§ [Nos. 14 and 14A.]
§ Clause 23, page 23, line 29, at end insert ("and as if an interest qualifies for protection notwithstanding its failure to comply with section 192(4) of the Act of 1971 or section 181(4) of the Scottish Act of 1972").
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because it would not be appropriate, in this Bill, to extend the categories of interests qualifying for protection under the blight provisions of the Planning Acts.
§ 6.12 p.m.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14A, because it would not be appropriate in this Bill, to extend the categories of interests qualifying for protection under the blight provisions of the planning Acts. The reasons which another place have given for disagreeing with some of the Amendments have been criticised but I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept—as I think another place did because there was no Division on this Amendment and, indeed, only one speech upon it—that the illogicality of having special blight provisions for DNAs has been clearly recognised by another place. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will not be insisted upon. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14A.—(Lord Melchett.)
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, I will not go into the main arguments again but may I point out with regard to this Amendment that here we have one of two classic examples of Socialist ideas of justice. There are two examples in this evening's proceedings. We have the Government's idea of justice at compulsory purchase inquiries; only those who can pay for legal assistance shall have it. Those who cannot afford it will not get legal aid when the Commons Amendment is agreed to. This is another idea, equally unjustifiable: that property owners blighted by DNAs can obtain redress if their rateable value is £2,000, but that they cannot obtain it if their rateable value is £2,500. To my mind, that is not justice of the kind that we ought to be administering.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, perhaps I may just reply to that. I am sure my noble and learned friend will deal with one aspect of what the noble Lord has said, but I should not like any impression to be gained that we do not have considerable sympathy with people who suffer from blight. Of course, people suffer from blight at the moment. Any change in the provisions would require hard evidence and we would be willing to consider such change should evidence be forthcoming that the blight provisions are generally inadequate, even after the recent improvements made by the Opposition's Loan Compensation Act of 1973. If I may say so to the noble Lord, so far as I am aware hard evidence of that kind is so far conspicuously lacking.
§ Lord SANDFORDMy Lords, noble Lords go on speaking as though the situation under this Bill will be as it was when we introduced the Compensation Acts, or when they enacted the planning Acts of 1968. This "land grab" measure that they are now introducing completely alters the circumstances.