscript Amendment No. 72B. Nevertheless, this is not the reason why his Amendment, though it can be considered and discussed, is not acceptable at this time and in this Bill.

The fact that legislation may be badly overdue in many instances—and I think we can ail think of a great many places and areas where this is so—does not necessarily mean that you can just pop it into any Bill that happens to be passing along the way. They are not vehicles for this sort of thing. While I very much appreciate his position and sympathise with him in it—I would probably do the same thing myself, and have done it in the past; that is, grabbed at any bus that happened to be passing and on it tried to get right the particular bee which was in my bonnet—there are very grave difficulties, and I am afraid I shall briefly have to repeat, more or less, the points I made on Committee stage when he moved a similar Amendment. On that occasion he drew attention, as he has today, to the number of categories of land which have been given special national significance and which, in his opinion, deserved special protection. He also mentioned then, as he has now, the Water Resources Act and the fact that CPOs were made subject to special Parliamentary procedure where the purpose was to develop reservoirs in National Parks. Although then, as now, he was evidently not advocating the application of special Parliamentary procedure to any particular category of area, he thought the opportunity should be taken in the Bill to deal with the extension of that procedure.

I can only say again that the Community Land Bill does not introduce any new policy in relation to, for example, sites of ancient monuments, which he mentioned, or indeed National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Nor is there anything about the community land scheme which suggests that such areas which are already well protected under the planning machinery are more likely to be at risk of compulsory purchase by virtue of this scheme.

I can only assure the noble Lord personally that certainly part of my Departmental duties are concerned with conservation and it will be something that I shall be watching with hawk-like eyes. Therefore, as I have said, the Government are unable to accept that this should be used as a vehicle for imposing on the Secretary of State a duty to bring forward proposals for adding what would be innumerable new categories of land to the special Parliamentary procedure. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities under more specific legislation to consider the point that the noble Lord has raised. Knowing the activities, the vigilance and energy of the noble Lord, I am sure that he will not let one Hass him by. Having been able to get this eloquently off his chest, I hope that he will now withdraw his Amendment.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am not quite so sure about that. The noble Baroness has been very complimentary and said what I hoped she would say on what would have provoked me into pressing my Amendment if she had not said it. She recognises that this job needs to be done but says that this is not a good moment to do it. That I rather dispute.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I did not say that. I said that this was not the right way or place to do it, which is quite different.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am going to ask the noble Baroness whether she can be a little more forthcoming for that might help me. The anomalies to which I alluded, the lack of any progress except for the rather odd one about the water undertakers in the National Parks, are due to the fact that this special Parliamentary procedure is not very popular with the officials who have to face it. No doubt it would have been left for quite along time and could be left in the ordinary course of events but we are dealing here with a Bill which will enormously increase the number and extent of compulsory purchase orders for acquiring land by local authorities. This is the moment, even if the Government may not have thought of it, when we should consider whether the special Parliamentary procedure which was designed specifically to protect certain categories of land should now be looked at again and the protection widened to cover other pieces of land.

My Lords, I am not in the least moved by any minor technical defects there might be in my Amendment, because if we press it the Government could easily correct them. What I should like to have from the noble Baroness is a fairly clear assurance—clearer than she has given already—that if she does not accept this Amendment, she will provide for a reconsideration of the use of special Parliamentary procedure to safeguard the special categories of designated land when they are faced with compulsory purchase orders. In that event, I might consider removing my Amendment. But I want her to take on board and to agree with me that this is the moment to think about it even if this is not the right Bill.

I cannot believe that she is occupying the seat that I occupied in the Department of the Environment, shouldering the same responsibilites, without recognising that the protection of this designated land needs to be reconsidered, particularly in the light of the effect of this Bill. Perhaps she could respond to that, with the leave of the House, before I decide what to do.

Lord FOOT

My Lords, is not the fact of the matter that if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, were sitting where the noble Baroness is sitting and she had addressed to him the arguments that he addressed to her this afternoon, she would have received from him precisely the answer that she has given to him on this occasion? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, knows perfectly well that the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that this is not the measure in which to try to achieve this object, however desirable it may be. He also knows perfectly well that if he had been sitting in her place he would have used almost precisely the words that she has used to the House.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I wonder whether I could respond to that. When I was sitting in the seat the noble Baroness now occupies and was faced on the Water Resources Bill with this proposition by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I acceded to his suggestion.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is time this to-ing and fro-ing of words stopped. Although we may have sat in each other's seats, different Governments have different styles and so have different people and they express themselves in different ways. We have a number of Amendments to get through and limited time tonight. All that I can say is that I cannot give the noble Lord any assurances. I am not prepared to do so. I have made clear my position and the Government's position over this Amendment and there is nothing further to add to it.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I shall press this Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 72B) to Amendment No. 72 shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]
Alexander of Tunis, E. Gainford, L.
Balerno, L. Geoffrey-Lloyd, L. Newall, L.
Balfour, E. Glendevon, L. Northchurch, B.
Barnby, L. Glenkinglas, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Berkeley, B. Goschen, V. Orr-Ewing, L.
Blake, L. Grenfell, L. Pike, B.
Brecon, L. Gridley, L. Rankeillour, L.
Camoys, L. Halsbury, E. Rhyl, L.
Carrington, L. Hanworth, V. Rochdale, V.
Cathcart, E. Harmar-Nicholls, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Harvington, L. Sandford, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hawke, L. Sandys. L. [Teller.]
Cottesloe, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Sempill, Ly.
Cowley, E. Inglewood, L. Sherfield, L.
Craigton, L. Kemsley, V. Somers, L.
Crathorne, L. Kinloss, Ly. Stamp, L.
Crawshaw, L. Kinnoull, E. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Long, V. Strathclyde, L.
Daventry, V. Lonsdale, E. Strathspey, L.
Denham, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Drumalbyn, L. Lyell, L. Tenby, V.
Dundee, E. Macleod of Borve, B. Thorneycroft, L.
Eccles, V. Mansfield, E. Tranmire, L.
Elles, B. Margadale, L. Vernon, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Merrivale, L. Vickers, B.
Elton, L. Mersey, V. Vivian, L.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Middleton, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Exeter, M. Monck, V. Yarborough, E.
Falkland, V. Monk Bretton, L. Young, B.
Ferrers, E. Mottistone, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Arwyn, L. Birk, B. Buckinghamshire, E.
Balogh, L. Blyton, L. Castle, L.
Banks, L. Brockway, L. Champion, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Bruce of Donington, L. Chorley, L.
Collison, L. Henley, L. Popplewell, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L. Raglan, L.
Crook, L. Hoy, L. Rhodes, L.
Crowther-Hunt, L. Hughes, L. Rusholme, L.
Cudlipp, L. Jacques, L. St. Davids, V.
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Kirkhill, L. Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Darwen, L. Leatherland, L. Shinwell, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Lee of Newton, L. Simon, V.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Slater, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.] Snow, L.
Fisher of Camden, L. Lyons of Brighton, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Foot, L. MacLeod of Fuinary, L. Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Gaitskell, B. Melchett, L. Summerskill, B.
Geddes of Epsom, L. Milford, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
George-Brown, L. Morris of Grasmere, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Morris of Kenwood, L. Wigoder, L.
Hale, L. Paget of Northampton, L. Winterbottom, L.
Hall, V. Pannell, L. Wise, L.
Hampton, L. Peddie, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Platt, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to Amendment agreed to accordingly.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 72, as amended, be agreed to.

5.26 p.m.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 72A:

Page 60, line 13, at end insert— ( ) For the purposes of a compulsory purchase order made, in whole or in part, under section 15(3)(a) of this Act, paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1 (challenge to validity of orders) shall have effect as if after the words "in subsection (1) of section one of this Act" there were inserted the words "or is based upon insufficient evidence that the land was required for the purpose stated by the acquiring authority",".

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical point which arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee on the provisions of Clause 15(3)(a), and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was good enough to write to me a letter about it which I found rather surprising. I will pick out the relevant paragraph of his letter: You will appreciate that the drafting of the subsection now means that the judgment of whether the land is or is not required"— that is to say, land required to facilitate the development of other development land— is a matter not of opinion but of fact. This means that the decision must rest, in the last resort, not with the authority or even with the Secretary of State, but with the courts. Your suggestion that land could be bought compulsorily under this power without any particular reason being given is therefore wrong. I can- not imigine that if the matter were ever tested the courts would take the line you are suggesting; they would surely require the authority to demonstrate the need for the land.

That is not the way it works. If you take an ordinary compulsory purchase order, whether under this provision or anything else, to the courts under the powers in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946, the courts do not normally look behind, first, the inspector's report, and particularly his conclusions, recommendations and findings; and, secondly, the Secretary of State's decision letter, which usually adopts the conclusions and the recommendations. It is only where the argument can be raised that upon the face of the document there is no evidence at all that could have been used by the Secretary of State to confirm the compulsory purchase order, that there is no evidence at all land was required, that the courts would interfere. There is one other ground; that is, the decision is so unreasonable that no Secretary of State could make it.

I want to make it plain whether the Government thought in this case it would be possible to test in front of the courts, upon an appeal against a compulsory purchase order's confirmation, the merits of whether the land was or was not strictly required as set out in Clause 15(3)(a). Unless one inserts the words such as I have put down in this Amendment, I do not believe the courts would look at the merits of the argument of the local authority. I therefore put down this Amendment in order to find out what would happen, whether the Government thought there would be a departure from what ordinarily happens on an appeal against a compulsory purchase order, or whether we would be in the same position where we simply have to look at the Secretary of State's decision letter and any reference in it to the inspector's report. I hope that the noble Lord can clarify what he said in his letter, because at the moment I am a little confused. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, as the noble Viscount said, we had a debate on this matter at Committee stage, and I have written to him about it. We are here concerned with the powers in Clause 15(3)(a) for an authority to acquire land adjoining the main acquisition which is required for the purpose of executing works for facilitating its development or use. It is a limited ancillary power. What the noble Viscount is now concerned with is whether the role of the courts is adequate in relation to the scope of the provision.

It is necessary to distinguish between the vires of the order—in other words whether the enabling Act gives the authority the necessary powers, and the merits of the order—in other words, whether or not it ought to be made. The latter is solely a matter for the Secretary of State, and it has been generally accepted that the courts are not the right kind of body for deciding what are essentially administrative matters. What is absolutely right is that the courts should be able to consider the vires of an order, and it is at this point that they will be able to take a view on whether or not the land in the order was required for the development of the main site. This is essentially a matter of fact rather than judgment: and clearly if the authority could show no good reason why the land was required, the court would have no alternative but to quash the order as ultra vires. It is true that the courts will not usually look behind the Secretary of State's decision, if there is some evidence that the authority required the land for the purpose stated. But this will have been challenged at the public inquiry. The trouble with the Amendment of the noble Viscount is simply that it is likely to go too far. It could extend the role of the courts beyond their proper role of considering vires and into the consideration of the merits of an order. It is unacceptable to introduce the courts at that stage in that area. If this idea were accepted for this point there would no doubt be pressure to extend it to cover other cases, and it would soon undermine the whole basis of compulsory purchase procedure. Given that the test of "requirement" is an objective one, so that there is at least the basis for an action in the courts as in other CPO cases, the Government feel that they have gone as far as they can in restricting the scope of what is intended to be a narrow ancillary power.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having most adequately added to the explanation given in his letter. I thought the situation was as he has just outlined and that probably was what the Government intended, and indeed it would be precisely in line with what happens in every other case. I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation which has been given, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 73: Page 66, line 14, after ("suit") insert ("or in Scotland the instance").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had a note to the effect that this was an Amendment which had been put down in the name of the noble Earl. It may be that that is not the case, but that we have managed to find a point in the Bill which the noble Earl has missed in his series of Amendments relating to this point, in which case I beg to move.

The Earl of BALFOUR

My Lords, this is an Amendment consequential on those moved in Committee in another place. As an earlier stage I had asked for the paragraph in question to be left out, and obviously I could not then move the Amendment as well. I asked the Government whether they would be kind enough to put down this Amendment for me at Report stage, which they have duly done. I am very grateful, and that is all I need to say.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 71, line 30, at end insert ("and in particular the assessment of compensation under paragraph 12(4) may be reopened.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee we had from the noble Lord opposite, after my noble friend Lord Sandford had moved an Amendment for me, a very useful explanation of Part IV of this Schedule and I now understand its purpose very much better than I did earlier. However, I should like express clarification on one point. Let us suppose that land has been bought for housing under the Housing Acts by a housing authority before this Bill comes into operation, and they subsequently decide that they wish to appropriate the land under Part IV, so that it becomes governed by the provisions of this Schedule and they can therefore override any remaining private rights or difficulties. Let us then suppose that they wish to appropriate it for industrial purposes, but they have overridden—and this might well have had to be done in front of the Lands Tribunal—a restrictive covenant on the land that it was to be used only for housing at a density of one house per acre or something like that and they wish to build very much in excess of that, compensation will probably have been payable to a person who has the benefit of the restrictive covenant, or may already have been paid under paragraph 12(4).

When they appropriate it to the second purpose, the industrial purpose, it seems to me probable that extra compensation will be payable in order to reflect the further breach of the restrictive covenant; and, in those circumstances, it would be right, upon the appropriation, to reopen for the benefit of the person who used to have the restrictive covenant the question of compensation under paragraph 12(4), because, after all, he will be worse damaged by the use which is now proposed to be made of it under the appropriation, than he was under the original acquisition and for which—the first one only—he has been compensated. I hope I have explained this rather complicated point clearly. I believe it is correct for us to see that, if this facility is to be offered to local authorities so that they can take advantage of Part III of the Schedule, the private citizen should not be done down as a purely subsidiary and probably unintentional effect. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, what the noble Viscount said was very complicated. There are two separate points here, and perhaps I ought to take them separately to help clarify the matter. The purpose of sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 25 is to enable the local authority or planning board to appropriate land for the purposes of Part III of the Bill and thus, in effect, bring it within the ambit of the land scheme so that advantage can be taken of the provisions of Part III of Schedule 4; for example, the power to override easements or other rights on payment of compensation. It may be—I am not entirely clear about this—that the noble Viscount is basing his Amendment on the proposition that compensation may already have been paid under paragraph 12(4), but the appropriation may lead to some new or wider interference with rights or a breach of restrictions upon user justifying additional compensation.

I am advised that this proposition is misconceived, since for compensation to have been paid under paragraph 12(4) the land must have been acquired under Part III of the Bill or already appropriated for the purposes of Part III. There is no case in which rights may have been overridden under paragraph 12(4) unless, before that overriding, the land was acquired or appropriated for the purposes of Part III. The separate point which the noble Viscount may also have been covering would arise in a case in which, after rights have been overridden under paragraph 12(1), the land is appropriated to other purposes. However, the amount of compensation payable for breach of right bears no relationship to the purpose for which the land is held. The compensation is assessable under the enactments mentioned at paragraph 12(1), as for other similar cases. There is no reason why the owner of a right should be entitled to more compensation after land has been appropriated for any purpose, so there would be no point in that case in reopening the assessment. I think that deals with both points which, as I understood him, the noble Viscount was putting forward.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I do not think it does, but it may be that we ought not to spend a great deal of time on this matter on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to afford me a moment to see him about it. Let me just take the second proposition, that the local authority appropriates land which it has acquired under Part III and for which compensation has been paid under paragraph 12. It will have had to acquire it, now that paragraph 4(2) has come out, for certain specified reasons under the Acquisition of Land Act. Therefore, the compensation payable under paragraph 12 will relate to the purpose for which it has been bought. Let me suppose that they subsequently appropriated it for another purpose for which they did not buy it, and it is a more obnoxious purpose so far as it affects the person who used to have the restrictive covenant, than the purpose for which they originally acquired it. In those circumstances, it seems to me that one ought to make clear whether or not the person who lost the benefit of the restrictive covenant gets a second dose of compensation. In those circumstances, I think he ought to, and that is the point I am making.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, agree with the noble Viscount. I take that point. I am advised that to override for different purposes would be a different breach of the covenant. It would be a new breach of the covenant and further compensation would be payable in that case, without any express provision being put in the Bill.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I wonder whether before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment I may make another point which I think arises here as well as anywhere else on the Bill. This point emerges from rather fuller discussions than was possible earlier on which I have had with the Town and Country Planning Association. I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain whether it is true that local authorities under this Bill cannot buy on behalf of the land account land they have already purchased under other powers. If this is so, it appears there is some difficulty because they might, for instance, own half the property comprising a central development area which they have acquired under one set of powers and they could then acquire another half under the powers of this Bill but would not be able, as it were, to join the two together for the purposes of financing them, disposing of them, developing them and so on. It would be quite unreason- able for me to expect an answer straight off the cuff from the noble Lord in answer to that question, because I have not given him notice, but perhaps he can drop me a line before the next stage and reassure me. That will probably suffice.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, it would be unreasonable for me to speak more than twice on the Amendment.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, all I have to do, if I may have the leave of the House to speak for a third time, is to thank the noble Lord. I very much hope that the Lands Tribunal will take the same view of the law as he does. At any rate, I am reinforced in the knowledge that the Government intend that it should. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 76:

Leave out Schedule 4.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that we have dealt with all the points that could possibly be dealt with in the course of the debate on Schedule 4. The only one on which an undertaking had been given which has not arisen is to do with commons. That was a matter pressed by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, but I think that as she is not here we can move on.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to raise one question on Schedule 4 of which I have given notice to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It relates to paragraph (2)(b) at line 22 of page 56. Under this paragraph, as the House will by now be well aware, the Secretary of State has a very special power when a compulsory purchase order has been laid and objection to that order has been made. He may call a public inquiry or call a private inquiry—which is covered by this sub-paragraph (2)(b)—or he may call no inquiry at all, save that he will have to do so in the circumstances of sub-paragraph (3). This question of the private inquiry has been a matter of some concern, and I do not think we discussed this point on Committee. It is a matter of concern, particularly to amenity societies.

The purpose of raising this question is to seek elucidation from the noble Baroness. If a compulsory purchase order is laid and the owner objects and agrees to a private hearing under sub-paragraph (2)(b), is there any right at all for amenity societies or some body which represents local opinion to state their case as to whether the land in question is suitable for relevant development? It is a matter of some concern and, as the noble Baroness is perhaps aware, it has been expressed outside on many occasions. I hope the noble Baroness can now reply to that question. The second question, which arises from the first, is, if in fact an amenity society wishes to object will the Secretary of State automatically transfer the private hearing into a public hearing?

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, paragraph 4(2)(b) is in identical words to the existing paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act. This means that the opportunity to hold either a public inquiry or a hearing applies to CPOs under all existing Acts. In practice, as the noble Earl is aware, hearings are held when only minor matters are in dispute. There is no reason why acquisitions of development land should be treated differently in this respect from acquisitions under all other powers. The Secretary of State has a discretion, but if only a minor matter not worth an inquiry were in dispute and the Secretary of State had no power to have a hearing, as the Amendment proposes, he might simply decide not to have an inquiry. So the objector, who would have got an inquiry under the Bill as it is at the present moment, gets nothing at all.

On the noble Earl's general point about amenity societies, the situation is exactly the same. They are no worse off under this Bill—and I do not propose to go into the other point which does not really arise on Schedule 4. But I hope I have assured him on the point which was the main substantive point on which he wanted an assurance.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, it might be convenient if I just very briefly answered the question which the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, asked me on the last Amendment which he dealt with. I think the short answer to the question he asked is that there is no link between the powers of acquisition and the land account. The land account deals with land which is used for private development.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:

5.48 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 77: Page 15, line 6, leave out ("the area of each county authority") and insert ("each county area").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77 and with it to embark on a major exercise involving Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 82 to 89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 117, 119 and 122. Strange to say, all those 20 Amendments are needed to achieve something to which I spoke at the Committee stage; namely, one land and acquisition management scheme for the area of the Peak Park. It is no doubt a surprise to many of your Lordships to know that we have to do this, as I think, in Parliament, with 20 Amendments, in order to get the arrangements for one single land and acquisition management scheme right.

Although the Government have been correct in hoping and waiting for the local authorities in the area to work out arrangements for themselves, we must face the fact that it is the need for things like this in the area of the Peak Park which arouses the most intense local controversy. Party politics are thrown into it; local loyalties between six proud counties and two proud cities are involved; there is the usual continuing conflict between town and country and there is controversy between conservationists and those who are working in the Park to exploit the minerals there. Therefore, it is not surprising that the issue comes to Parliament to be settled.

In prescribing the proper arrangements for a land acquisition and management scheme for the Peak Park, we have three alternatives. We could have six counties and nine districts, which is the number of separate local authorities with territory in the Peak Park, preparing their own land acquisition and management schemes with some measure of consistency between them where they bear upon the Park and we could leave the Peak Park Planning Board to co-ordinate them as best they could within their own area. As I said at a previous stage, that would be asking the Peak Park Planning Board to undertake an almost impossible task. Alternatively, the Peak Park Planning Board could make the plan for their area and adjust it to the requirements of the other 15 local authorities with land in the area of the Park. Thirdly, we could continue to do nothing and leave it to the locals to sort it out. That is the policy which has been correctly followed so far by Her Majesty's Government. It is a policy which normally I would commend and one which normally works, but we have to face the fact that it has not worked in this case. If these schemes are to be ready to operate under the Bill I do not think that we can leave it any longer.

The factors that have to be borne in mind in coming to the right decision are that the Peak Park Planning Board are the structure planning authority for the whole of their area. In that respect they have functions to discharge under Statute which otherwise would be exercised by the counties in their area. But they are not being exercised by the counties they are being exercised by the Board. In addition, the Peak Park Planning Board are the local plan and development control authority for the whole of their area. In that respect they have functions otherwise held by the districts but not held by them in respect of territory in the Park. Thirdly, the Peak Park Planning Board already have a further new duty to prepare a National Park plan for their area which, among other things, will be the basis for land acquisition and management in their area.

I am grateful for the support of Her Majesty's Government in so far as they have prepared these Amendments, although at the price of inflicting 20 Amendments upon the House in order to do what I thought I had done reasonably well with two Amendments. I am aware that there is intense local controversy about this and that if we try to please everybody we shall get nothing done. I am entirely convinced that the only practical step is for Parliament to deal with this matter in the Bill and by these Amendments, the central ones being Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, to give to the Peak Park Planning Board the duty of preparing the land acquisition and management scheme for the entire area of their Park. The way in which they will do this in order to discharge their own functions and at the same time to leave the appropriate functions with the districts and counties is as I described at col. 113 of the Official Report during the Committee stage. I do not wish to repeat that argument now. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord VERNON

My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford. Indeed, I should have supported him at Committee stage had I been able to be here. I should declare an interest in that until fairly recently I was a member of the Peak Park Planning Board. The position has been clearly stated by my noble friend and the only point I wish to stress is that although the compromise formula which was put forward initially by Derbyshire County Council and adopted by the other county councils for solving this problem is theoretically acceptable, in that it recognises the principle of uniformity within the different land acquisition and management schemes which are to be prepared by the different county councils, in practice it is very unlikely to work. It is extremely clumsy and bureaucratic and in fact there is no guarantee that uniformity will prevail. The Peak Park Planning Board certainly think that it will not work.

It is interesting to observe that there is no division of opinion on this issue within the Peak Park Planning Board. This applies to the county council representatives as well as to the nominated members, who represent one-third. The Board are virtually unanimous on this issue and the county council members are adopting a view which opposes that of their councils.

By general consent the Peak Park is one of the best administered, if not the best administered Park in the country. As my noble friend has said, they are the planning authority for all of the land within their area. It seems to me to be only logical and sensible that they should also have responsibility for preparing a single land acquisition and management scheme for the Peak Park instead of the very complicated procedure that has been suggested by the county councils. Indeed, this would be in accordance with the positive planning side of the Bill which the noble Baroness stressed so much in the Second Reading debate.

In conclusion, as the author of the Sandford Report my noble friend Lord Sandford has greater experience of National Parks, how they work, how they should be administered and how they should not be administered than anybody else in your Lordships' House and most other people in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that the Government and the House as a whole will accept this Amendment.

Lord HENLEY

My Lords, I assume that the Government will accept this series of Amendments. May I therefore commend the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his initiative in this matter and congratulate the Government for helping him to bring it about.

Lord CR AWSHAW

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned that there are various views about this problem, and on this occasion I owe it to the House to say a few words expressing the contrary view and not to let the case go by default. As my noble friend Lord Sandford said, his Amendment highlights a considerable local problem; namely, what power should be exercised over a wide field, including housing and industry, either by the Peak Park Planning Board or by the various local authorities. This is not in any way a Party issue.

I should also tell the House that the Members of Parliament for West Derbyshire and the High Peak, who happen to be Conservatives, take the view, together with the six county councils and the district councils which are mentioned in Amendment No. 82, that there should not be a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the Park. However, they agree that it would be quite reasonable for each of the six county areas to include within their own land acquisition and management scheme a Part II in common form, for each county, so that the practical effect would be the operation of a single land acquisi- tion and management scheme for the area of the National Park.

I detect a feeling locally that the authorities feel that their powers and functions are gradually being eroded and that in several cases they are being handed over to the Peak Park Planning Board. I am aware that the Board are as to two-thirds made up of people from the local councils, but the system of nomination from district council to county council and then to the Board tends to make the Board remote from the people who live and work in the Park and for whom conservation is only a small part of the problems of daily life.

I do not want this afternoon to defend the system of land acquisition management schemes, but I fear that by putting this Amendment into the Bill we may aggravate the already rather strained relations between the local authorities and the Peak Park Planning Board. They are meeting on Friday to try to sort out the situation, and I feel it will be more fruitful if they are not faced with a verdict at this stage from the House of Lords.

6.1 p.m.

Lord CHAMPION

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, rightly stressed the importance of the Amendment to which Amendment No. 77 is a paving Amendment, and he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon. For a long time I had an association with Derbyshire and I came to appreciate—indeed to love—the beautiful area embodied in this Peak District National Park. The creation of that Park was surely a fit and proper recognition of the outstanding nature of this area and of the necessity for preserving it for ourselves as well as for posterity. There is some uniqueness about this National Park for its area impinges on that of six county councils and clearly that would, on the surface, provide some justification for giving this Board exceptional and unique powers in relation to this Bill. But I think we have to recognise that, unlike all the local authorities given powers of acquisition and management under the terms of the Bill, if the Amendment were accepted these powers would be given to a joint body whose members are not directly elected by the people living within the area of the Park. Exceptions sometimes may be justifiable, but not I think in a case of this sort in which the Dowers of land acquisition and the making of management schemes are such a vital part of the whole concept of the Bill now before us.

As an old local government man I am strongly in favour of major decisions, such as the necessary decisions to be taken under this Bill, resting finally with the people who are directly responsible to their electors. This is something which we like in our democracy; it is something that we ought to do everything possible to preserve. But that does not necessarily mean that each of the local authorities should be in a position to take decisions which would be in conflict with the others covering the area. That would be a form of madness.

The sort of scheme which my noble friend Lord Melchett mentioned in Committee appears to me to have within it all the possibilities of securing uniform arrangements to cover the whole area, while at the same time—and this is the important point—preserving the status and the standing of the six local county councils concerned. Such an arrangement would be in the interests of all concerned for it would preserve—and this too is important—the good will and co-operation of the local authorities in the implementation of these very important provisions of the Bill.

I gather that considerable progress has already been made in agreeing a common form between counties and districts, and indeed there is to be a further meeting to discuss a draft form on the 7th November, following which the counties and districts are to meet the Peak Park Joint Planning Board on the 24th November. It will be seen therefore that they are all greatly involved in serious discussion to attempt to resolve what is admittedly a difficult situation.

The local authorities should be allowed to attempt to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution among themselves. It is only in that way that good will and co-operation in the implementation of the Bill can he achieved in the future. I understand of course that Amendments Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 81 are paving Amendments to Amendment No. 82 and the rest, but as I see it subsection (2) of this clause says: The scheme shall be made, and from time to time revised, by all the authorities in the area…acting jointly". I suppose the noble Lord's paving Amendments are somehow intended to cover the point of settling what authorities will be regarded as being in the area of the county authority—the county authority that he is proposing by the Amendments in the Bill; namely, the Peak District National Park Board. As I understand it, the words in that subsection (2) are intended to apply to the lesser authorities within the county area and not to the sort of situation which would obtain if the Peak Board were to become a county authority under the Bill. To consider the county authorities perhaps lesser authorities would surely not be conducive to harmony within such an area, and harmony surely is important in this connection.

In the consideration of all this there ought to be in our minds the fact that all the county councils and all the district authorities concerned are opposed to the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I stress that this House ought to uphold the standing and the status of the elected county and district authorities, motivated as they must be by a feeling of serving the interests of the people who live and work within their area and who elect them for that purpose. In my view this Amendment ought to fail on the grounds of the preservation of something that is important to us; namely, local democracy.

6.6 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I rise to support these Amendments. Although I have not had experience of living in the Peak National Park, I have lived in another National Park—the Lake District —where similar circumstances have applied in the past. Where planning or any similar administration was the responsibility of the Lakes Planning Board some sort of uniformity was achieved through the area. This was important, even though some county councillors, whether they were from Cumberland, Westmorland or Lancashire, may have had their noses put out of joint. At least there was uniformity. Where various powers, and not least the highways (if I may give an example), remained the responsibility of the three separate counties there was no uniformity; there was no good overall plan at the end, and there was considerable friction along those inter-county boundaries. Therefore I hope that whatever is worked out, either by this Amendment or other means, at least uniformity throughout the Peak National Park will carry weight.

The noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to the fact that he was loth to see powers taken away from the elected local representatives. I agree wish him, and I was very pleased indeed to hear him say that. In my view it is something that we in Parliament must never lose sight of, but, if he will listen for one half-minute, I thought it came rather strangely from a noble Lord opposite during the debates on this Bill, when such an important part of the Bill is setting up authorities like the Land Authority for Wales, which are not elected, which are not answerable to any electors and which will have the most immense powers over the lives of people in the Principality. So I would say to the Minister that that particular principle to which the noble Lord has just attached such importance really does not carry much weight in this Bill, bearing in mind the many other proposals they are making where they are taking powers away from local representatives and putting them in the hands of others.

When they are thinking out this Amendment, I wish that the Government will bear in mind the importance of uniformity of administration, both as affecting the people living in the area for 52 weeks in the year as well as those who come to the area for their holidays, maybe for two weeks or three weeks. But it is the people who live there for 52 weeks in the year who are really the most important consideration.

6.11 p.m.

Lord CASTLE

My Lords, I rise to help to dispel the loneliness of our Front Bench who have had little vocal support from this side. I hope they will succeed in resisting a series of Amendments which seem to me to be out of line with the general record of two of the noble Lords who are associated with this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with whom I should think I should be on the same side of the barricades when it comes to fighting for access to the countryside and the preservation of amenities there. It looks as if they are using their reputations as crusaders and champions of the rights of access to the amenities of the countryside to give a further pinprick to the Government, and to attempt to bring this Bill into derision.

The noble Lord, Lord Champion, re-emphasised what I attempted to emphasise during Committee stage, which was the way in which this Amendment, or the intentions behind it, can be construed as being an attack upon the virtues and capacities of those in local government. I understand that certain noble Lords opposite, from their previous speeches in this House, have not the same regard for local government as some noble Lords on this side of the House. Their training has been in a different area. But some of us come here having become associated with public life through hour local government, and we have a great respect for it. What is more, we learned during that time that the larger the authority—I do not say the better the authority—the more proficient were the officers. We are not dealing here with a series of rural district council officers, where the surveyor is the engineer and the town planner all in one. We are dealing with authorities of large size, with vision, with people used to administering over a large area and using the capacity of their officers to see the future of that area and the best for large populations. These people are not to be classed in the same way as one would class the smaller local authority officials who, no matter what their virtues, are not always the most expert in their sphere.

I suggest that the town planners and the valuers who will be much in evidence during the operation of the land acquisition and management schemes are of the highest quality. It is absurd to suggest that the advice they would be given would be anything but in the interest of the general population of the country, because, after all, these places are not just parochial. These people know that. These areas are holiday resorts which give joy to thousands. I hope the Government will stick to their guns on this matter and that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will follow the precedent he set this afternoon, of seeming at one time to withdraw his Amendment and then taking it to a Division. Although he seems to be pushing his Amendment, I hope in the end, in the light of what is being said, he will withdraw it.

6.15 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, may I first stress what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said, which was that this is not a Party issue; there are obviously feelings on both sides of the House in different respects. It was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, attempted to make a Party political point to my noble friend Lord Champion. I do not think he was in the Chamber on Committee stage when the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made some very strong remarks to myself and other noble Lords on this side about the way the noble Viscount felt we were treating local authorities when we were discussing joint boards. We were accused of attempting to override the wishes of local authorities in that case where a minority of the local authorities—possibly one out of several —might not wish a joint board to be set up, and where we would override that minority wish.

Here, we are dealing with a situation, as I understand it, where all the local authorities involved do not agree with the Amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and all the local authorities have attempted to come to a compromise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, slightly overdid his list, because I think he included No. 96. My understanding was that that was an Amendment in the names of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, it is a blank.

Lord MELCHETT

Then Amendment No. 96 will not do either of us any harm! The noble Lord said he had had help in drafting the Amendments. That is certainly the case. It was not right for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to assume that that meant we were supporting them. We on these Benches are always ready and eager to be as helpful as we can to noble Lords on all sides of the House. It was our view that if these Amendments were to be pressed into the Bill by a Division, then they should be properly drafted, and we did not want to waste time in debating niggling drafting points. That is the only reason why help was given in the drafting, and this does not imply support.

This is a difficult problem, and the differences of opinion on both sides of the House underline that. We have to decide who to please in a difficult local dispute. It has either to be the local authorities of the area, coupled with the two Conservative Members of Parliament who represent the area on the one hand, or the Peak Park Planning Board on the other. I should have thought, if not for Party political reasons for the sake of consistency, that the noble Lord would not be pressing the Amendment, because he would wish that the views of the local authorities should be respected. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, mentioned the compromise put forward, which I do not intend to spell out in detail because I did so in Committee. No evidence has been produced that this compromise will not work quite satisfactorily. In practice, I cannot pretend to have very strong views on this, because I hope there will not be much relevant development taking place in the Peak Park Planning Board area, and I am sure that is a view common to all sides of the House. So the land acquisition and management scheme which is drawn up in either of the two ways, either as proposed by the Amendment or as it will be under the Bill as now drafted, will not be a document of devastating significance one way or the other.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, overlooked the fact that the clause operates on the basis that all the authorities in the area make the land acquisition and management scheme jointly, so all the authorities in the area of the Peak Park will have to participate in preparing a land acquisition and management scheme, whatever course is adopted; that is, whether the Bill stays as it is, or whether the Amendments are passed. The choice is between the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, which could mean having a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the Peak Park Planning Board prepared jointly by all the authorities involved in the area, or alternatively having six different bits of the Park dealt with in the land acquisition and management schemes for the six county areas. The compromise put forward by the local authorities involved is, of course, designed to ensure that those six separate land acquisition and management schemes should all deal with the Peak Park area in a consistent manner. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, and no more bureaucratic or difficult than will necessarily be the case if the Amendments are passed.

I hope the noble Lord will not press these Amendments. I think the fact that consultations and discussions are still continuing locally as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and my noble friend said—and indeed there is to be another meeting on Friday, and that the counties and districts are shortly to meet the Peak Park Planning Board again, would indicate that it would be wiser for your Lordships to leave this matter to be settled locally. I certainly would not advise the House to let the Amendments go into the Bill without the opinion of your Lordships being tested in the Division Lobby.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it is a difficult issue and it is unfortunate that we have to face it, but I think we must. Clearly, I did not underestimate the extent of the local controversy that exists about this matter. It is the only issue so far which has secured the participation of two members of the Party opposite in one of our debates; so it is clear that the ripples have reached Westminster from the Peak Park. If the counties wanted to find a good spokesman, they could have found nobody better than the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to make their case.

My Lords, two propositions are being put to us. One is that it would be better to leave this until Friday, or next week, or a little later in the month. But it has been left for several months already. We have the fact that here is the Peak Park Planning Board with clear functions and responsibilities in this field which they feel they can discharge effectively only in the way they have suggested, which gives plenty of scope to the adjacent and surrounding local authorities. Of course, they will be doing it all jointly, but it will be on the basis of their plan rather than on the basis of six separate county plans and nine separate district plans.

The other case that has been put to us, by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, particularly, is that this Board is a remote Board and nobody on it is directly elected by the people living in the Park. I really do not think that is quite right. It has 33 members on it, of which two-thirds, 22, consist entirely of directly-elected councillors: eight from Derbyshire, two from Manchester, two from South Yorkshire, two from West Yorkshire, two from Staffordshire and two from Cheshire; four from the districts, one from West Derbyshire and one from High Peak, all directly elected.

Lord CASTLE

My Lords, are we using the phrase "directly elected" in the correct understanding of it? "Directly elected" means that they are elected to that position by their constituents. Here this is not so. In the case of this Board they are elected to the local authorities and appointed by the local authorities to the Board.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, that is correct; they have been elected by the people they are representing on the Board. When these proposals which we are now seeking to put into the Bill were formulated on the 18th July, there were no objections from any of these councillors from the six counties and the four districts including West Derbyshire and High Peak. So this is not a proposition which has been forced on those representatives against their will; there has been no opposition to it from any of those representatives on the Board. I would much rather not have to move these Amendments, still less to press them, if I had any confidence that it was possible by leaving it any longer for practical arrangements to be worked out. Alas!, I know from all my special experience, which it was my opportunity to acquire while I was a Minister, that these arrangements simply do not work, and the only way of getting proper administration and management in the National Parks, if we are to have them, is by providing a unified administration, having single directors and central bodies administering them. We can get representation of the people who live in the Park by making sure that the Boards and committees that administer the Parks consist primarily of elected councillors, and this is the case in this instance. I fully understand why there is much local controversy and why noble Lords speaking in this debate have felt it necessary to put forward the points they have made, but I feel that this Amendment needs to be imported into the Bill.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Gisborough, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
Alexander of Tunis, E. Goschen. V.
Amulree, L. Gowrie, E. Northchurch, B.
Auckland, L. Grenfell, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Balfour, E. Gridley, L. Pike, B.
Barrington, V. Hampton, L. Platt, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Hanworth, V. Rankeillour, L.
Berkeley, B. Harmar-Nicholls, L. Reigate, L.
Brecon, L. Harvington, L. Rhyl, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Henley, L. Rochdale, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Home of the Hirsel, L. Rollo, L. [Teller.]
Carrington, L. Inglewood, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Cathcart, E. Ironside, L. St. Davids, V.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Kemsley, V. Sandford, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Kinnoull, E. Somers. L.
Cottesloe, L. Lauderdale, E. Stamp, L.
Cowley, E. Long, V. Strang. L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Lonsdale, E. Strathclyde, L.
Daventry, V. Lyell, L. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Mackie of Benshie, L. Tenby, V.
Drumalbyn, L. Macleod of Borve, B. Tranmire, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L. Mancroft, L. Vernon, L.
Ellenborough, L. Mansfield, E. Vickers, B.
Elles, B. Margadale, L. Vivian, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Merrivale, L. Wade, L.
Elton, L. Middleton, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Exeter, M. Monck, L. Wigoder, L.
Falkland, V. Monk Bretton, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Foot, L. Mottistone, L. Young, B.
Gainford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Arwyn, L. Gordon-Walker, L. Newall, L.
Bernstein, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L. O'Hagan, L.
Birk, B. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Pannell, L.
Blyton, L. Hall, V. Peddie, L.
Broadbridge, L. Harrison of Greenwich, L. Popplewell, L.
Brockway, L. Hayter, L. Raglan, L.
Castle, L. [Teller.] Houghton of Sowerby, L. Rhodes, L.
Champion, L. [Teller.] Hoy, L. Rusholme, L.
Collison, L. Hughes, L. Segal, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Jacques, L. Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)
Crawshaw, L. Janner, L. Shinwell, L.
Crook, L. Kirkhill, L. Simon, V.
Crowther-Hunt, L. Leatherland, L. Slater, L.
Cudlipp, L. Lee of Newton, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Darwen, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Strabolgi, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Lovell-Davis, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lyons of Brighton, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Fisher of Camden, L. MacLeod of Fuinary, L. Walston, L.
Gaitskell, B. Melchett, L. Winterbottom, L.
Gardiner, L. Morris of Kenwood, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 together.

6.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 77) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 59.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 8, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").

Page 15, line 11, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)

6.37 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 80: Page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a probing Amendment because we found ourselves during the Committee stage in some trouble as to the precise meaning of Clause 16(7). The House will recall that under this subsection the scheme, shall not create any obligation enforceable in law. Yet the Secretary of State apparently can, or does, have the power to make it enforceable. The question raised at Committee was how he did this, and whether it was by individual letter. At that time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to come to our rescue, as he has done so often in this Bill, and say that he thought that it would be a remarkable state of affairs if, without statutory backing, a letter or direction from the Secretary of State would have the force of law. Indeed, I think at a later stage the noble and learned Lord gave an official reply in which he expressed himself as not entirely happy. The noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to write to me, and in case I misquote his letter perhaps lie will be kind enough to explain the position.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, a certain amount of confusion arose in the discussion of this matter because my understanding was that the question that was being addressed to me was how it was possible for a Secretary of State to render enforceable that which had no statutory or other hacking. Of course he could not do so, but the answer to the dilemma is that the provisions of subsection (7) expressly enable and empower the Secretary of State to make directions.

The question which then arose, and which arises, is: how is it possible that directions can be made by letter? The direction itself is in fact a direction which is published, and if your Lordships would look at Schedule 5 paragraphs 5 and 6 at page 73,in paragraph 6 it is provided: The provisions of paragraph 5"— calling for the opportunity for public inspection— shall apply in relation to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(7) of this Act"— which is what we are discussing— as they apply in relation to a scheme which has been made or revised. The authority to give the direction is to be found in Clause 16(7). It empowers the Secretary of State to direct that a scheme under the section shall not create any obligation enforceable in law. That direction has to be published in the way indicated in paragraph 5. The letter is merely a communication to the authority concerned of the content and fact of the direction, so that the direction does not depend on the letter; the letter is an event which follows the making of the direction and the publicity which attends to it.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clearing up this little muddle. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.40 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 89 en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 29, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area")

Page 15, line 36, at end insert— (" " county area" means the area of a county authority or, in the case of Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Staffordshire or Cheshire, such part of that area as does not fall within the area of the Peak Park Planning Board")

Page 15, line 37, leave out ("or the Greater London Council") and insert ("the Greater London Council or the Peak Park Joint Planning Board")

Page 16, line 8, leave out from ("section") to end of line 11, and insert ("an authority shall he regarded as an authority in any county area if any part of their area falls within that county area")

Page 16, line 13, after second ("to") insert ("the area of")

Page 16, line 14, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area")

Page 16, line 16, leave out ("their") and insert ("that")

Page 16, line 17, after ("to") insert ("the area of")

page 16, line 19, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area").

6.41 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 90: Page 16, line 22, after ("Wales") insert ("in Orkney, in Shetland, in the Western Isles").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 91, which is the alternative. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for a letter he wrote to me, but I am not altogether satisfied that the position is quite different in respect of the Isles of Scilly than it is particularly in the case of the Western Islands of Scotland. I do not think I am taking the noble Lord's letter out of context when I quote this part of it: As I indicated in Committee, the fact that an authority is a single tier authority is not necessarily the only test. The land acquisition and management scheme will inform the Secretary of State about various administrative arrangements which might go further than operations of a single authority and its own staff see, for example, Schedule 5, paragraph 3(1)(b). That provision reads: Each scheme shall contain…arrangements, where appropriate, for the use by one authority of officers or servants employed by another authority. I argue that in Scotland the island authorities are all-purpose authorities and are on exactly the same footing as the Isles of Scilly under the English legislation. I admit that there is need for a land acquisition and management scheme in the case of Orkney and Shetland, purely and simply because of the tremendous development that is taking place in that part of the world in connection with North Sea oil. I was in that area in February of this year and the maximum number of people they have had unemployed in Shetland is about 150—and in Orkney about 175—and approximately 100 of those, without being unfair to the people concernd, are virtually unemployable. On the other hand, the Western Isle have seen very little development for a long time, partly because they are in a much more stormy part of the world and also because there is no industrial development worth speaking of going on there.

However, I argue that the Scilly Isles have a very favour able climate and that it would be a great mistake to make exceptions. I feel that there should be no difference in the provisions of this Bill in the case of the Scilly Isles or the Western Isles. Indeed, if there was a group of islands to be left out, probably it should be the Western Isles rather than the Scilly Isles. The Scillies have an ideal climate and, in my view, have every right to come within the provisions of this Bill; and I imagine that the local authorities there would be just as in favour of that as the noble Lord has said in respect of other local authorities in the United Kingdom. It would be much more sensible for my Amendment No. 91 to be agreed to, which then would leave no exception, but Wales would be on its own with its special provisions in Part II of the Bill. I should be pleased to hear other comments from noble Lords with equal experience of the subject.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was referring to me when he sought the comments of those with equal experience of the subject, but I will do my best. These three Scottish authorities are, in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, island authorities and are, for planning purposes, "general planning authorities. "They have, I acknowledge—as I acknowledged in Committee—no local authority either above or below them, but the Bill as drafted makes provision for them to make land acquisition and management schemes acting alone. This is not an inconsistency. LAMS is not merely a question of agreeing the division of functions between authorities, though as I said in Committee, this will obviously figure largely in most schemes. LAMS is also a scheme setting out important arrangements in connection with the acquisition and disposal of land. I went into this in some detail in Committee and the noble Earl referred to a specific example which I gave him in a letter I wrote to him after the Committee stage. I do not intend to go over that ground again. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said and he did not dispute that LAMS deals with factors which arise, whether or not authorities are above or below the authority drawing up the LAMS.

There is another important factor in requiring LAMS from the islands authorities which I did not mention in Committee. This is the existence of three bodies which are uniquely Scottish—the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Special Housing Association—to which the noble Earl has drawn our attention on earlier occasions. Each of these bodies is empowered to carry out development either themselves or in co-operation with local authorities. For example, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is involved with hotel and advance factory development; the Scottish Development Agency has industrial and environmental functions which involve acquisition and development of land; and the Scottish Special Housing Association is involved in housing development. All these authorities will have an important and continuing role in development after the first appointed day under the Bill and it is essential that their rôle is adequately defined in a LAMS. I must repeat, therefore, that the preparation of LAMS by island authorities in Scotland, particularly as they will be involved in oil related development in the future is an essential preliminary to the operation of the Bill. The noble Earl sought, I think, to draw a distinction between the Western Isles and the other island authorities mentioned in his Amendment. My understanding is that it is possible that there will be oil-related development in the Western Isles in the future, and that this authority has already expressed a desire to move towards implementing the land scheme.

The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, attempted, as a second limb to his argument, to equate the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles, with the Scilly Isles. I regret that that argument cannot be accepted either. They are comparable neither in population nor in size. The smallest of the Scottish authorities, Orkney, has a population over seven times as large as that of Scilly and a land area 60 times as large. Nor can one compares the current development needs and pressures in the Island authorities associated with oil and related enterprises with the essentially rural Scilly Islands. Moreover, as I have said, Scotland is unique in having three Government-sponsored agency bodies operating in development The Government cannot accept that because the Scilly Isles are excluded from LAMS because theirs is a single-tier authority, the same must automatically apply to the Scottish island authorities. I hope that this further rather lengthy explanation of the position will satisfy the noble Earl, and that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendments.

The Earl of BALFOUR

My Lords, I shall be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment, but I feel that we should try to find out a little more about why the Scilly Isles are being left out. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 91. Page 16, line 22, leave out from ("Wales") to end of line 23.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that the Scilly Isles deserve to come into the provisions of this Bill, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, can clear my mind as to why they should definitely be excluded, if that really is the case. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I have been into this in considerable detail, and I do not think there is anything more that I can add. I have attempted to show the noble Earl why it is not right that the Scottish Isles should be excluded because—and I feel that this may be a point which will carry particular weight with the noble Earl—the Government agencies in Scotland which are carrying out development do not exist in the Scilly Isles. If I may say so, it therefore seems that the arguments used by the noble Earl in an attempt to exclude the Scottish Isles might well answer his own case so far as the Scilly Isles are concerned.

The Earl of BALFOUR

My Lords, perhaps we should leave the Scilly Islands on their own, though I believe that the Government are making a mistake. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Schedule 5 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 93, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 51.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 30, leave out lines 1–6 on the correction slip.—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I regret that we shall have to re-examine this case in a little more detail because, unfortunately, there was an inadvertent omission from the Bill as amended in Committee. Your Lordships may have been able to acquire a correction slip which makes a correction to Schedule 5, which reasserts the position as we left it on 28th October. The position then was that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, addressed himself to the Amendment and, in general terms, accepted it, except for the words to which I shall allude in a moment. We feel that there is not a great deal between the two sides of the House on this point and that it should be possible to reach some compromise. The noble Lord said the following: I confess that I am in some difficulty about the Amendment. My advice is that without the last two lines it would be quite acceptable to the Government and that I should offer at Report stage to bring forward an Amendment along those lines."—[Official Report, 28/10/75; col. 153.] As your Lordships will he aware, last night, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in a Government Amendment altered Schedule 6 and is now attempting to remove from the Bill our previous Amendment to Schedule 5, I cannot at this stage sec why it should not be highly beneficial to leave our Amendment in Schedule 5, but to alter it on Third Reading by the removal of the words which give such offence to the Government: that is, "in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture". All the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, lead us to believe that this will be quite acceptable without those words and that if we were to resist the Amendment—and we hope your Lordships will be willing to do this later unless the Government are ready to withdraw it—it should be possible to reach the solution which I have outlined.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I believe that he may not have had time to study what I said yesterday at column 1121, when I sought to speak to a series of three Amendments—Amendments Nos. 93, 109 and 110—with Amendment No. 51 which I had then moved. I indicated then that I was accepting the spirit in which I understood from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, those Amendments had been put forward. The noble Earl told me several times that they had been put forward in a helpful spirit. I accepted them in that spirit, and I have attempted to come back with a series of Government Amendments which cover the ground which is common to both sides of the House. Indeed, as I indicated in column 1121, our Amendments go somewhat further in a very important respect.

The Amendments moved at the Committee stage by noble Lords opposite extended only to land acquisition and management schemes, and, as I said yesterday, in our view, authorities ought to be thinking about land management not only when preparing their LAMS, but even more importantly when they are operating a scheme. It is in that respect that we have gone wider than the Amendments which were agreed, but, as the noble Lord indicated, the Government's version leaves out the business of having to consult the Ministry of Agriculture which I believe it is now accepted may well be better left out. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this series of Amendments and have a look at the Schedule when it has been amended by Amendments Nos. 109 and 110. I believe he will see that I have moved them in a genuine attempt to meet the points which have been made, and, indeed, to go further than noble Lords opposite managed to go in their Amendments in an attempt to be helpful. I believe that it would be better if the Amendments were carried so that the noble Lord could have a look at the Bill once that has been done.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94.

Amendment moved— Page 72. line 41, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)

6.59 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 95: Page 72, line 45, leave out ("direct all the") and insert ("after consulting all the authorities direct those").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment would require the Secretary of State, before directing authorities to revise a land acquisition and management scheme to consult with those authorities. It arose because, at Committee stage, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, moved an Amendment which provided for consultation before the Secretary of State directed the revision of a LAMS. Unfortunately, the Amendment was not correctly drafted, but the Government accepted the point in principle and undertook to bring forward on Report a properly drafted Amendment; hence the present Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley may I thank the noble Baroness for these Amendments which meet the point we raised?

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 10, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)

7.0 p.m.

Baroness B1RK moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 73, line 16, at end insert— (2) As soon as practicable after a scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every parish council whose area comprises any part of the area of the county authority. (3) As respects Scotland sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply but, in the case of a scheme made or revised for the area of a general planning authority, that authority shall send as soon as practicable a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every district council whose district comprises any part of that area.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I ask the House to agree to a manuscript Amendment to change "area of the county authority as shown in subparagraph (2) to "county area", so that it fits in with the Peak Park Amendments.

The intention is to change the words "area of the county authority" in the last line of sub-paragraph (2) to "county area". This is to fit in with the Peak Park Amendments. I hope that this is clear. The object of Amendment 98, to which I will now speak, is to require that when a land acquisition and management scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send copies of the scheme to parish councils in the area, or in the case of Scotland where a scheme is made or revised by a general planning authority, that authority shall send copies of the scheme to district councils in the area.

Noble Lords may recall that at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, moved an Amendment which would have given parish councils the right to ask for a copy of any LAMS without payment. This resulted in drawing to our attention the point that as Schedule 8, paragraph 1(1) (b) already provides for declarations of disposal notification areas, it might well be appropriate for parish councils to receive copies of LAMS as of right. The Government agreed to consider this point before Report stage and the present Amendments are the result. The basic point is that although parish councils are not authorities for the purposes of the land scheme, they are local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972.

Therefore we consider it is right that they should be kept informed of arrangements that will have an impact on their areas. The same argument applies in Scotland where there is a need to cover the position of district councils within the areas of general planning authorities which are also local authorities but which are not authorities for the purposes of the Bill. The sending of copies of LAMS to district councils within these areas will ensure that knowledge of the contents of LAMS is effectively disseminated throughout these areas. As the copies of LAMS will be sent to parish and district councils under a statutory duty they will of course be provided free of charge.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for moving this Amendment. Those connected with parish councils, like myself, will be more than happy about this.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I join my noble friend in that remark. I ask the noble Baroness one question. Does it apply to community councils in Wales? We assume that it does.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I gather that it does—

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, it cannot, because the schemes do not apply in Wales. There are no schemes in Wales.

Baroness BIRK

I am sorry, my Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right. I was trying to think what would be the parallel way of doing this so that at least the local authority areas within Wales were notified That cannot be done under this Amendment, but I am quite sure that there will be a way in which we can see that the local authority areas in Wales are notified.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, a parallel action which the noble Baroness might consider would be giving the parish councils the right to have copies of the agency arrangements sent to them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 17 [General duties]:

7.7 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 99: Page 16, line 28, leave out ("then").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 99 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 100. We start, as I did at the Committee stage, from the Statement made by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister who is responsible for local government and development that he wants to see this process of land acquisition being planning led. The object of my first Amendment at this point of the Bill at the Committee stage was to make the Bill reflect that intention. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, took his stand on the clause as previously drafted and called in aid the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association. At that time I had not consulted those bodies, but I now have, and in the light both of that consultation and my study of what the noble Lord said in response to my original Amendment, I have refined my Amendment and propose this one which would leave out the word "then" and to re- draft what now appears in paragraph (b).

This is done with the intention of making my Amendment meet some of the points which the noble Lord said were in the mind of his right honourable friend, and I hope that the Government, while not perhaps entirely happy, will be more happy with this version than they were with the original one. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has explained, these Amendments would alter the general duty in Clause 17(1). At Committee stage the Opposition carried against the Government an Amendment to Clause 17(1) which reversed the order of the paragraphs and then made the duty of bringing development land into public ownership dependent upon the authority's implementation of its plans. As my noble friend Lord Melchett pointed out at that time, the Amendment would have the unacceptable effect of allowing authorities which did not wish to implement the land scheme to argue that public ownership of development land was not necessary to secure the proper planning of their area. This point seems now to be appreciated and this Amendment rights that point. It removes the requirement that public ownership should be consequential upon achieving good planning, and it leaves things in the right perspective.

In view of this I can say that we are prepared to accept the Amendment as we feel it is some improvement on the one moved before. Nevertheless, I must point out that such acceptance is again without prejudice to any conclusions that the Government may reach on the acceptability of the whole of the main issue.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am delighted that all this striving has brought our minds closer together, at any rate on this point.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 100.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert— (b) of bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land themselves or of making it available for development by others in accordance with such planning."—(Lord Sandford.)

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 102 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 5, leave out ("within whose area the land is situated") and insert ("whose area includes the land").—(Lord Melchett.)

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney)

My Lords, I should tell the House that if Amendment No. 103 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 104.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment No. 103 on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, leave out lines 6 to 9.—(Lord Melchett.)

7.12 p.m.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 17, line 11, at end insert: (" (5A) In exercising their duties under this Act. and in particular their duty to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, every authority shall aim to protect productive agricultural and forestry land from encroachment by relevant development, and in this context shall have had prior regard to the use for relevant development of waste or uncultivated land.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is another version of an Amendment which we moved at Committee stage. We have studied with great care the reply given at that stage by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and our drafting follows upon what we believe to be the many points where we agreed with the Government and they agreed with us. If I may draw your Lordships' attention to col. 194 of the Official Report of 28th October, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said: As I understand it, the only possible point at which the two sides might diverge is in the proposals of the Government for giving a slightly higher rate of grant to authorities than is at present the case. But I think on the whole there is the concensus approach that the authorities are doing as much as they can, and the fact is that a great deal of derelict land is simply not suitable for development", et cetera.

My Lords, this relates to the principle of derelict land, which we have varied in our Amendment because the basis of it now is related to the needs of agriculture and forestry. Our Amendment provides that: … "every authority shall aim to protect productive agricultural and forestry land from encroachment…". On this point there is no divergence between the two sides of the House, but your Lordships will be aware that in the final line of the Amendment the words "waste or uncultivated land" are used instead of "derelict land". Waste land, as your Lordships are aware, includes a very large area of the United Kingdom. It includes foreshore, estuarial acres which are partly covered at high tide, areas of land which are uncultivated and areas of land which are in process either of being reclaimed from the sea or of being covered. My Lords, there is no doubt about it; the casting of this Amendment in these varied terms is a new method which we believe may help the Government to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord MIDDLETON

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in moving this Amendment, which has been carefully worded in order to meet two of the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, both of which we felt were valid; that is, the matter of consultation and the reference to the economic interests of rural or urban areas. I fear that we do not agree with his other two reasons for opposing our Amendments in Committee: first, that the planning system in itself contains significant safeguards for agriculture—I only wish that were true—and, secondly, the opinion he expressed that the pace of acquisition of agricultural land would not increase once local authorities began to acquire land under this Bill. That, we think, was highly speculative and probably too optimistic; and, in any event, no good reason for not showing a warning light to local authorities to guard against unnecessary land-take and to remember to preserve the country's capacity to produce food. I very much hope that the Government will now find this Amendment satisfactory. It in no way undermines any of the basic principles behind the Bill. It can do no harm, it may do good, and it ought to be accepted.

The Earl of BALFOUR

My Lords, I wonder whether I could add a few more words to this point. I did not move Amendment No. 101 because I felt that Amendment No. 105 covered the point to a very much greater extent, but if for some reason the Government are not prepared to accept Amendment No. 105 perhaps they will consider again Amendment No. 101. However, I rise to support Amendment No. 105, standing in the names of my noble friends, for several reasons. Some of the biggest developments that have gone on—for example, if I can again quote Scotland. the enormous oil works at Grangemouth which are now hitting the headlines of almost every paper—were built on reclaimed land. On many occasions the local authority has taken the very best agricultural land for the purposes of, say, housing because it saved them the cost of underbuilding. I particularly ask the Government to revise their procedures where local authority development takes place in order to allow for a greater amount of cost to be borne by them in cases of local authority development where underbuilding is involved. The cost of underbuilding, for those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with this, arises where a house is on a slight slope and is the cost of whatever building is required below ground-level to make the building upright.

My Lords, there are many other cases where, because of the nature of the ground—there may be mine-workings underneath, for example—rafting of a building may be needed. But I must point out—and I think it is an important factor —that probably means that for every quarter of an acre of good agricultural land which is taken we have to spend £50 a year on importing the food which would have been grown on that quarter acre. Two tons to the acre of, say, wheat is not uncommon, and with prices as they are at the moment I should think that the hard wheat price for grain on the London market will be round about £80 a ton. That gives your Lordships some idea of what is involved when it comes to these very large amounts that are being lost because of the development of good agricultural land and the reduction in our food output. It is for these reasons as much as for any other that I sincerely hope that the Government are prepared to accept this very well-drafted Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Middleton and Lord Sandys.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, there is often a risk, at this stage in the consideration of a very long Bill, of certain matters not having the priorities given to them that they ought. This is a most important Amendment; and the words have been clearly and carefully considered, there has been no precipitate feeling about it, and I hope that there will be given to it the importance that the need for our food production and the preservation of agricultural land clearly deserve. One hopes that this is a case where we are to have an acceptance by the Government; but without those words which they have put at the end of the other two acceptances—words like "subject to not being reversed when the Government have had second thoughts". This is a decision that ought to be made now and stuck to.

Lord COLLISON

My Lords, it would be surprising if I were not to say a few words on this subject. I understand completely the motives behind the Amendment. One sees agricultural land being swallowed up almost weekly by the development of building sites and in order to make new roads. This is saddening to an agriculturalist. It is true that our land is precious to us. We cannot feed half our population and we must import what we do not produce; that is a consideration which everyone ought to bear in mind. However, sadly, one recognises that with the development of our towns the housing needs of our people must be taken into account and I, for one, regretfully must accept that sometimes even good agricultural land must be taken over. I hope that the planning authorities, and certainly any guidance given to them, will underline the strong desirability of land being sought which is not of first agricultural quality. Wherever one can find unproductive land not suitable for agriculture, that should be used.

My Lords, I shall not vote for the Amendment; I think it too tight. As I have said, there are considerations which, again regretfully, must sometimes outweigh the local needs of agriculture. I am going to listen with interest to what will be said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and express the hope that he will understand and accept the need for guidance on the lines I have suggested to be given to local authorities and to anyone else connected with the development of land.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I think my noble friend has it exactly right when he says that the important thing is for the planning authorities to consider this. That is exactly the point of view that I take, and I will try to indicate to noble Lords why this Amendment will weaken the protection given to agricultural land under the planning system rather than give it extra protection. I do not want again to go over the common ground between us on this. I accept, as do the Government, the need to increase food production in this country. We accept the undesirability of agricultural land being developed unless absolutely necessary. That is common ground and ground that we covered at some length in Committee; as, too, we have considered basic issues concerning the protection of agricultural land.

In replying to the debate at the Committee stage, I entirely accepted the spirit behind the Amendments that noble Lords opposite then moved, but I questioned the necessity and the way in which they tackled the problems. I raised two main issues on the latter point. First, I stressed that any attempt to use the land scheme to set up a duplicate planning system would wreck the planning system and remove the real protection from agricultural land. Secondly, I drew attention to specific defects in the Amendments, particularly in respect of any requirement for consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.

I am naturally delighted that noble Lords opposite have taken some of these points to heart; and to that extent this Amendment is an improvement. I think there is now the question of whether it adds anything of value to the Bill. After all, paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 requires authorities in exercising their functions generally to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. Another objection which I raised at Committee was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. This was whether this Bill will affect the rate at which agricultural and is brought into development. I went so far, the last time we debated this, as to suggest that it might have the opposite effect; but as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, this is a hypothetical point and I would not rest my argument against the Amendment on that.

Even if the Amendment does add anything to the Bill, the root trouble of the setting up of a duplicate planning system remains. The Amendment would require authorities at the acquisition stage to consider the planning issues of whether it is right to use a piece of agricultural land for a particular development, or whether the development could be carried out on some other nonagricultural land. This is certainly something that can and must be considered, but it must be done at the planning stage. The Amendment could have an effect precisely contrary to that which it seeks to achieve. The proper way to protect agriculture is through the operation of the planning system which contains the real safeguards. Anything that weakens the planning system must weaken the protection. The present Bill has been unjustly accused of being contrary to good planning. It is not. It goes hand in hand with planning, as Clause 17(2) makes clear. The Amendment would have precisely the effect of turning the land scheme procedures into a second and independent planning system. That is something which we have sought to resist all along.

My Lords, we have said—and it is flattering to someone as young as me to see that professors at one's old University read what one says on these subjects and that was the case when I ventured to make the remark about this Bill not dealing with planning per se—that the important point is that the Bill does not attempt to interfere with the present planning system; it attempts to build on it by giving local authorities powers to acquire development land. If it becomes general practice that every planning decision relating to agricultural land has to be questioned at the acquisition stage, who will be interested in reaching proper decisions at the planning stage? I venture to suggest that it will detract seriously from the importance of decisions reached at the planning stage, and it is at that stage that the real protection of agricultural land lies. The inevitable result of this Amendment would be the discrediting of the existing planning system, and that is something that I hope that noble Lords on all sides would strongly resist.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I introduced this Amendment in a frame of mind that I think your Lordships will agree was both conciliatory and helpful. I still believe that there is a large area of agreement between both sides on this; but when I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, I was truly astounded. He gave away the keys of the castle in the first five minutes. Nobody connected with agriculture in a country such as Holland would have dreamed of making that remark; because the very important level at which the Dutch rate their agricultural land would have precluded that altogether. I think it harmful for one so closely connected with the agricultural industry to have said what he said this evening: that it does not really matter so far as agriculture is concerned; housing needs must come first.

We do not dispute that housing needs are exceedingly important, but we believe that Clause 17 as set out, can be improved. We do not disapprove of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said in regard to proper planning. Here we have it in Clause 17(a) which says: In exercising their functions .… every authority shall have regard to the desirability of securing the proper planning". We believe that by the addition of this Amendment it would have a desirable effect.

We are prepared to bend over backwards in order to achieve satisfaction in this clause which we believe to be as important as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has stated. I was glad to have the support in this matter from my noble friend Lord Middleton. He rates it, as all of us do on this side of the House, as of the first importance. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to a double planning system. He made a lot of that. We do not see this in that light altogether; we believe it may be possible to reach an accommodation with the Government and therefore we are prepared at this stage to withdraw the Amendment on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may be pre- pared to join in discussions prior to a further Amendment being set down at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 106: Page 17, line 13, at end insert ("functions concerning the acquisition, management or disposal of land").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 106, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. These Amendments limit the functions under other Acts to which the general duty would apply to functions concerning the acquisition, management and disposal of land. These Amendments are designed to meet the valuable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at Committee stage. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made clear at that time, the new duty placed upon authorities under Clause 17(1) to have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership must apply to all powers of authorities to acquire, manage and dispose of land for private development, and not only to those under this Bill. It would be nonsense, if it did not extend also to, for instance, the powers of local authorities under Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, entirely accepted this point, and thus that the provisions of Clause 17(6) were necessary. But his anxiety was that Clause 17(6)(a) could be interpreted as going further, and as meaning that the general duty might effect the way in which local authorities exercise their general planning functions under the 1971 Act (for example, in considering planning applications). This was certainly never the Government's intention. So to make this absolutely clear. the Amendments limit the functions under other Acts to which the general duty applies to those functions concerning the acquisition, management and disposal of land. I think this should now meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and also improve the clarity of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord HENLEY

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for having looked at this point and I am also most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having written to me about it. In so far as I understand the Amendments—they are very difficult to understand and are on a particularly difficult clause of the Bill—the implications of the amending words seem to go some way to meet my fears that planing decisions would be distorted by having to take account of considerations of a non-planning kind; that is, land acquisition. The Amendments go a long way to meet the point I made, not the whole way because there is a conflict between planning and land acquisition which is built into the Bill; that is part of the Bill, and I accept that though I do not care for it. The Government have gone as far as they can reasonably go without upsetting the philosophy of their Bill. I am most grateful for it and, if I understand it correctly, it meets the central point I made. I am sure that this will be in the interests of good planning.

7.35 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 107.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 16, leave out ("functions").— (Baroness Birk.)

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 108.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 18, leave out ("functions").—(Baroness Birk.)

Schedule 6 [General duties of authorities]:

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 en bloc. I spoke to these Amendments with Amendment No. 51.

Amendments moved—

Page 73, line 24, after ("deciding") insert ("(a)")

Page 73, line 26, after ("others") insert ("or (b) what use should be made of such land until it is so developed or made so available").—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 111: Page 73, line 33, leave out ("local") and insert ("other authorities, local and new town").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects an oversight. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 already requires authorities, in exercising their functions, to have regard to the needs of local authorities. This was added to the Bill at the Commons Report stage. However, in drafting the Amendment we overlooked the need to cover the interests under the Bill of other authorities which are not local authorities. This Amendment corrects that error. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 112:

Page 73, line 34. at end insert: ("(dd) the needs and obligations of charities").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment provides that in exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day, and in particular in deciding whether development land acquired by them should be developed by them or made available for development by others, authorities shall have regard to the needs and obligations of charities in addition to those of the other interests that appear in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule. The Amendment has been tabled in consequence of the undertaking given to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in Committee stage to incorporate the spirit of his Amendment, which sought to include in the Schedule, the needs for ecclesiastical buildings and dwelling houses for ministers of religion ". In debate on the Amendment my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the Government recognised the anxiety of the Churches that they should be able to obtain without difficulty the new land which they will require for development in order to carry out their own functions, and the Government therefore accepted the intention behind the Amendment. They were concerned however to follow the principle of making any special provision for Churches apply equally to all other charities, and this will accordingly be achieved through the inclution of this new sub-paragraph in Schedule 6. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I do not think my noble friend Lord Balfour is in his place. Had he been in his place, I am sure he would have wanted to thank the noble Baroness; and, as a minister of religion myself, I should like to thank her, too.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 113:

Page 73, line 41, at end insert— ("( ) Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 and section 181 of the Scottish Act of 1972 (blight notices) shall have effect as if the land specified therein included land referred to in a programme published under this paragraph.")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we return now to the rolling programmes. Whether they end up by appearing in the Bill or merely remain the administrative convenience the Government would prefer, does not make any difference to their practical effect. It is with their practical effect that this Amendment is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will remember that at Committee stage he told us there were three functions for these rolling programmes: first, to provide orderly plans; secondly, to provide a basis for economic control and borrowing and, lastly, to inform local people and builders of the scope of the authority's planned activity. I have little doubt that this will be so, whether or not they are in the Bill.

One of the results of telling local people and builders about land to be included in the rolling programme is to make it impossible to sell land to anybody but the local authority. If you have land which is identifiable under one of the rolling programmes it will be instantly affected by blight, because nobody will be interested in buying, say, a farm which is within a five-year rolling programme for acquisition by a local authority; and the same would apply to any other property if the owner wished to move away, or, in the case of death of the owner, the executors wished to dispose of the property. These properties will have no market value in any practical terms, except to the local authority.

I appreciate that there may be difficulties in working out how this is to be attached to the scheme of blight notices; more particularly, perhaps, if the provision for rolling programmes does not appear in the Bill. This Amendment is drafted, of course, on the basis that there is a reference in the Bill to rolling programmes. On the other hand, it may be that the Government wish to try to persuade another place to reverse that. I know not, but I believe that we ought to provide for this.

In suport of not putting rolling programmes into the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, drew analogies from other activities of local government. I do not find education very easy to deal with as I do not have much experience of it, but when it comes to highways, which was the other sort of rolling programme to which he referred to, we have massive provisions in the blight notice procedure in Section 192 of the English Act, whereby people whose land is affected by proposed roads can, if they wish, and if they cannot sell it to anybody else, sell it to the local authority and require the local authority to buy it. I would remind the noble Lord that it is not only a matter of finding the land in a development plan as being a piece of land on which a road is to go. All you need under 192(I)(e) is a plan approved by a resolution of the local highway authority. The moment that happens, the blight notice procedure becomes applicable.

I should like the noble Lord to consider very seriously whether we ought, either through this Amendment or something similar if we are not to have rolling programmes in the Bill, to attract this procedure to the situation of a person whose land is identifiable in the rolling programme. I am not sure what the rolling programme will look like, but it will have to be fairly specific if it is to be of use to local people and builders, and we shall have the situation where land can be easily identifiable and, therefore, blighted.

The Government have been very helpful regarding blight over this Bill. We have one provision already in the Bill for disposal notification areas and there is another one, which was pointed out to me, which is that if part of the land was the subject of a compulsory purchase order and the other part was postponed. Nevertheless, on the postponed part of the land the blight notice procedure would apply. Here is another case where the Government are going to deal fairly with people whose land will be required for Community Land Bill purposes, and I think they will have to take account of the hardship which will occur when people's land is identifiable under a rolling programme. I am sure that as they have been scrupulously careful in trying to look after such people in other respects, they will wish to do so in this case also. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I am afraid we think that the Amendment is unnecessary and is based on a misunderstanding of rolling programmes. I do not think that what I said at Committee stage led to misunderstanding because, as the noble Viscount said, I spoke of the scope of activity and said that the rolling programme would give local people and builders some idea of the likely scope of activity. That would not necessarily— and indeed will not—amount to mentioning particular sites.

The scope of rolling programmes was clearly set out in the Department's paper, the Planning Framework for Land Acquisition, of which copies are available in the Printed Paper Office for those who would wish to see it. Of the rolling programmes this document said: Though authorities will be considering the needs of private development up to ten years ahead they will not need to acquire ten years' supply of land. They will have to prepare five-year rolling programmes of their anticipated expenditure on development land and these will be approved annually by the Department of the Environment as a basis for borrowing approval. They will not contain lists of sites to be acquired but will need to be appropriately supported in relation to the planning basis on which the authorities concerned are operating. So we have made it clear from the outset that rolling programmes will not specify individual sites, and there is nothing in the Amendment that was pressed by noble Lords opposite at Committee stage, as I understand it, which would in any way alter that position.

Since rolling programmes are programmes of expenditure and will make no reference to individual sites, they will not cause blight. Indeed, far from its being unnecessary for rolling programmes to contain details of individual sites, there are strong objections to their doing so. As this Amendment recognises, the end result could only be to create vast areas of unnecessary blight. That would, of course, be bad for landowners in the area and the application of statutory blight provisions would place a heavy and unnecessary burden on authorities who would be forced to acquire the land far in advance of need. This, I am sure, is something which both sides of your Lordships' House would wish to avoid.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend. I can see from the notes which were supplied to us that it is not the Government's intention that the rolling programme should refer to individual sites. But, equally, it would be possible to say they were proposing to acquire, say, 300 acres of land in the next two years. But you cannot support that with relevant planning factors, which is one of the intentions of the Government, without specifying to some degree where the land will be. It could be put in terms such as, "To the North-West of the town as far as the River So-and-So". It seems to me that you cannot avoid describing the acquisition programme in terms less precise than that. That is roughly the equivalent of some of the proposals to be shown in the structure plan, and that plan is one of the factors which in appropriate cases would qualify people to serve blight notices. That is mentioned in Section 192.

It may not be possible for all the people who are to be affected by the acquisition programme to show that they are qualified to serve blight notices, but I should have thought there would be certain people who, if terms such as I have employed were used, could say without any doubt at all that their property would be affected by next year's tranche of acquisition in the rolling programme. Somehow or other, we must ensure that those situations are covered. It is really most unconvincing to say that people who happen to be embraced in a disposal notification area—which is a wide area established by the authority in order that they should receive information about transactions in the area—qualify for blight, but as regards an acquisition programme, the land that will be acquired in the very next year does not bring them into the scope of the blight provisions.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, if I may with the leave of the House briefly respond, I should first say something about roads, a point the noble Viscount raised. I did not cover them in my reply. As I understand it, roads are covered for blight purposes because they are approved, as he said, by resolution of the highway authority and not because they are included in the rolling programme, the TPP. So I do not think that is a strict analogy with the attempt to make something which is included in this rolling programme qualify people for blight. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me about the planning background and said that surely it will be possible to identify sites.

Lord SANDFORD

No, my Lords. May I interrupt? I said that it will be possible to say that certain sites, and a lot of sites, will undoubtedly be embraced within the general area referred to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, even if the noble Lord puts it like that I am not sure that I agree with him. As I understand it, the planning background at this stage of the rolling programme will need to be in only broad terms to indicate that the authorities' proposed areas of operation are consistent with the planning background for those areas. Only at the acquisition stage will the question of individual sites and their planning background arise. I accept that there will be fringe cases, just as I suppose there are at the moment when blight provisions occur. And I would expect that, just as at the moment, local authorities will take a sympathetic view if those arose. But I do not think the Amendment is acceptable. I think it is based on a misconception, which may have arisen because of something I said at Committee stage about exactly how detailed these rolling programmes will be.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I think the noble Lord in his last remarks perhaps gave me a little courage to press him slightly further even if he cannot deal with the matter in a speech tonight. Let me give him two examples because I think the position is so much more easily understood if one has examples. There are by this time in many towns fairly limited choices as to the direction in which further development can go. I was recently involved in a particular town where the critical factor for the moment is the provision of a bypass. It is perfectly well known that certain sites are available for housing and would be approved. although they are not in the development plan because it is so hideously out of date. There are certain other sites which would be approved but cannot be approved until the by-pass comes—and the by-pass is now many years away because of the economic situation.

In that town, if the local authority said: "We are going to provide for £X million in our land acquisition programme for the next five years for housing purposes," it is undoubtedly correct that the sites would be identified. There are no other sites. They have been on a non-statutory map for years and years and everybody knows about them. If the local authority says it is going to acquire land, those will be the sites and everybody knows it. If development goes on to any other land it will be in breach of all the things that have been done in resisting. planning applications on that other land, again for years and years. That is one case, and there cannot be any doubt that in a case like that it would be so easy to identify the land.

Let me give the noble Lord another example which also is based on fact. I know a town where there are very firm proposals to expand the central shopping area. For a number of reasons it is a very difficult town. There has recently been consideration of this in the structure plan local hearings, and the structure plan has now been approved. It has been approved so as to identify the area upon which the central area shopping redevelopment will occur, when it does occur. All that has to happen is for the local authority there to say in their rolling programme, and to publish it: "We are going to to go ahead with central area shopping redevelopment." There cannot be any doubt about where it is to be. It is on the structure plan. It is clearly identified. There is no possible doubt on grounds as to the exact boundaries of it, and in those circumstances nobody is going to have one moment of doubt as to where the site will be. Those are two real examples. If the noble Lord would like to hear them, I will tell him the names of the two towns concerned, but I do not think it matters.

The noble Lord says: "In those circumstances it may be only a fringe matter." It will not, because once it is identified that the local authority will act under the Bill in those two areas—I have only to mention the word, "housing" in one and, "shopping" in the other and the site is identified automatically by the local circumstances—there will be no market for that land and there is nothing anybody can do about it. It will be blighted, whether or not the noble Lord likes it. Will the noble Lord do this? Will he go further than to say that he thinks that local authorities will be sympathetic? Will he issue a circular to them, or will he see whether the Department is prepared to issue a circular to them, giving them very strong directions that, where on account of local circumstances sites are identifiable in this way, they are to buy if there is any question of the land being blighted? Otherwise, people are going to be left in an impossible position under this Bill and one from which they will not be able to escape without substantial hardship. Land will be sterilised, and people will be out of pocket, and there will be a great outcry.

I hope the noble Lord accepts that as being a valid approach with valid examples and representing a valid problem, and I hope that he will think about it. I do not know whether he wants to say anything more this evening. It may well be that he would prefer to go away and think about it. If he will guarantee that he will think about it—and I see that he is nodding his head—and will guarantee to see whether something practical can be done, I will at any rate this evening beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until tomorrow.