COMMUNITY LAND BILL

HL Deb 27 October 1975 vol 365 cc93-138

7.45 p.m.

House again in Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Champion)

I think when the House resumed I was about to call Amendment No. 81. I should advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 81 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 81:

Page 15, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert— (" (4) The scheme shall be prepared not less than 3 months after the passing of this Act or such other date or dates as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, and in view of what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman has just said I wish to say straight away that this is a paving Amendment to a consideration of Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 84A and 86A which was the grouping proposed by noble Lords opposite and accepted by, I think, all Members of the Committee on this side.

All I wish to say is that the five Amendments together represent an anxiety and a concern felt on this side of the Committee that the programme proposed in the Bill, which is that the schemes should not only be prepared but now, by virtue of the Amendment which has just been made to the Bill, should be completed not later than 31st December 1975, is unrealistically early and our feelings on the evidence before us is that the authorities will not be ready by that time. How they are getting on is not a matter in which I am concerned, but my noble friend Lord Ridley is. For that reason, I will not say any more on my own Amendment but, as it were, use my Amendment to introduce a debate on which I am sure my noble friend will have a good deal to say, and we shall have to consider what to do about these Amendments at this stage. I beg to move.

Viscount RIDLEY

I should like to speak principally to Amendment No. 83, which postpones the date by which the LAMS have got to be prepared by the authorities under this Bill, to what I believe to be a much more realistic date. In another place an Amendment was moved at Report stage to give a six months' delay which was rejected in, I thought, not very civil terms by the Minister of housing and planning; in terms which were in striking contrast to the great courtesy which we have had throughout the Committee stage of this Bill in this House.

Since the Bill was published and introduced here, I think the date of 31st December has become absolutely impracticable in real terms in almost all cases. Obviously I cannot say what the position is throughout the whole of the country, but such inquiries as I have been able to make have led me to believe that there are very few authorities who have completed the preparation of this extremely complicated matter of the LAMS. I would ask the Minister whether she would be kind enough to give us some indication in her reply as to how many authorities she really expects to have completed all the details of LAMS by 31st December. I believe that throughout the North of England, which I happen to know best, a great deal of work has been done but no definite agreements have yet been made. I am told, for instance, that in London there has been a draft scheme in existence for several months, but it is still not finally agreed between the various authorities.

There seems to be in my own case—which I know more about than anything else—an authority, a county and a district together which most certainly are not dragging their feet, as the right honourable gentleman Mr. Silk in would like us to believe. We are certainly not going to be ready by 31st December, with the best will in the world. The Bill will become law at the earliest by about 12th November. Then we have all the complicated and difficult Amendments, radical alterations to the law of the land, which have to be put through these councils—through the full councils as well as all the various committees. I hope that we shall be able to do something else at Christmas, and not be working too hard during that period. It is no good saying that local authorities have had many months in which to prepare schemes. It has not been possible to prepare schemes until the details of this Bill have been known, and until all the regulations which come from it have been published. It is nonsense to suggest that these things can be done without them.

The two months' grace which Amendment No. 83 seeks does not seem to wreck the sense of the Bill but is a helpful and realistic Amendment, which will mean that in the end, we get better schemes and a smooth and easy transition. We are involved in the extremely difficult tensions which now exist, and have existed for some time, in the relationships in the planning field between districts and county councils. Anything which forces either side to take up attitudes is against the interest not only of local government but of this Bill in particular.

In moving this Amendment, I have the support of the Association of County Councils, who feel very strongly that a delay of two months will not make any effect on the Bill, but will give us a chance to produce a realistic scheme which will last. I am glad to say that I have also had strong representations on this matter from the Association of District Councils, who likewise feel that it would be a mistake to rush the matter in view of the slow progress which the Bill has made—slower progress than was intended when it was first introduced into Parliament.

Finally, we are here talking only about England. When we get to line 35 on page 15, noble Lords will see that Scotland does not have a date line set for it. The date for Scotland will be introduced at the discretion of the Minister, which seems to me to make some sense. We are here expecting England to he bulldozed into a date before any other parts of the Kingdom. I repeat that it is important that the Minister should tell us, before we decide what action to take on these Amendments, how many schemes she expects to be ready in all their detail by 31st December, because if this figure is not large we are making the law into a nonsense. It would be much better in that case to postpone the operation of this law, which will do nothing to postpone the operation of the Bill, to a date which is realistic. This has the final advantage of being the rare occasion when we can use the date of 29th February, which occurs only once every four years. I beg to support Amendment No. 81, and also at the same time to move Amendment No. 83.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I should like to support both my noble friends on this issue. I should particularly like to support the noble Viscount who has just spoken, and particularly to commend his moderate tone. It was very noticeable to those who have read the Official Report of the Report stage in another place that the Minister seemed to go way beyond normal tactfulness in the relationship between central and local government. I think one can excuse it only by remembering that it was 2.30 in the morning. I am not sure why the Government seem to have got themselves on this hook, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will be able to advise us later what their view now is.

It seems to me that the date of 31st December was set some nine months ago when, possibly at that stage, it was a reasonable target for local authorities to achieve. But we now have just over two months to go before the end of the year. From my investigations with local authorities of the area in which I live, it seems that this is not a reasonable time. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to say why the Government are apparently in such a rush; why the Minister was so strong about keeping to this date, and why it is, indeed, that we are asked to pass what seems to be a totally unrealistic date.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

I should like to support wholeheartedly the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, with his vast experience of the part of the world in which both he and I live. It is very remarkable, with all the complications in this very difficult Bill, that in my part of the world we made a lot of progress in trying to produce a scheme which will be of as much benefit as possible to the plans which we have to bring forward. I think the suggestion must have been made without noble Lords opposite realising what a long time the Committee stage of this Bill would take.

I do not think there can be any opposition to this very realistic Amendment, because whatever one may feel about the Bill—and I am certainly not a supporter of it—if it really comes on to the Statute Book it will be up to everyone on both sides of the Committee to make the best efforts to make its details work as smoothly and as well as possible for the various parts of the country which we represent. I have a feeling that noble Lords opposite will themselves be a little unhappy that the date at present in the Bill is quite unrealistic, and I am sure they will feel exactly the same as we do. I feel that when the answer comes from the noble Baroness opposite she will agree that we really are putting forward a most realistic Amendment to help plan the Bill to the best of our ability, to serve the part of the world which those of us are concerned with this Amendment know best. It is very difficult, when one has a Bill as complicated as this, to expect even the best local authorities to produce a plan in such a short period.

I am delighted to support the Amendment of my noble friend. I feel that the noble Baroness will also feel very happy about accepting the Amendment and that, as a result, we shall be able to make as much use as we possibly can of the powers which will be in the Bill. I say no more, except that I am looking forward to a very generous acceptance of the Amendment of my noble friend. I hope that we shall at least be able to say that here in the South, which is a very long way from the North, we are able to put our case as we see it, because we are very proud of our own part of the world and want to do the best we can, under the powers we may have, to provide a scheme which will be realistic and helpful. I am delighted to have this opportunity of supporting the Amendment.

Viscount AMORY

I should like to associate myself with what my noble friends have said, and particularly with what my noble friend Lord Ridley said at the beginning of his speech about the courtesy invariably shown to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a courtesy which is thoroughly disarming when one wants to say something mildly offensive, as I do at the moment. It seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, that in the last few Bills they have sent along for us Ministers have been content to allow some provisions to get into Bills which are utterly unrealistic, and I think this date of December 31st is a clear case.

Christmas is nearly upon us. I know that because I ordered my Christmas cards today and I never do that until I am convinced that Christmas is upon us. The Bill is unlikely to become an Act for another few weeks, anyhow. How can the local authorities have their land acquisition and management scheme plans dovetailed in with each other and ready by that date. I suppose the answer the noble Baroness may give is that, if for sound reasons they are unable to do so, no doubt they will not be asked to achieve the impossible. If she says that, I would say to her that it is not really a satisfactory answer, because it is a sign that there is something sloppy in the legislation. Local authorities and their staffs have nearly reached the breaking point, with the mass of new commitments laid on them by Parliament in recent years. Surely the least Parliament can do is to ensure that a time-scale is designed, appropriate to the tasks laid upon local authorities, and not expect the tasks to conform to a prefixed time programme. I do hope the noble Baroness will be able to say something rather comforting to us, because we are rather worried at these really unrealistic provisions that somehow find their way into Bills, and too often remain in them.

8.3 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I should also like to support this Amendment, and in particular speak to Amendment No. 84. I chose the date 31st March 1976, for this reason, that under Section 155 of the Local Government Act 1972 the yearly accounts are to be drawn up to 31st March. In regard to all the provisions in this Bill, I feel that the local authority must be in a position to budget for that expense at the commencement of its financial year. Those of your Lordships who have had any connections with local government will know that only too often various schemes and proposals have been put forward and have had to be postponed until the commencement of the next year because the necessary finance had not been budgeted for. It is purely in that light that I have chosen this specific date, and I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee, as we are all on similar points, if I suggested that this might be considered at the same time.

Baroness BIRK

The feeling of Members of the Committee who have spoken is quite evident. The contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ward, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, were very seductive in their different ways, Lady Ward saying how happy she would be if we were to accept the Amendment, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, making his comments; but I am afraid I shall have to say in as charming a way as I can that the answer so far as I am concerned is, "No". Perhaps I may make one general point before I discuss the Amendments. I always feel very strongly that whatever you do in life—whether it is putting into practice a piece of legislation, or getting an article prepared for a deadline, as I have had to do—Parkinson's Law in the obverse seems to operate; the time either expands or contracts according to how much time you are given; you can use all the time in the world if you have it, but if the time shrinks you move forward in a more urgent way in order to accomplish what you have to do. I think this also applies to duties put on local authorities. All these Amendments are concerned With the date for the preparation of land acquisition and management schemes. At present it is 31st December this year for England. Amendment No. 81 would change it to three months after Royal Assent; Amendment No. 83 to the 29th February 1976; Amendment No. 84 to the 31st March 1976; Amendment No. 84A would also set the date at 31st March 1976, and would remove the power of the Secretary of State to set a later date in particular cases; and Amendment No. 86A would remove the power in Scotland for the Secretary of State to specify the date by order and substitute the date 31st March 1977.

The assumption obviously, expressed very clearly by all noble Lords who have taken part, is that the present time limit of 31st December will not allow sufficient time for the making of the schemes to be completed. Our discussions up to date with the local authority associations and individual authorities show that this is simply not true. In answer to the question which I think was put to me by more than one noble Lord, we have no detailed information about the progress in each county area, but our general information, which comes to us from contacts between the regional officers, the individual authorities and also through some of the associations, is that a great deal of work has been done. My noble friend Lady Stedman, speaking on another point, made it clear that in her area a great deal of work had gone forward. In some areas, it is true, no doubt more time would be welcomed, but, as I said, more time is always welcome whatever we are doing. Equally, some authorities have made it clear that they would not favour any relaxation of the date because they fear this would remove the present impetus which they have managed to generate behind the preparation work. Incidentally, on that point, I think I ought to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that I got the impression that he thought there was a difference between schemes being prepared and arrangements made. Actually they mean the same thing; that is to say, agreed between the authorities. The alteration we have made does not mean that local authorities will have less time, but of course the schemes only have to be made by 31st December and not submitted to the Secretary of State by that date.

Given that the date has been clear since the Bill was first introduced in March, and that where there are genuine problems the Secretary of State has power to extend the time limit—the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, was quite right when he said this was no doubt one point that I would make, and it is very pertinent—there seems to us to be no reason for a general change in the dates. Amendment No. 84A is particularly undesirable, because if you look at it carefully you see that in setting a later date it would also remove the power to extend the date in particular cases; it in fact removes a certain amount of flexibility, which should be endemic to the whole exercise. This could remove what could be a necessary power in certain circumstances, where schemes cannot be concluded in time for reasons beyond the control of the authorities concerned.

Amendment No. 86A would set a definite date in Scotland. The fixing of the date here was left to order because it was not clear when, because of their later local government reorganisation, authorities would be ready to prepare their land acquisition and management schemes. Consultations have now taken place with the Scottish local authorities, and it is provisionally proposed that LAMS shall be prepared by 1st April 1976. Therefore it would be impossible for me to accept Amendment No. 86A which sets a date a year later than this.

It is true that we need three months, and we want authorities to decide quickly how they are going to handle schemes. If as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, pointed out, this Bill becomes law in the middle of next month, as I am sure we all hope it will, authorities will then be setting about their preparations for the completion of their plans, but it does not mean that at that date they have to be submitted to the Secretary of State. Any further delay would put the whole thing off until the New Year, and then the delay would get longer and longer. All that the Bill requires is that the land acquisition management schemes should be made by 31st December. There is still an opportunity for authorities to go through them again, and to tidy those odds and ends which need tidying up, because they do not need to be submitted to the Secretary of State at that date. As I and other Members of the Committee have already said, if there are special circumstances then the Secretary of State can give further time.

It is not as though this Bill suddenly appeared out of the blue when it came before your Lordships' House. This Bill was introduced in another place as long ago as last March. It has been discussed. There have been more consultations with local authority organisations and others than have ever taken place before on any piece of legislation. It has all been known. A great many local authorities have already started making their preparations, and it is perfectly true that many of them would feel distinctly aggrieved if they felt the whole thing was being slowed down, which it would be if the date were changed. As the matter stands, those who are going ahead with their arrangements would continue with them, others would be encouraged to do so, and in particular circumstances they would be able to go to the Secretary of State (who has the power to extend the time limit) because of their particular problems.

I do not, and cannot, see that there is any reason for delay. It would be wrong, and one of the great problems about delays in getting this Bill through would be the sense of uncertainty that could be felt by many local authorities. To have a target, and to have to go ahead and work to it, is the best way of getting even a complicated piece of legislation off the ground and into working reality.

Viscount AMORY

May I ask whether the noble Baroness will accept that when I said that this Bill might become law in another few weeks, it was on the assumption that the other place would have the good sense to accept whatever Amendments your Lordships care to make to the Bill, and on no other assumption whatever?

The Earl of KINNOULL

May I pick up two points which the noble Baroness mentioned in her reply. Her reply was in sharp contrast to the reply her right honourable friend made on 13th October at column 1092. It is worth recalling what he said. In reply to an Amendment moved in similar terms to that we are discussing now, he said: If they are not prepared to do this by 31st December my right hon. Friend is prepared to do it for them. My right hon. Friend has quite a lot of power in this matter. Not only can he step in; he can create organisations that can step in and he can even find other local authorities—there are plenty of good local authorities all over the country —who would be prepared to step in on this basis. That is a very different tone from the noble Baroness's gracious reply. Having made the point that the local authorities have only to make the scheme by 31st December, what is the situation concerning when they have to submit the scheme to the Minister? I do not think that she mentioned that in her reply, and it is pertinent to this whole debate.

The Earl of BALFOUR

I am concerned about one matter which I should like the noble Baroness to consider. Having suggested that Scotland might bring in this procedure on 1st April 1976, I should like her to remember that our reorganisation of local government has been going for less than a year. On 15th May it will have been in operation for a year. I know from my local authorities that they are not prepared to take on this as well at the present moment. I do not say that they are all like that—some may be further ahead—but we have had our teething problems with reorganisation of local government in Scotland. I make a small plea for the Secretary of State not to put in a date in the Bill but leave the wording rather as it is—and I think I can speak for the local authorities here; I am no longer a member, but I am still in quite close contact with them—and do not be in too much of a hurry in Scotland.

8.18 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

It has been an interesting debate. I do not think that the noble Baroness has done much to allay our anxieties. I should like to remind her that the constitutional position is that this is not yet the law of the land, and if any local authorities have been doing any work on this they have been doing it solely to oblige the Secretary of State. They are under no duty whatever to do anything about this until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Secretary of State has no power to oblige them to take any action until the Bill is law. That is the constitutional position and it is worth saying that as a preliminary.

I accept that, when the Bill was introduced in March, 31st December 1975, might have seemed a reasonable target at which to ask the local authorities to aim, because although the constitutional position is as I have said they are usually willing and obliging when it comes to doing this kind of thing. But the position is now that it is perfectly possible, and I should have thought quite easy, to find out whether the 31st December 1975, is still practicable. It may well be that the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend will be proved right by events, in which case all we need to have is some specific information in the Official Report between now and the next stage as to where the local authorities have got to. She can easily find out which are ready now, which have their land acquisition management schemes prepared, and we should not be surprised, after what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to hear that Cambridge-shire are ready, and there may be others. She could then go on to say which local authorities think they will be ready by 31st December, and then go on to list what dates the other counties and their districts will be ready.

In the light of that information, Parliament could decide whether 31st December was right, or whether 29th February was better, or whether 31st March was better still, or whether the situation was such as would be most suitably met by my Amendment; namely, that none of those dates was any good because nobody was sufficiently advanced, and then the Secretary of State would be left free to decide some other date. It seems to me that that information, which it would not have been reasonable to ask for when the Bill was read a second time in another place, is now reasonable to ask for. I should like to hear the noble Baroness respond to that invitation—to give Parliament which should now be available—before we decide on the matter, and in the light of what she says in response to that I w ill decide what to do with my Amendment.

Baroness BIRK

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me about the date of submission to the Secretary of State, and the answer is that there is no specific date; there is no requirement in the Bill for submission by a given date. It is, as the noble Earl will see, as set out in Schedule 5(4)(1); As soon as practicable after a scheme has been made … a copy … shall be sent … to the Secretary of State. The date 31st December has always been seen in relation to a first appointed day in Spring of 1976, which is what we are expecting anyway, and the gap between the introduction of the Bill and the date is not really relevant except, as I pointed out, that people would know about it so that it would not be something that suddenly came on the heads of local authorities. I cannot see the argument that one has got to take a poll, as it were, of the heads of local authorities, when we know that some of them are ready and anxious for the date not to be delayed. I should have thought that the way to proceed is the way the Government intend, which is to go ahead with the date and then, if there are local authorities which have perfectly reasonable grounds for showing the Secretary of State that they are not able to get these schemes prepared or made—whichever word one likes to use—then the Secretary of State can decide, on that basis, whether they should be given more time.

When the noble Earl talks about what my right honourable friend said in another place at 2 o'clock in the morning, he should accept, first, that there is an important time and space difference between talking at 2 o'clock in the morning and talking at about 8.20 in the evening. Secondly, the comments made on that occasion clearly indicated that a number of Members of another place were getting rather exercised and were feeling weary and emotional, and some of the remarks they made certainly indicated that a number of authorities would be encouraged, if not told, to delay and drag their feet on this Bill. When one is told that, one naturally does not react in, perhaps, a particularly gracious manner, nor should one do so. But it still is a fact that whatever date we put in—let us be realistic about this—noble Lords opposite would object. If we put in a later date, the same would apply.

We know that there are local authorities which are being encouraged to drag their feet and delay because they do not want to see this Bill come into practice. On the other hand, there are a great many authorities which are anxious to get started as soon as possible, and once they get started there will, we believe, be many mow authorities which will recognise the advantages of the whole scheme and will try to get it under way. I see the point of view of people who are genuinely and, from my point of view, perhaps misguidedly, against this Bill and would like to see it delayed for as long as possible, but if one does not take that view, as we do not, then the sooner implementation starts—which is at the end of this year, within a flexible framework—the better.

I should comment on Scotland, which is a rather special case. As the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, pointed out, local government reorganisation in Scotland meant a delay all along the line in terms of this Bill, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has agreed to the date proposed for Scotland, of 1st April 1976, and at a recent seminar held for officers from all authorities in Scotland there was not one voice heard to say that this date was unattainable. The noble Earl should feel relieved at that. I could go into greater detail on Scotland to back up the case I have made, but if the noble Earl is satisfied with what I have said I will not take up the time of the Committee.

What it comes to is that there is a difference of opinion over this. Getting back to what I have said on many occasions, I frankly believe that the date is a fairly superficial question and that we are really talking about the principle of the Bill, whether or not one wants it to come into operation. We on our side want to see it begin as soon as possible and are quite satisfied that the date 31st December—and I repeat this is the date by which plans have to be prepared or made but not yet submitted to the Secretary of State—is right. I cannot see any argument for saying that this is too tight a programme or that it is inflexible or unacceptable. It should at least be tried to see how it works out.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I do not know whether the noble Baroness intends to reply to the constitutional point of some importance made by my noble friend.

Baroness BIRK

Yes, I do.

The Earl of K1NNOULL

Can the noble Baroness say how often a Minister of the Crown tells local authorities to prepare large and expensive schemes when he has no legal right to do so? She seems to have skated right over that point. I suspect that the reason why her right honourable friend got so annoyed was because if local authorities are dragging their feet, he has at present no power to tell them not to do so. It seems to me that what the Committee is being asked to decide is whether 31st December is a realistic date. I submit that it is not.

Baroness BIRK

I apologise for not answering the constitutional question I was asked. I forgot to answer it and I assure the Committee that there was no question of my trying to evade it. It is general practice that once a Bill has had its Second Reading in another place, anybody can go ahead, particularly if it is a Government measure, on the assumption that the Bill will be passed and be on the Statute Book. As a Bill goes further along and gets through its Committee and Report stages in another place, and it even gets accepted by noble Lords opposite that the Bill will get on the Statute Book, as they have with this Bill. then one can say that it has become constitutionally acceptable. If anything happens in between, then there is a change. But there is no reason in our form of Parliamentary democracy and with our constitution why local authorities—or, indeed, where legislation affects them, individuals—should not act on that assumption, and that is all that is being done in this case. If we had come forward with a date in February or March, I would bet anything, and I do not normally bet, that there would be Amendments putting back the date, and further back three or six months after that date, until it would be almost impossible to find a date acceptable to those who are fundamentally opposed to the whole Bill in principle.

Lord SANDFORD

The noble Baroness must not impute those sort of motives. Our concern is to make the Bill operate reasonably well and to improve it so far as we can by a number of practical adjustments. Your Lordships must take what I said in moving the Amendment at its face value. When the noble Baroness's right honourable friend introduced the Bill, he wanted to set a date by which time the land acquisition schemes were to be operative. I have no argument with his estimate of 31st December 1975. That was nine months ahead when the Second Reading of the Bill took place. That was quite reasonable and it may well still be reasonable. I am not arguing that we must abandon that date at this particular moment. What I am saying is that there must now be evidence on which Parliament can make a judgment. The noble Baroness has it well within her power to find out which authorities are ready now, which will be ready by the end of the year and which will not he ready until some future date. All I ask is that Parliament should be furnished with this information upon which we can then make a judgment. If the noble Baroness will address herself to answering that question—can she or can she not. will she or will she not?— I shall know what to do with my Amendment and we can get on. Can she just answer that question?

Baroness BIRK

I have already told the noble Lord that I have not got that information in detail and that even if I could get it I should consider that it was not relevant to the basic issue. Whatever time was given, reasons could still be found for putting it off still further. I believe that what we have to do is to take the date that has been set down and on which authorities will be acting. In order to save time and not to mislead the noble Lord, I must say that I do no feel that there is anything more I can say about this. I am not prepared to take the matter back for consideration and the noble Lord must make up his own mind about the Amendments. I shall have to resist them all.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

I should like to ask the noble Baroness one question: supposing we were to put down a question in the House about the information. Am I to understand from what the noble Baroness has said that the answer from the appropriate Secretary of State's representative—and I suppose that that would be the noble Baroness—would be that it is quite impossible for Parliament to be presented with this information? Having spent a long time in the House of Commons, I know that no Minister of the Crown would get away with that there and I hope, therefore, that they would not get away with it in this House. If a question were put down what would be the answer?

Baroness BIRK

I did not say that the question would not be answered. What I said was that I did not have the information now and that, even if I had the information, it would make no difference to the decision taken in this Bill. However, if the noble Baroness wants that information, I suggest that she puts down a Question and goes on from there, and that she should not hypothesise from what we are discussing at the moment which are Amendments to this Bill and not a Parliamentary Question.

Lord SANDFORD

If I may say so, I feel that the noble Baroness is getting very near to treating Parliament with contempt. There is information which could be made available and she is not prepared to give it to us. I feel that that is a disgraceful state of affairs. I am not going to press my own Amendment—

Baroness BIRK

I ask the noble Lord to give way. I have now repeated about six times that I have not got the information. What I said was that if I had the information or could, over a period of time, get it, it would not make any difference to the date that has been set down in the Bill. I have been absolutely frank and consistent about this and I have said that all the time. The noble Baroness put another question to me and I said that if she wanted to put down a Starred Question she should put it down but that that was an entirely different matter.

Lord SANDFORD

I am not expecting the noble Baroness to produce this information out of a hat here and now. What I am saying is that the information could be got and that we could have it in time for the Report stage. What the noble Baroness is saying is that she is not prepared to produce that information for us and I find that a disgraceful reply. I shall not press my own Amendment because I feel that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ridley is on the whole better. I hope very much that he will press it and I shall certainly support him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 82. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 78.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 32, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made").—[Lord Melchett.]

8.35 p.m.

Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 83: Page 15, line 32, leave out ("31st December 1975") and insert ("29th February 1976").

The noble Viscount said: We have already spoken at length on this subject, but I want to say one or two things in relation to the noble Baroness's remarks. She was kind enough to give great attention to this subject and, first of all, I must repeat that we are not seeking to delay the first appointed day which brings the Bill into action. If carried, the Amendment would have no effect on the date on which the Bill would become operative. Secondly, the noble Baroness said that a great deal of work had already been done on the LAMS. I do not deny that. What I believe she has failed to realise is the extraordinarily complicated problems which preparing such matters entails. I beg her to consider the fact that, in the Government's own words, this is a very fundamental reform of the law of land tenure in this country. It is more important to give us two months in which to get these things right in all their details and to get agreement between county and district councils and everybody else than to tight for eight weeks which, if granted—and I trust that the Committee will grant them—would mean that we may get a much better agreement and that the Bill will work much better than the noble Baroness now expects it to work and certainly better than I hope it will work. However, I am not seeking to destroy the Bill. This is not a wrecking Amendment. If Scotland can have a date of 1st April, why should England not have one of 29th February? I beg to move.

8.38 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 83) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS
Alport, L.	Gridley, L.	Saint Oswald, L.
Amory, V.	Hawke, L.	Sandford, L.
Balfour, E.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Sandys, L.
Belstead, L.	Inglewood, L.	Savile, L.
Bethell, L.	Kinnoull, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Long, V.	Stamp, L.
Cowley, E. [Teller.]	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Denham, L.	Lyell, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Digby, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Elles, B.	Malmesbury, E.	Sudeley, L.
Elton, L.	Middleton, L.	Vickers, B.
Falmouth, V.	Monck, V.	Vivian, L.
Ferrers, E.	Northchurch, B.	Ward of North Tyneside, B
Glasgow, E.	Onslow, E.	Yarborough, E.
Gowrie, E.	Ridley, V. [Teller.]	Young, B.
NON-CONTENTS
Ardwick, L.	Greenwood of Rossendale, L.	Paget of Northampton, L
Bacon, B.	Harris of Greenwich, L.	Pannell, L.
Balogh, L.	Henley, L.	Peddie, L.
Beswick, L.	Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Phillips, B.
Birk, B.	Hoy, L.	Rhodes, L.
Blyton, L.	Jacques, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Brockway, L.	Janner, L.	Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Castle, L.	Lee of Newton, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Champion, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Collison, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]
Crowther-Hunt, L.	Maelor, L.	White, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Melchett, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Foot, L.	Morris of Kenwood, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

8.46 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 86, to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 78

Amendment moved— >Page 15, line 35, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made").—(Lord Melchett.)

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 87, to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 78.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 35, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("making").—(Lord Melchett.)

8.48 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD move Amendment No. 87A: Page 16, line 9, after ("Council") insert ("or the Peak Park Joint Planning Board").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 87A, and I wish at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 88A, with which it is linked. The purpose of this Amendment is to import into the Bill some special arrangements for the benefit of the Peak Park Joint Planning Board. The Committee will have observed already that because of the situation of the Peak Park it has been necessary to specify the Peak Park Joint Planning Board individually among the authorities having powers under the Bill. But it is necessary to go a stage further under Clause 16 to make special arrangements for that Board in respect of the preparation and making of a land acquisition and management scheme.

Those Members of the Committee who are familiar with that part of the world will see readily enough why this is necessary. The Peak Park Joint Planning Board exercises planning functions and is responsible for the positive planning of the area of the Peak Park. The Board has some powers which are otherwise held by counties, and it has other powers, notably of development control, which are normally held by districts. The Board combines both sets of powers in respect of its area which it shares with six counties and nine districts. A similar situation occurs to a lesser deuce in the Exmoor National Park, but there only two counties and a small number of districts are involved, and it is reasonable to leave the co-operative arrangements to the authorities there; and there is no need to specify anything in the Bill.

But as the notes on this clause indicate, the Department has realised that some provision is required for the Peak Park Joint Planning Board and I had been expecting to see something appear by way of a Government Amendment. But as it has not appeared—and we are now half-way through the passage of the Bill in the Second House of Parliament—it seemed to members of the Board, and the chairman in particular, that it was necessary to get something into the Bill. I have been asked to move these Amendments on their behalf, which I am glad to do.

The position is that none of the six counties which has territory in the Park, and none of the nine districts, has the normal planning functions because these are discharged by the Peak Park Planning Board. The Peak Park Planning Board is the structure planning authority for the area of the Park: the Peak Park Planning Board is the development control authority for the area of the Park. So in their view and in mine it is necessary to have these Amendments, which make it clear that the preparation and making of a land acquisition and management scheme within the area of the Peak. Park is the responsibility of the Peak Park Planning Board. I have their assurances that they will exercise these powers as follows. They will retain to themselves those planning and land acquisition functions which are necessary for them to discharge their functions as a National Park authority, but they will leave with the districts those land acquisition functions which would normally belong to other authorities for the purposes of acquiring land in support of their ordinary functions as district authorities.

I think it will be quite practicable to operate the scheme in that sort of way, and I hope the Committee will agree that it would be a much easier and more straightforward task than it would be if the six counties and the nine districts were to prepare schemes of their own, and if the Peak Park Planning Board were to be given, as it would be, the unenviable task of seeking to co-ordinate the planning and land acquisition functions of 15 separate authorities. It is for this reason that I am proposing these Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 87A.

Lord CASTLE

I instinctively want to support the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Henley, because the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in particular, has provided me with the first opportunity to intervene in your Lordships' debate, and I know we have a joint interest in the preservation of National Parks and in the elevation of the authorities which control them, though I am not certain we should agree on every detail. However, having heard earlier this evening what I would regard as a somewhat wrecking Amendment coming from the other side, I have reservations about the support of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with him. The unfortunate fact is, of course, that I have been associated with local government for the last 20 years and I do not have the same contempt as some people have for the rectitude and probity of local government operators; and I do not think an appointed board is necessarily a better operator in these matters than local government. In any case, the general pattern of this Bill has been to pass over to the local authorities these initial efforts to acquire land and to plan its use.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, despite his disavowal that he wants to delay the Bill, has shown his hand a little in this matter, because if we leave it to the local authorities here we know that most of them in the area, despite the warnings which they have received from the Opposition Benches that this Bill will not get on to the Statute Book, have already manned themselves and are operating in advance. They are preparing, in fact. They are making surveys, and so on; and this, I believe, applies to all the areas around. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, possibly knows, as I have been told, that all the authorities concerned are already in negotiation one with the other and with the Peak Board for the allocation of the proper amount of land to be conceded to that area for the National Park. This, I should have thought, were we to carry this proposal, would be a delaying action, because the negotiations seem to go pretty well, and before we know where we are we shall have a thorough agreement between the Board and the local authorities. To disturb that arrangement at this stage would be, to my mind, inappropriate, and I hope that the Government stick to their guns on this matter.

Lord HENLEY

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Castle, has not misunderstood what the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is about. Quite naturally, I think, he has perhaps not agreed entirely with what he might well see as a delaying action on the part of the Tory Benches, but because this may have been so it does not necessarily mean that every Amendment is a bad one. This Amendment seems to me to be good, practical, common sense. I cannot see any reason why the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, are defective from a practical point of view, as to how the conduct of the Peak Park Planning Board's affairs should be carried through.

I know that I go further than does the noble Lord in wanting to see National Park Planning Boards autonomous, and I know also that many people in local government, on both sides of your Lordships' Committee, do not agree with me. This is a battle which has been fought over the last five years: whether National Park Planning Boards should be autonomous or whether they should be sub-committees of the county councils. I stand on one side; I think the noble Lord, in whose name this Amendment is set down and who spoke first to it, probably stands on the other. Nevertheless, let it not be forgotten that nobody has done more for the concept of the National Parks and how they should be run than the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Castle, in making his strictures upon this Amendment, will bear that in mind.

I do not want to go over the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has put forward; they seem to me self-evident. Nor do I want to argue this long debate which, as I say, has gone on over five years, as to whether National Parks should be autonomous or whether they should be sub-committees of county councils. That, I think, is not an issue in this Bill. But so far as this Amendment is concerned I cannot see why the Government should object to it. It does not go any way in the direction that the more extreme of us would want; that is, towards making other boards autonomous. It merely, I think, tidies up the way in which the Peak Park could conduct its affairs. I hope the Government will not reject this Amendment out of hand. I know they do not want to dismantle the present structure of the machinery by which National Parks are run, and this does not seem to me to damage that in any way. I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Lord says, if he will accept what seems to me, from a practical point of view, a very sensible Amendment.

Lord MELCHETT

It might be helpful if I set out the position as it is now, because, of course, it has been complicated by negotiations which have been going on during the passage of the Bill. The land acquisition and management scheme provisions in Clause 16 are drawn up in terms of "county areas". This makes sense for the normal situation in which the parties to such a scheme will be a county council and the districts (including any new town development corporation) within its area. In general, also, there will be no problem for the National Parks, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, because most of them are administered by committees which have no independent statutory existence and therefore cannot be a party to a land acquisition and management scheme. This applies even to the Exmoor National Park although this crosses the boundary of Devon and Somerset. The Lake District National Park presents no problems, because it lies wholly within the county of Cumbria and can be a party to the LAMS for that county area. There remains the question of the Peak District National Park which falls into the six county areas named in subsection (10) of Clause 16.

I should like to stress that the problem in the Peak Park area is purely an adminitrative one. It has been made clear that LAMS are to be prepared jointly (so that there is no difference in practice between the Park Planning Board being treated as a county authority for a single LAMS, or as a district authority contributing to six LAMS). Similarly, it is clear that LAMS are functional arrangements about who does what; they are not land acquisition programmes with the programme for each county area co-ordinated by the county authority. The difficulty is that it may be inconvenient for the Planning Board to engage in separate discussions contributing to the production of six separate LAMS; and that, if the LAMS of the six county areas were applied in exactly the same way in the National Park as outside it, there could be a wide range of different arrangements for the operation of the scheme in different parts of the National Park.

This question was raised in Commons Committee. There was then support from both sides of the Committee for having a separate LAMS for the National Park area, though some of this may have been based on a misunderstanding of the implications of such a decision which will be purely administrative. My honourable friend then made it clear that we were sympathetic with the Board's case, but that we wanted to leave the authorities concerned to arrive at an agreed solution if that were possible.

Detailed discussions have taken place between the Planning Board and the constituent authorities. No agreement has been reached on the approach which the Board favour. The constituent authorities have, however, agreed that, even if there is not a separate LAMS for the Peak Park, there should be the following arrangements to help meet the Board's case. First, each county area's LAMS should be prepared in two parts, separating out provisions relating to the National Park from those for the rest of the county area; secondly, there will be uniform arrangements for the Park areas in each separate LAMS so that there would, in fact, be uniform treatment across the whole of the National Park; thirdly, a joint committee will be formed to oversee the LAMS and implementation of the scheme in the National Park area.

Although the Board have not achieved all that they wanted to as a result of their negotiations with the constituent authorities, the arrangement proposed by those authorities goes a good way towards meeting the Board's legitimate concern. It is arguable that it would be better to go further and treat the Park area as a county area for the purposes of Clause 16. That has been argued by Lord Sandford. But, though the Board would naturally prefer this, it is difficult to see a strong case for amending the Bill, given the arrangements which the constituent authorities are prepared to adopt, which would lead to a unified LAMS within the Park, even though, in terms of mechanics, this would be incorporated in the LAMS for six separate county areas.

The Government took the view when this point was raised in the Commons that the best way to proceed was to leave this matter to local agreement. Although full agreement has not been reached there are clearly the makings of a useful compromise in the approach proposed by the constituent authorities. Indeed, this was the point made by my noble friend Lord Castle who seemed fully to understand the Amendment and all its implications. Therefore, I should not be inclined to recommend the Amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.

Indeed, I very much hope and suspect that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will not be pressing his Amendments, particularly in view of what was said about local democracy in the debates on Clause 2 and even more particularly in view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said about the setting up of joint boards. He made particular reference to our over-riding reviews of the minority of local authorities in that situation and we have no doubt that the noble Lords opposite will want to think very hard before committing themselves to supporting a proposal that they now know does not have the support of the local authorities in the area, even though it is being pressed by the joint board.

As I understand it, this is not even a question of some of the authorities feeling one way and some another. My information is that all the authorities in the area which have communicated their views to my right honourable and honourable friends on this matter are opposed to the proposal put forward in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and are content with what I should have thought would be the reasonable compromise that they themselves propose.

Viscount RIDLEY

May I say that I should like to take up a permanent position on the fence on this one?

The Earl of ONSLOW

There is only one thing that the noble Lord in his ineffable Old Etonian manner has not explained. It is what happens if there is a permanent disagreement and you cannot get the agreement that he so confidently expects. This is the thing that worries me and several of my noble friends on these Benches.

Lord MELCHETT

The noble Earl was not listening to what I said. I said that agreement had not been reached but that a compromise had been put forward by the local authorities which seemed, by and large, to meet the reasonable case which the joint planning board wanted met.

Lord SANDFORD

First, I must say how nice it is to have a Back-Bencher from the other side taking part in these debates. But I must also say that I resent the suggestion that in introducing this Amendment, the sole purpose of which is to try to make this miserable Bill work better, I am accused of taking delaying action. I thought I had said what had happened; namely, that the chairman of the Peak Park Planning Board, not finding that the Department were doing what they said they would do (and what they have told us in their own notes that they intend to do) namely, to introduce something to make the Bill work properly in this particular area, thought it necessary that somebody took some action. I was asked to do it and I am doing it. The other thing I would want to say to Lord Castle is that the Peak Park Planning Board is not an appointed board. It has no more appointed members on it than any other National Park authority. One-third of the members are appointed and all the others are members of adjacent county councils. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?

Lord MELCHETT

In case the noble Lord forgot it, I should say at this point, unlike the joint boards.

Lord SANDFORD

Yes, quite different. These are not appointed members; two-thirds are members of the county councils.

Lord CASTLE

They are appointed by the county councils, not popularly elected like local government.

Lord SANDFORD

As to two-thirds they are elected members of their county councils serving on the Peak Park Joint Planning Board, in the same way as other elected members of the county council may serve on the library committee or education committee. There is no difference except that one-third of the members are appointed. So we are not dealing with a non-democratic body.

The Department of the Environment's own note to us indicated that some provision had to be made, by which I understand that they were not satisfied. They may be satisfied now, but originally they were not satisfied that the matter could be left to be worked out by the local authorities in the ordinary way, and I agree. It is a question of who does what; but there is no question at all that the job of co-ordinating the land acquisition and management arrangements of six counties and nine districts is a formidable task, particularly if they do not all agree as to how it should be done. But it has to be done in respect of the Peak Park. There have to be uniform arrangements, and a joint committee is not strong enough. If a joint committee were satisfactory, that is the way the Peak Park would have been administered from the beginning; but anybody who has had anything to do with National Parks—and the noble Baroness, Lady White, will be one of them—will know that joint committees are not strong enough or unified enough to do the job. The Welsh experience in the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia is ample demonstration of that. The Committee must take it from me that one of the things which was borne in on us over and over again in the year or more I spent reviewing the National Parks was that they cannot be administered properly unless their administration is tightly integrated with a single park officer serving a single committee, and with unified functions.

The noble Lord said that the decision had been taken to treat the Peak Park area as a county area. But it is a county area; the Peak Park Planning Board is a structure planning authority. It has county functions. It is not good enough to let the Bill work in such a way so that in this important function, land acquisition, the job suddenly starts to be done by six separate authorities held together by a joint committee. The arguments we have heard are absolutely fatal concerning the administration of a National Park. Having so recently reviewed the whole situation and found this to be so, I am totally unimpressed. On the other hand, if it is possible for the local authorities involved in the Peak Park to come to an arrangement which satisfies the Peak Park Planning Board and which produces unified administration, I should be the first to leave them to work it out. The less Parliament and the Secretary of State interfere with the co-operative arrangements of local authorities, the better it is for them all. For that reason, I should like to leave it that I will not press this Amendment. I will read what the noble Lord has said and will find out by making local inquiries how the matter stands, and I will return to the matter at Report stage. But unless further facts are adduced by then to satisfy me that a good, unified arrangement can be made for land acquisition in the Peak Park area, I will have to press these Amendments or Amendments like them. Unless the noble Lord opposite wishes to say anything I will withdraw—

Lord FOOT

Before the noble Lord withdraws, may I invite him to reconsider his decision. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, knows more about this matter than anybody in the Committee, and the idea of a joint committee of six different authorities trying to decide this matter seems to me absolutely appalling. I hope that the Government have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about this, and that they will be prepared to receive the argument. I hope the noble Lord is not going to withdraw the Amendment because many of us—certainly my colleagues on these Benches—want to support him in carrying this to a Division.

Lord MELCHETT

I fully agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said towards the end of his speech. I agree with him that what is needed is time for the local authorities in the area to come to some sensible compromise with the Board. I think it would be sensible to give more time for this. I think it would be sensible for noble Lords opposite, and indeed for the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Henley, to look with some care at what I have said about the very sensible compromise solution which has been put forward by the authorities and possibly see, in consultation with the Board, whether anything more needed to be done. This is something which undoubtedly will work much better if there is co-operation and that is a step I would wholeheartedly support.

I should like to make one small point, having said the friendly bit, which is that the notes on clauses which were intended to be helpful to noble Lords opposite and which appear to have caused nothing but trouble—did not say what the noble Lord said they had said. In fact on this point the note said that further consideration may need to be given to the treatment of the Peak Park Planning Board. It did not say that the Government intended to bring forward an Amendment or that further consideration necessarily would be given to it. I would also point out to the noble Lord, in case nobody else is going to say anything, that my noble friend did not say that this was a delaying Amendment but that some of the other Amendments pressed by noble Lords opposite have been delaying things but—

Lord HENLEY

No, the noble Lord cannot get away with that! His noble friend said that this was a delaying Amendment, and I took exception to that.

Lord CASTLE

I must explain that I said nothing of the kind. I said that the rectitude in these matters of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had been called into question purely and simply because of the manner in which he had treated earlier Amendments, which were wrecking Amendments. I could not support that kind of attitude and although my instinct was to support him on this, on further examination I realised, as often happens. that reason was on the side of the Government.

Lord MELCHETT

Before we get side tracked by the large measure of agreement which I think exists between the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and myself, may I reiterate that I hope he will withdraw the Amendment—and certainly I hope it will be possible for us to come to some agreement on this matter before the next stage. I would re-emphasise the wisdom of this, even if noble Lords on the Liberal Benches are not satisfied, because there are some technical defects in the Amendments which would not make it wise to put them into the Bill at this stage.

Lord SANDFORD

Quite apart from the technical defects, which do not move me very much, I think it would be the prudent, sensible and right thing to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage. I welcome the invitation of the noble Lord to look at this together to see what can be done; but I must say that it will not be satisfactory to leave it to the promise of some joint committee and some joint arrangement between six counties and nine districts. That is a fatal recipe for administering something as complex and difficult as a National Park. But if between now and Report stage we can get to something much nearer to the spirit of my Amendment, let us by all means try to do this. On Report stage we shall either have to have assurances which will produce something like it or else we shall move Amendments similar to the present ones but without the defects. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.18 p.m.

The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 89A: Page 16, line 34, after ("Wales") insert ("Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles")

The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will note that subsection (12) of Clause 16 excludes Wales and the Isles of Scilly. Under the English Local Government Act, from the very helpful notes which have been supplied, it appears that the Council of the Isles of Scilly is a single-tier authority, so that no land authority management scheme is required. I argue that Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles are in exactly the same position as a single-tier authority and therefore should also be excluded from this provision of this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I appreciate that island authorities have no local authority either directly above or below them, with whom they could divide the functions under the Bill, but a LAMS is not merely a method of agreeing divisions of functions, though this will obviously be important in most schemes. It is also a scheme setting out other important arrangements for the execution of the authority's functions in connection with the acquisitions of land. It will, for example, be concerned with the staff resources which are available to an authority. It will spell out the reliance to be placed on the district valuers' services, whether or not the authority propose to engage private firms on an agency basis. It could be used to reach agreement with another authority outside the authority's own area on the joint use of staff. The document will also be of interest to the Secretary of State who will be given an insight into the authority's approach to many matters which will not be covered in the rolling programmes of acquisition. LAMS will also be the earliest indication to the Secretary of State of how arrangements for implementing the scheme are progressing, and will alert him to areas where advice and assistance may be needed. I hope that for these reasons the noble Earl will accept that it is important for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to be able to draw up land acquisition and management schemes for their own areas.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Then why have the Isles of Scilly and Wales been left out?

Lord MELCHETT

Wales has been left out because of the separate arrange- ments for Wales under the Land Authority for that Principality

The Earl of BALFOUR

And the Isles of Scilly? Why have the Isles of Scilly been expressly excluded? I must press this one a little more. I cannot see the difference between Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles and the Isles of Scilly. I think I have a right to have this point answered.

Lord MELCHETT

I am afraid that as the Amendment does not deal with the Isles of Scilly I am not able or prepared to answer that while it is being discussed. If the noble Earl wishes to put down an Amendment dealing with the Isles of Scilly, I shall be happy to answer it.

The Earl of BALFOUR

Let me put your Lordships clearly in the picture here. In Scotland the administration of local government was arranged so that Scotland should be divided into regions or districts—I am quoting from the Local Government (Scotland) Act, Section 1— other than Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles) … Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles shall be local government areas to be known as islands areas, and shall comprise the areas respectively described"— in one of the Schedules— being administrative areas existing immediately before the passing of this Act. They have not changed their status at all, any more than have the Isles of Scilly. I would say to the Government that either the Isles of Scilly should stay in Clause 16, or my Amendment should be accepted; in other words, either the Isles of Scilly should be included in Clause 16 or, if they are to be excluded, the same thing goes for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles.

Lord MELCHETT

I have spelt out in some detail why Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles should draw up a land acquisition and management scheme. The noble Earl did not touch on the various functions which I indicated the LAMS would have for those areas and why it was important that they should draw one up. I hope he will accept that they should. It may well be that the Isles of Scilly also should draw up a LAMS; and as I have said, if the noble Earl wants to move an Amendment to include the Isles of Scilly I will consider that point.

The Earl of BALFOUR

In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

9.24 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL

I wonder whether I might raise one point which was raised in the Report stage in another place. It concerns subsection (7) of this clause in which the scheme, one will see, would "not create any obligation enforceable in law". The point was raised in another place as to what the obligation was between an authority and an individual. The question is what action any individual could take against an authority if they failed in their obligation. The second point that was made was that the Minister, by this subsection, will apparently have power to direct that the obligation would be enforceable by law. The point asked is how the Minister would take it upon himself to issue this direction. Would it be by Statutory Instrument or some other process? I hope that some elucidation can be given, because the point was particularly raised and I think the reply which the Government then gave was that they would look at this matter and no doubt make some observation during the proceedings in this House.

Lord MELCHETT

The first point that the noble Earl raised was what obligation would a member of the public and the authority have as regards the land acquisition and management scheme. Perhaps I have misunderstood his point?

The Earl of KINNOULL

My point is what obligation the authority have towards a third party. When I say "a third party" I mean an individual or a district council.

Lord SANDFORD

My noble friend must speak for himself, but may I intervene? It seemed tome that the point at the Report stage in another place was that if the Secretary of State makes the lands arrangements enforceable at law (which is what subsection (7) does, that subsection being incorporated into the Bill at the Report stage in another place) with the object of tying the authorities to the arrangements they had made between themselves, what steps does the Secretary of State take to ensure that this does not make the arrangements enforceable against private individual citizens? That was not his intention. However, as drawn at the moment, subsection (7) could carry that interpretation.

Lord MELCHETT

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his elucidation of his point. Land acquisition and management schemes do not concern individuals as such. As we stressed on previous Amendments to the clause, they are practical matters of deciding who does what and what facilities are available to authorities. They are designed to be pragmatic, flexible, working arrangements. Individuals could not take any action against authorities which arose out of something that was said in the land acquisition and land management schemes. As I have said, they are not in that sense directly the concern of private individuals.

The noble Earl also asked me—this is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, addressed himself—about the provision in subsection (7) which says that the Secretary of State can direct that a land acquisition and management scheme will create obligations enforceable by law. I should emphasise that this will be only on the application of all the authorities in the area of a county authority. The Secretary of State will make this legally enforceable by a direction that will in practice amount to a letter that is sent to the various authorities and that will have to be published with the land acquisition and management scheme in the same way as the LAMS will be published.

The Earl of KINNOULL

Can the Secretary of State make what is at present unenforceable at law something that is enforceable at law by letter to an authority? This seems to me to be a little strange. I think that this should be dealt with in Parliament which is where the law is changed. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can comment on that point?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

It would surprise me if without statutory backing behind it a letter or direction from the Secretary of State would have the force of law. That would indeed be a remarkable state of affairs. However, part of the relevant subsection obviously needs elucidation. It would indeed be a very remarkable state of affairs if what has been talked about could produce legal enforceability. However, there may be an explanation of this mystery which is not apparent to me at the moment.

The Earl of KINNOULL

While thanking the noble and learned Lord for that interjection, may I ask him whether this mystery could be cleared up before the next stage of this Bill?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

The Earl of KINNOULL

May I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:

Lord MELCHETT

I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 78. I beg to move Amendment No. 90.

Amendment moved— Page 71, line 23, leave out ("preparing") and insert ("making").—(Lord Melchett.)

9.31 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 90A:

Page 71, line 24, at end insert— (" (a) the opinions of the communities living or carrying on business or other activities in the area or wishing to do so").

The noble Lord said: I think we have had all along the view expressed by noble Lords opposite—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, expressed it just now—that the land acquisition and management schemes are just matters between the authorities themselves. I do not think that really will quite do because the authorities concerned are responsible to their electorates for the discharge of their functions. Listening to the debate on this Bill, one would think that they were responsible to the Secretary of State, but that is not so. They are responsible to the people who elected them as to how they discharge their functions. That being so, I should have thought the first of the matters which they should consider in drawing them up are the opinions of the communities living or carrying on busi- ness or other activities in the area, wishing to do so, because the arrangements which are made for acquiring lands for development will very much concern all these communities. What suits their convenience should be paramount among all the other considerations that should be taken into account. For that purpose, I think the Bill would be better if this Amendment were imported into it. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

This is not the same point, but it has arisen earlier so I will try to keep my comments on it fairly brief and merely remind the Committee that the Bill gives concurrent functions in England and Scotland to both tiers of local government, to new town development corporations and in England to National Park Planning Boards. LAMS simply concern the question of who does what. As I said on a previous Amendment, it is a functional arrangement to ensure that authorities do not spend their time trying to do each other's jobs; that they work out a way of setting about it. In this respect the approach is similar to that under Section 183 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the power to make development plans and schemes to deal with the problem of overlapping planning functions between districts and counties. This is why I believe the Amendment is misconceived. It is true that there may be some public interest in the making of these functional arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said he did not see why it should be taken for granted that no one was interested, but those interested can attend council meetings and they can lobby their representatives, if they wish. But that is quite different from giving statutory backing on the lines proposed.

The real public interest comes as an end result of a LAMS: what people want to know is how the scheme is actually going to be operated in their area, but as a whole they are not particularly interested in the processes of preparation, and meeting the interest in the end result of how it is to operate is already provided for in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5. There is no inclination or desire in the Bill to prevent people making representations, but to make a statutory condition like this seems to be quite unnecessary. The Bill here is analogous to Section 183 of the Local Government Act 1972, which clearly recognises that such matters are inappropriate for this kind of public participation, otherwise it would no doubt have provided for it.

Quite honestly, I do not think this sort of wide-open Amendment is really helpful. It is not specific and we have had several debates on the question of the community. One of the definitions given in the Oxford dictionary is: An organised political, municipal or social body", so I suggest that in this context the local authority is such a body and that any representations or interests can be channelled through it.

Viscount RIDLEY

I am not sure that the noble Baroness Lady Birk, appreciates what a tremendously important issue this is. As a councillor, I find that what gets people excited and interested in what is going on is the sort of subject we are discussing now, the possibility of the development of councils and so on in their neighbourhood. It seems to me so important that I should not like the Amendment to be withdrawn too quickly, although it may not be in the form in which it should be accepted. As this Bill develops, it is of great importance that the people involved are interested, and that those who live in these places know what is going on. I hope that the noble Baroness will not turn her eyes against public participation, because this is being demanded more and more by the public.

Baroness YOUNG

I am glad to support what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, have said about this matter, because, if I may speak to my Amendment No. 92B. which is really on the same subject, it is not good enough to say that people are interested only in the end result. Of course they are very interested in the end result, but we have inferred throughout the Committee stage that the Government look at this as a major land reform Bill, and its very first part will be the making of these land acquisition and management schemes. To suggest that people will not be interested is simply untrue.

I am delighted that the Government have now found a definition of the "community". Of course it is a very narrow one, as I suggested at the beginning. What they are saying is that "community" is synonymous with "local authority" or, I suspect, "bureaucracy". But, be that as it may, a great many others living in the area will be interested who, in the interest of public participation of one sort and another, will want to make their voices heard. Therefore, I hope the Government will seriously consider these Amendments.

9.38 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

May I make it clear that this is not a question of either myself or the Government feeling that there should be no public participation. I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Horridly. Everything possible should be done to encourage people in all spheres to take as much part as they can in the making of their own area or community, and in local life. But we have again to draw the distinction between the rather technical side, the functional side and the way in which the community or the area develops, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, referred. LAMS have nothing to do with all the development which has to take place in the area. They are concerned with whether the powers should be exercised by the county councils, the district councils, or both, and they will not define where the power should be exercised.

Noble Lords may well say that this is something in which many people are not interested, but there is nothing to prevent them from being interested. There is nothing in the Bill that says, "Thou shalt not portray an interest in your LAMS." But we say that it does not seem to be the place to write in a statutory requirement; and, furthermore, it is surely up to the local authorities themselves, where necessary, to generate and help to encourage this interest. With the greatest respect, noble Lords are concerned with the development side, the development plans, which are the structure and the creation of the local area LAMS on which the Amendments are pinned. They are rarely the technical "nitty-gritty". They are not the place at which many people would feel they were participating, or had something personal to contribute. Those who do will not be offended in any way; they will be encouraged to take an opportunity to particpate. But to write this into the Bill in this statutory way seems rather unnecessary, and, although well-intentioned, it adds woolliness.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

If I may say so, surely the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, ought to think that one should put in everything which will encourage the community to take an interest. It is fascinating for the local authorities, the councillors, the aldermen—whoever they are—to say, "Ah! but the Government of the day have thought it so important to try to encourage people to take an interest that they have even put it in a Parliamentary Bill."

The noble Baroness may be quite right in the way she expresses things, but she does not seem to understand how important it is to ordinary people who are not ncessarily connected with local authorities, to know that they would be welcome and that they are likely to be encouraged. I think it is most important that this should be put into a Parliamentary Bill, so that it can be pointed to by those who want to encourage all sorts of odd people, who might otherwise not have done so, to take an interest. I am absolutely staggered that the noble Baroness does not seem to understand this. If she will come up to our part of the world we can show her.

Baroness BIRK

I often go up to the noble Baroness's part of the world, because I am married to a "Geordie", so I know it pretty well.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

But the noble Baroness is against it.

Baroness BIRK

I am not against it, and I am not against "Geordies". I do not think the noble Baroness quite understands what it is she is being so passionate about. The things that she feels people will be so interested in can be very dull stuff unless they have that particular specialisation or interest. We are not talking about how the community or the area develops. We are talking about the functional machinery. There is nothing to stop people taking an interest, and nothing to stop the local authority taking the initiative to interest people.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Noble Lords have in mind and have indicated the creation and structure of the community and the area, when what we are discussing here in these Amendments are the land acquisition and management schemes, which are really the functional set-up. It is not at all an anti-public participation stand; it is being quite sensible about what is really relevant to a Bill which is going on the Statute Book.

Lord SANDFORD

We will not despair of trying to convert the noble Baroness into a more positive view of public participation than she holds at the moment, but we must not spend too much time on this Amendment. We have heard one city councillor and one county councillor supporting me in my view that, when it comes to deciding who does what and where the local community have a right to be considered, it really does make a difference whether land acquisition is done from county hall or from a district office in some other town. When there is a choice, the views of the community and the convenience of the community should be taken into account. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SANDFORD

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross I beg to move Amendment No. 90B. This seeks to insert into paragraph 1(a) an important element in the whole business of land acquisition and management which the Government seem to have omitted. One of the most skilled parts of the whole business is the assembly of the land for which the acquisition powers and the planning framework are required, and that is not covered by any of the phrases that are used here. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 71, line 27, after ("the") insert ("assembly").—(Lord Sandford.)

Lord MELCHETT

I think it probably is covered by a phrase already in the Bill. Of course, the Government entirely accept that where authorities may need to undertake land assembly—and this will be particularly true of urban areas—they will need staff experienced in land assembly. Equally, we accept that in such cases this will have to be considered when the land acquisition and management scheme is being prepared. But in fact the point is already covered by the general reference to "acquisition of land", of which land assembly is but a specialised form. Further specific reference is, therefore, in our view, not necessary.

Lord SANDFORD

I think that is a pity, because everybody can see that there is a clear distinction between acquisition, which can be done by one group of experts, and assembly, which requires an additional skill. But we shall not take time on it now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.46 p.m.

Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 92:

Page 72, leave out line 4 and insert— (f) such other matters as the Secretary of State may specify by order under this paragraph.

The noble Viscount said: I hope that it will be convenient to the Committee if, in speaking to Amendment No. 92, I deal with Amendments Nos. 93 and 96 and, if possible, No. 106 as well, because they all relate to the same point. The objects of these Amendments are to try to exclude the Secretary of State's absolute power of direction, and to replace it with a power which can be exercised under the control of Parliament. The direction procedure is totally arbitrary. Not only can Government directions be promulgated in many ways—for instance, by circulars and letters, et cetera, to local authorities—but in similar circumstances can be dealt with quite differently between different authorities. This of course I am certain is not the intention of the Government, but it is within the nature of this procedure. All these matters which are now subject to the direction of procedure by the Secretary of State and to which I am referring are important matters indeed, which justify some degree of Parliamentary control.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

These Amendments would remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue directions in connection with the matters to he considered in the preparation of land acquisition and management schemes, and the content of such schemes, and would substitute a power to make orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. The decision on what matters are subject to Parliamentary procedure is governed very largely in our constitutional history by precedent, and any departure from these precedents needs very careful consideration, otherwise there is a great danger of Parliament being completely swamped with so many orders, if they require Parliamentary approval, even if they are only subject to Negative Resolution procedure, as to clog the whole machine of the operation of Parliament, which is already under considerable strain.

The present powers of direction follow the precedented treatment for powers of a similar scope and content in other legislation. In fact the provisions dealing with land acquisition and management schemes are closely modelled on Section 10(C) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which was inserted in that Act by Section 183 of the Local Government Act 1972. That section deals with the preparation of development plan schemes, and contains various powers for the Secretary of State to issue directions. Similarly there are numerous powers in the Water Act 1973 for the Secretary of State to issue directions—and I am not choosing that legislation because it happened to be passed by a previous Administration in order to make a political point, but merely to illustrate local recent history in this field. In my submission, there is no reason for departing from these and other precedents that could be cited and I submit that the Amendment should therefore be resisted.

Viscount AMORY

I had made up a little speech on this Amendment which I particularly wanted to address to noble Lords on the Back-Benches opposite, but about 10 minutes ago I looked up and there was none there, so I tore up my notes and that speech will never be made. Nevertheless, I wish to make a few observations in lieu of it. The plethora of situations which are left to be dealt with by Ministerial direction is a bad feature of this bad Bill. Unfortunately, it is not exceptional and, as one bad Bill follows another, I find myself getting more and more petulant. My friends have noticed it and if this goes on much longer petulance will be the surviving feature of my character.

This tendency to leave more and more to be dealt with in this way is one of the developments of post-war legislation. Both Parties have sinned in this way, but whereas the Tory Party has usually sinned in a rather shamefaced way, the Party of noble Lords opposite has sinned with joy, because it is their philosophy that Secretaries of State are created for the sole purpose of intervention and throwing their weight about. In my opinion, this is evidence that this Bill attempts to deal with issues in too great detail. Noble Lords may tell me, as the noble and learned Lord indicated just now, that the alternative would be to make the Bill still longer and more complicated. I do not think that is the only alternative. Another alternative is often to recognise and accept that there are many problems which may be too complicated, too varied and too detailed to justify an attempt to deal with them by legislation. If we want to simplify the spate of legislation, which is in danger of getting out of hand, let us more often than we do recognise that some proposed action may be desirable but is too complicated in detail to attempt.

Anybody who has been a Minister knows the temptation of leaving awkward points to be settled by directions and, in a confessional mood, I admit that I have been guilty of that many times. In the case of real details, if they must be covered at all, that may be the sensible course, but some things covered by direc- tions in this Bill are not really details they are almost matters of principle. Most of the directions in Clauses 42 and 43 and Schedules 5 and 6 are in regard to matters of importance. If these actions are to be attempted at all then, as my noble friend Lord Ridley said, they should be subject at least to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, and that applies particularly to any additions that may be made to the general principles listed. My noble friend made out a very strong case against the indiscriminate use of this power of direction, which is so tempting and so insidiously easy but which is appropriate only to real matters of detail and not to matters of importance.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I doubt whether your Lordships' House will ever accept the noble Viscount's image of himself as being petulant. He is the least petulant person that, in many years of association in another place and here, I have met among politicians. So I am not worried that there is any real risk that this approach will induce that unhappy state of mind in him, but these are difficult problems as to the extent to which one should zealously work out in the Bill itself every detail of administration of a scheme of this kind. Admittedly it is immensely complex, as every town and country planning scheme has been in the past and is likely to be in the future. It is a difficult problem of balance, but ultimately one has to make sure that the Parliamentary process itself can operate. One can secure some control through Parliament on what Secretaries of State do with their powers. There is a powerful sanction in Parliament for getting rid of a Minister through successful debates and through bringing him to book in the Commons itself.

The Earl of ONSLOW

The noble and learned Lord says that there is a powerful sanction for getting rid of the Secretary of State, but has this happened since the War?

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, I think it has. Some Ministers who have not been able to cope with their responsibilities—and I shall not be pushed into giving any examples—have suffered through their incompetence in dealing with their duties, and Parliament has this power over Ministers. The noble Viscount has embraced not only this Administration but previous ones in his general criticism, but I fear that I am impenitent in suggesting that, in regard to the kind of matters where the directions which we are debating at the moment can be issued—namely, what should be considered in the preparation of land acquisition and management schemes and the contents of such schemes—I cannot believe that there is great room for mischief in that highly technical situation. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount may think that in this category of directions at least there is little to fear.

If I may use this opportunity to return to a matter on which I was foolish enough to express a view a few minutes ago, I said, in regard to directions issued by Ministers and their legal force, that general directions are usually given by circular to all local authorities, but the information which I presently have is that if directions are special directions they are given by letter addressed to the particular authority or group of authorities and that those letters can alter the law if Parliament has given authority for them to do so. Looking back at the famous Clause 16(7), that provided that: Except if and in so far as the Secretary of State, on the application of all the authorities in the area of the county authority, otherwise directs, a scheme under this section shall not create any obligation enforceable by law. If all the authorities in the area of the county authority do so apply, then the effect of that provision is that an obligation enforceable by law can arise. That is perhaps a departure to a previous point which I may have been out of order in raising, but I felt that I might have misled the Committee and I am told that the position is as I have now described it. I cannot feel entirely happy about that, however, and I shall have another look at it. In the light of what I have said about the general matters raised by each of the noble Viscounts, I hope that they may take the view that it is better to give Secretaries of State these powers to issue directions and not to require them to be brought before Parliament further to encumber and clutter up the already overworked Parliamentary machine.

Viscount RIDLEY

I was not surprised to see that the noble and learned Lord sheltered behind the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I suspect that both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, know this Act by heart and that they quote large chunks of it to each other when they go to bed at night. It has been a marvellous hedge for the Government to hide behind, and I congratulate them. I wish to refer the noble and learned Lord to the Town Development Act 1952, of which I am sure he is aware, in which he will find very comprehensive development powers for the assembly and management of land by local authorities. That Act specifies that these things should be subject to orders laid before Parliament, and in my opinion it is perhaps appropriate that this should be done. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would agree that, should there be drastic changes proposed, he would give an undertaking that they would be discussed with local authorities' representatives before they were made by the Secretary of State. This would go a long way to meeting the point that I was making.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I think that that is essential and it will be done; certainly I can give that assurance.

Viscount RIDLEY

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness BIRK

It is now ten o'clock and probably an appropriate time to adjourn this Committee stage.

House resumed.