§ [Nos. 12 and 12A.]
§ Clause 17, page 16, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert ("the desirability—
- (a) of securing the proper planning of their area and
- (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.")
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because it would alter the structure of the clause in a manner detrimental to the performance by the authorities of their functions.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12A: Because it would alter the structure of the clause in a manner detrimental to the performance by the authorities of their functions. The effect 1933 of this Amendment was to reverse the order of the two points in the general duty provided for in Clause 17(1). The first objection to the Amendment is that it is really turning the formulation of the general duty on its head. We have emphasised that public acquisition is to be seen as going hand in hand with planning, but that does not mean that this Bill is in itself a planning Bill. It is specifically a Bill about public acquisition and it is therefore entirely right that public ownership of development land should be mentioned first in the statement of the general duty in subsection (1).
It was argued that it is downgrading planning to put it second to land ownership. This is not so. The two parts of the duty are of equal force whatever their order. The Government believe that it is right to mention public ownership first because that is the principle of this Bill. As I understand it, the Opposition in another place felt that if this was to remain in the Bill at all, over which I gather there was some slight disagreement, the order in which it appeared did not make that much difference. It is our view that, in fact, a change in order could do some positive harm and I hope the House will not insist on this Amendment.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 12A.—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, if it was possible to have a more fatuous Reason than the one before, No. 11A, this is it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was saying just now that the charities and Churches had been completely overlooked in the Government's approach to this Bill in their White Paper; and he was right in that. But they were not the only ones to be totally overlooked by the Government in their headlong and blinkered pursuit of this bizarre doctrine. The planners and planning also were totally overlooked. This part of the Bill was not there at all originally. Now that they have been remembered, they are not occupying their rightful place in the Bill; they are left dangling upside down on Clause 17(1)(b).
This confirms our worst suspicions and those of the planning professions, of the 1934 planning authorities, and of the amenity societies that talk of land acquisition being planning led, which emerged in the Report stage in another place but has since got buried, is just a lot of eyewash. If it is inspired by anything at all, this acquisition is just inspired by Socialist dogma, and outworn dogma at that.