§ [Nos. 36 and 36A]
§ Schedule 6, page 73, line 29, at end insert ("and shall draw up and publish annually a five year programme of the development land that they propose to acquire in the course of the following 5 years. The authority shall indicate in the programme the relevant plans or planning factors that support such a programme of acquisition.")
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
1956§ Because it would not be appropriate to provide for such matters in the Bill.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36A:
Because it would not be appropriate to provide for such matters in the Bill".This Amendment would put the preparation by authorities of five-year rolling programmes on a statutory basis. There is no argument between us as to whether there should or should not be rolling programmes, or what they should contain. The point at issue is a narrow one; whether or not there should be a requirement laid down in the Bill. We cannot expect rolling programmes to remain immutable. In time, they may be superseded by new techniques for controlling expenditure. It would be quite wrong, therefore, to write into this Bill, and this Bill alone, the mechanism by which local authority expenditure—in this case on the land scheme—is to be controlled. To write rolling programmes into the Bill is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36A.—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, when this Bill begins to bite, I think Parliament and the citizens of this country will soon agree readily enough that it is far more dangerous to take out this provision. There is no argument between us that there have to be these rolling programmes. There is no question of them being immutable; a new programme has to be devised every year. What this Amendment to our Amendment does is to confirm our worst suspicions: that, so far from seeking in the Bill to give the community any insight as to what is being done in their name or spent in their name, or providing any opportunity for people to see the way in which the acquisition programmes are related to the planning factors, this whole business can go on, and probably will go on, and be planned and executed in secret and behind closed doors. That is the danger we fear.