HL Deb 12 November 1975 vol 365 cc1927-9

[Nos. 8 to 10A]

Clause 15, page 14, line 20, leave out from ("any") to end of line and insert ("development land").

Clause 15, page 14, line 21, leave out sub-section (2).

Clause 15, page 14, line 24, leave out ("any") and insert ("development").

The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:

Because the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 10A.

These Amendments would limit the acquisition power under Clause 15(1) to acquiring development land only; that is, land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within 10 years. If these Amendments were accepted, authorities would no longer have power under the Bill to acquire land for excepted development. The Govern- ment's proposals are to define the scope of the scheme by reference to the potential scope of the duty, leaving excepted development outside this category but still within the scope of the acquisition power. The whole concept of excepted development is based on the assumption that though it will not normally be right for authorities to acquire land for such development, there will be circumstances where they should do so. For example, use of the acquisition power might be the only way of ensuring that desirable recreational development was carried out. Second, they should be able to buy land for excepted development in order to achieve better planning. For instance, there could be cases where an authority would need to buy land for rebuilding within the terms of Schedule 8 to the 1971 Act because this would be the only way to achieve the best result in planning terms.

The present Amendments would remove the power for such acquisitions. They would thus wreck the whole concept of excepted development, and destroy the whole carefully constructed basis on which the land scheme now rests. I therefore hope that the House will reconsider the position in the light of this.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 10A.—(Baroness Birk.)

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, if the Government could not see fit to accept the previous series of Amendments, but only, as the noble and learned Lord said, could offer a pea, I suppose it is not surprising that the Government have decided that they could not accept these Amendments, but instead flick the pea back. The reasons why we moved these Amendments were precisely because of the reasons which the Government have seen fit to reject them. The Government say that they reject these Amendments because the power of authorities to acquire land should not be unduly limited. We moved these Amendments because we believed the powers of local authorities have been made far too wide. They have been gargantuan powers; they have never had such big powers, and they will be ill-equipped to carry these out. Whether these powers, if they carry them out, will be in the interest of the so-called community remains to be seen. We believe they will not be in the interests of the individual. However, we would not deem to alter the Government's decision not to accept these Amendments. We believe that the powers which the local authorities have been given are far too big, but if the Government wish it that way, then they will have it that way.