HL Deb 28 October 1975 vol 365 cc152-65

3.6 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Schedule 5 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 92A:

Page 72, line 22, at end insert— (dd) arrangements for the management of land held by any authority pending development with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by any authority party to the scheme in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.

The noble Lord said: At the beginning of this afternoon's discussion, when we are looking at the Fifth Marshalled List of Amendments which consists of no less than 44 pages—we have a very large number of Amendments to consider—this may be the opportunity for a member of the Opposition to make somewhat pertinent and abrasive remarks in regard to the Government's legislative programme. I shall, however, restrain myself on this occasion, but I should like to remind the noble Baroness of an Arab proverb which says, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single pace" and the single pace is this Amendment No. 92A, which relates to a question to which I have already spoken on Amendment No. 42A. It is the question of land management, which we have already discussed at some length on Clause 14 in regard to Wales.

This Amendment relates to land management schemes in regard to England and Scotland. As I have already spoken to this Amendment at some length, perhaps your Lordships will not expect me to speak again at any great length. Nevertheless, I feel that your Lordships would like to know the intention of this Amendment. As set out in the Marshalled List, I think it reflects Amendment No. 42A very clearly. It says: arrangements for management of land held by any authority pending development with particular regard to the need to encourage full and proper agricultural use of any farm land acquired by any authority party to the scheme in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. I think it is self-evident from our earlier discussion, when we wrote in Amendment No. 42A in regard to Wales, that it is highly desirable in the interests of a universal approach in this matter that this provision should apply to England and Scotland. I therefore beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

I am afraid that I think Amendment No. 92A represents a faltering stumble towards Amendment No. 218KK, rather than the firm step which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has indicated. When we were dealing with Amendment No. 42A on Wales, I said that in that case the Amendment was quite unnecessary. It is certainly possible to distinguish this Amendment from the previous Amendment No. 42A, because the Amendment on the Welsh part of the Bill went a great deal further and laid a duty on the Land Authority to make arrangements for the management of land, and here we are dealing with the administrative land acquisition and management schemes.

I confess that I am in some difficulty about the Amendment. My advice is that without the last two lines it would be quite acceptable to the Government, and I should offer at Report stage to bring forward an Amendment along those lines. My feeling is that noble Lords opposite should be allowed to be consistent. They have already put into the Bill—by Amendment No. 42A, which is if I may say so, a completely nonsensical Amendment to have pressed—a need to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture. My feeling is that they should be allowed to carry on in that vein and put this into the Bill.

It might help if I indicated how nonsensical is this business of consulting the Ministry of Agriculture. It lays an absolute duty on either the Land Authority or, in this case, any other authority to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture once they have acquired agricultural land. If I can give an example, this means that an authority might have some land which they intended to develop—some derelict land, for instance, left over from industrial workings—and they want to widen a road to give them access to the land, and the farmer who owned the land alongside the road needs some cash and comes to the Authority and says, "I understand at some point in the future you will be widening this road to develop your piece of derelict land. Would you buy my strip of land along the road now as I am willing to sell it to you. "The Authority, wanting to do things by agreement, buy the stretch of land, perhaps 20 yards wide and a few hundred yards long, or less, and for the sake of convenience they allow the farmer to go on farming it until they are ready to widen the road. The Amendment would mean that the Authority would have to consult the Ministry of Agriculture as to how that land must be treated until theycome to widen the road. It is quite ridiculous, but I leave it to the noble Lords opposite to decide what to do about this Amendment.

The Earl of ONSLOW

Is it not possible for the noble Lord, as opposed to making snide remarks, to accept the Amendment in principle, and to say he will put it in at Report stage to take care of the obvious mistakes or difficulties which he foresees in his farmer and derelict land example?

Lord MELCHETT

That was my advice, but my difficulty is that noble Lords opposite have already voted an Amendment into the Bill with this very inconsistency in it.

Lord MIDDLETON

My Amendment reads, "full and proper agricultural use of any farm land". It does not say, "derelict land".

Lord MELCHETT

If they want to develop a bit of derelict land and there is a road leading to it and they buy, let us say, 10 square yards of agricultural land in order to widen the road, they will have to go to the Ministry of Agriculture and consult with them as to what happens to that 10 square yards until the road is widened.

3.14 p.m.

Earl FERRERS

I thought that this Amendment was helpful—as indeed it was supposed to be—and it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, should have started off by saying that it was nonsensical and ridiculous. As he knows perfectly well, and there is no secret about it, we on this side of the House do not like this Bill, but if it is to work we want to see that it works as well as possible. All this Amendment says is that the local authorities having the power to acquire development land up to five or 10 years ahead, should, pending development, not only use it properly but also show how they propose to use it. With the greatest respect, that is not nonsensical, nor ridiculous.

We have a situation where the Government want agricultural production; they say so, and there is nothing peculiar in that. We believe that agriculture has a great part to play. All we say is that, where a local authority acquires land it may not use for another five or 10 years, it should be under an obligation to use that land properly where it is agricultural land, and under this Amendment we say how it proposes to use it. This could only help the Bill. I cannot see how it could spoil it, and I simply do not see how it is ridiculous.

Lord MELCHETT

I entirely agree with everything that the noble Earl has said thus far about the Amendment. He has not dealt with the latter part of the Amendment, which concerns the necessity for an authority to consult with the Ministry of Agriculture. That was the only part of the Amendment I was objecting to. I accept what he has said so far. If the Amendment on Wales were withdrawn, I should be happy to bring forward an Amendment to this part of the Bill embodying exactly what the noble Earl said, because I agree with it.

Earl FERRERS

I am delighted to know that. I suggest to the noble Lord that, if this Amendment is not moved as it is, you could have large tracts of land not used properly. If the Government accept this Amendment, then I would suggest that it is possible for the noble Lord, between now and Report stage, to see whether this is making an absurdity over one small piece of land and, if that is so, to bring forward an Amendment at Report stage to tidy it up. The principle must surely be accepted now that, if there are large tracts of agricultural land, then they should be shown to be used properly until they are developed.

Lord SANDYS

I do not think that we have started in the frame of mind that some of us intended. We intended to offer Amendments which we believed to be both valuable and worth while to the working of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has used the de minimus argument, and it is not a strong one here, particularly for those of us who have stood by in silent witness in counties where the highways department have been carving off pieces of land and using enormous areas for view lines, et cetera. It is well known that, because of traffic regulations, it is largely due to increased road-widening throughout the country that provision must be made for view lines. The noble Lord has fastened upon a provision where I should have thought it was highly desirable in many counties for the Ministry of Agriculture to be consulted. They have not been consulted in the counties where I live; that is, the counties of Hereford and Worcester. Were they to be consulted in the future, this would be desirable.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said he accepted all but the last two lines of the Amendment. I fail to follow his argument about consistency. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, because it seems to me that the policy that the Government have adopted on this Amendment is inconsistent. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to reconsider this, because otherwise I fear we must press the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 95: Page 72, line 37, after ("may,") insert ("after consulting with all the authorities').

The noble Viscount said: I hope the Government will be favourably disposed to this Amendment, which is not in any sense meant to be anything but a simple matter. I am asking that the Secretary of State should consult local authorities before he pokes his nose too strongly into their affairs in this matter. The Amendment would cost the Government nothing and would create good will between local authorities and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

The noble Viscount will be pleased to hear that this appears to the Government to be an entirely fair and sensible proposal, which we can accept. Unfortunately, the drafting makes the Amendment as tabled unacceptable, but I give an assurance that a correctly drafted one will be brought forward on Report.

Viscount RIDLEY

I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.22 p.m.

Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 95A: Page 73, line 8, leave out ("to any person") and insert ("without payment to any parish council and to any other person").

The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will find acceptable. It is straightforward in that it seeks to permit a parish council, which also comprehends a parish meeting, to have the opportunity of viewing plans without payment. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

I will deal first with the Amendment and then with the thinking behind it. I do not think the Amendment as drafted could work because it seems absurd to single out parish councils to receive copies of plans free. If private individuals can afford a reasonable sum for copies, then parish councils, which have power to levy rates, should also afford to do so. However, the Amendment has brought to our attention the more serious point that perhaps parish councils should receive copies of plans as of right, and this I suspect may be the real point behind the Amendment, although as drafted it would not achieve that aim. Paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 8 requires that an authority passing a resolution declaring a disposal notification area shall send a copy of the resolution and the relevant map to every parish or community council affected. It may well be that a similar provision would be right in respect of land, and I give an undertaking to consider this between now and Report.

Lord SANDYS

While reserving our right to come back to this matter on Report, in view of that undertaking by the noble Baroness, which in the circumstances is acceptable, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 [General duties]:

3.24 p.m.

Lord HENLEY moved Amendment No. 97B: Page 16, line 37, after ("functions") insert ("under this Act").

The noble Lord said: I fear that I cannot be as quick in moving this Amendment as others have been in moving the previous ten or so; it may take me a little longer to develop my argument, which I also raised on Second Reading. I will, if it is convenient to the Committee, discuss Amendment No. 104F with this Amendment. I said on Second Reading that there was a conflict in the Bill between land acquisition and land dealing and planning. Clause 17(1) says that …every authority shall have regard to…bringing development land into public ownership. That is under subsection (1)(a) and under subsection (1)(b) it speaks of …securing the proper planning of their area. Subsection (1)(b) does not need any special provision, but subsection (1)(a) knocks at the very roots of our existing planning law and brings into planning an entirely new concept—a new ideology, one could call it—which may or may not be the right way to deal with the question of acquiring land, but which has nothing to do with planning as such.

The question as to who should develop land and whether it should be publicly owned is not what I am talking about now. I am talking about the relationship between that and planning, and I am suggesting that the conflict here will distort planning decisions. This conflict is embedded in the Bill and I am not trying to remove it; the only way to remove it would be by moving wrecking Amendments, which I am not proposing to do. This provision appears in the Bill and that is that.

If it had stopped there, that would have been something of which one could make such protest as one thought fit. But it does not stop there. Subsection (6) of this clause, which I find difficult to understand, means that under the 1971 Act and the other cognate Acts which are mentioned, all authorities must take into account the concept of land acquisition and dealing whenever they make a planning decision. I think this is irrelevant; indeed, I am not sure if it is not improper. It damages the whole basis of planning and does damage to the esteem in which planning on the whole is held. It means that planning is no longer entirely objective, dealing only with matters of planning; it means that decisions on planning are based not on planning merits alone but on something else, and in my view there will be much less public acceptance of planning—and this is very important indeed—if people know that planning matters are being warped by considerations other than planning. What I mean is that planning decisions, instead of being taken on questions of, say, amenity or traffic, will be taken on other considerations in that they must consider using the Bill as a vehicle to promote something quite different, and that is acquiring land. As I say, I am not attacking the concept of acquiring land. I am suggesting that to mix this business of acquiring land with the idea of planning is such that one is bound to get wrong decisions because the wrong criteria have entered into the picture.

Amendment No. 97B tries to confine the functions under the Bill to the Bill alone; that is to say, it adds the words "under this Act" after the word "functions" in subsection (1). Amendment No. 104F cuts out the requirement that in operating the 1971 Act authorities should water down the criteria of planning with considerations which are quite distinct from those of planning merits alone. I do not, of course, intend to press this Amendment because I am certain that the Government regard this matter as of fundamental importance to the Bill. What I tried to do on Second Reading was to point out that there was a very real danger that, in introducing this conflict, we were unwittingly doing very great damage to our existing system of planning.

The Government's answer to that may well be that our old system of planning was a negative one. What I mean by that is that it is an extremely good system if everybody who can work it—local authorities, officers of local authorities and all of us—wishes to make it work. But if we are lukewarm and do not care, nothing much happens. I accept that there is a negative aspect in that, but I do not believe that one renders a system positive by introducing a fundamental conflict between what one should do to achieve good planning and what one should do to acquire land. I do not want to press this point, because I believe that the Government regard it as of paramount importance to their Bill. But I want to stress again what I said on Second Reading, as this was a point which did not get a proper hearing in the Commons: I believe that we are in very grave danger here. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for my absence when he rose to move the Amendment. There has been an agreeable increase in pace in dealing with the Amendments while I have been absent. Indeed, it may well be that my absence has caused that increase in pace. The land scheme is primarily concerned with all land acquisitions by authorities for private development, and Clause 17, which sets out the general duties of authorities under the land scheme, should apply generally to authorities exercising their powers to acquire land for private development under all relevant statutory powers and not simply to their powers under the Bill. This is achieved by the present definition of "functions" in Clause 17(6).

On the planning aspect of the matter which has been raised by the noble Lord, the operations of the community land scheme in Wales and England are to be planning-led and this is implicit in the duties of authorities under Clause 17(1)(b), which states that they must have regard to the desirability of securing the proper planning of their area and introduces the obligation to have regard to the planning considerations under Clause 17(2), which include the provisions of the development plan and considerations which would be material for determining a planning application. Those requirements are reinforced by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6, which include an obligation to have regard to the needs of persons carrying on business activities in the area, the needs of persons wishing to carry out development in the area and the needs and obligations of statutory undertakers. These planning provisions and the planning aspects of the Bill have been considered by the Royal Town Planning Institute, and Clause 17(1)(a) and (b) and subsection (2) were framed in close consultation with that body. They have the approval of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

However, I shall certainly study with care what has been said by the noble Lord and it may be helpful to restrict the provisions of Clause 17(6) to the land acquisition functions under the planning Acts. I shall certainly give thought to that possibility, which may meet some of the anxieties of the noble Lord. As I see it, the position is as I have described it and I do not think that there should be any clash between the functions. However, we will see whether an alteration might make matters clearer.

Lord HENLEY

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having said that he will look carefully at this point, and will make sure that no such damage as I feared will occur. I accept what he said about the need for all relevant statutory powers to be considered together, and about the necessity that this should be planning-led. In effect, that was said in the Government's notes which were supplied for our help. They referred to the need to exercise duties in a planning framework. However, my contention is that that is all very well, but that what the authorities are being asked to do here is to exercise their duties in a non-planning framework. I do not want to repeat my arguments, because I feel that that would be a bore. I have said this twice on Second Reading and I have repeated it here, because it seems to me to beof the highest importance; and the fact that the noble and learned Lord has gone some way towards admitting that there could be difficulties here is as much as I can reasonably expect from a Government who have not given way very much. If no one has anything to add on this point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Before I call Amendment No. 98, I should point out to the Committee that if the Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 99, 99A or 100.

3.38 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 16, line 38, leave out from ("to") to end of line 43 and insert ("the desirability—

  1. (a) of securing the proper planning of their area and then
  2. (b) of implementing such plans by bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land themselves or of making it available for development by others.")

The noble Lord said.: The Amendment bears on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has been discussing but tackles it in a rather different way. Earlier on, when we were talking about Wales, in one of the rare interventions by a Back-Bencher on the other side—Back-Benchers on the other side being conspicuous by their physical absence and their lack of enthusiasm for the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Shin well, accused the Government of putting the cart before the horse. At that time, he was talking about devolution. In this case that is, the relationship between land acquisition and land planning—I do not feel that it would be quite true to say that the Government have put the cart before the horse; rather, the Government have forgotten the horse altogether.

When they introduced the Bill—a Bill which is designed to promote positive planning—there was no reference at any of the significant points to the planning process. It was not until May or June —halfway through the Committee stage—that anything was done to put that right. Such is the Government's zeal for the municipalisation of land that they forgot one of the main objects of the Bill. However, in the course of May and in consultation with the Royal Town Planning Institute, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, they recalled that this was rather important and made changes, one of the most significant of which is what now appears in the Bill as Clause 17(1)(b). I should like to point out that that was not in the Bill at all when it was introduced and received its Second Reading, so we can see how much regard the Government had to proper planning at the earlier stages.

It may well be that the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association are satisfied; of course they are satisfied compared with their intense dissatisfaction at the beginning, because the situation is now better. However, I put it to your Lordships that the situation is still not right because, although the Government have remembered the horse, they have only now got it beside the cart and it is not harnessed to it.

The position which the Government say they desire is the one described by the Minister on 14th October at column 1260. He said that the acquisition of development land must be planning led. Certainly we would all agree that if there is to be this kind of acquisition it must be planning led. He went on to say: Indeed, it is a cardinal principle that a Bill aimed to promote positive planning must rely upon the planning framework.' We would agree with that. It is much better to have that in the Bill; it was not in the Bill when first introduced to Parliament.

I put it to the Committee that these sentiments, with which we agree, have to be spelt out in the Bill, but they are not so spelt out at the moment. My Amendment would ensure that these were spelt out by transposing the two paragraphs (a) and (b); putting the desirability of securing proper planning of the area first: and, by the addition of the word, "then", making sure that the acquisition functions followed the planning functions, so that the two did not run side by side but that the planning function led the acquisition function, as the Minister said he wanted to achieve.

That is all that the Amendment does and therefore I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. Before the Government respond, I should like your Lordships to be aware of what the planning framework now consists of. The proper planning of any area is now conducted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, which was introduced by a Labour Government, under much more sensible auspices than this Bill. They achieved a large degree of consensus; there was very thorough discussion in Parliament, and we were able to consolidate it in 1971. Apart from one or two minor changes, such as cancelling the daft idea that each of the 32 London boroughs should prepare its own structure plan, it is more or less as the Labour Government introduced it.

Under that legislation—the 1968 Act—there first has to be produced structure plans by each of the counties and each of the metropolitan districts, but not the London boroughs. The position is that of all those only one structure plan has so far been approved, Solihull and Warwickshire. Some 25 to 30 are with the Department of the Environment awaiting approval. Over 200 are in various stages of production. Some 40 places have not even started work on their structure plans, such is the pressure of other more urgent work; that includes the whole of the South-West. Before they are effective all these plans have to be approved by the Department of the Environment. The target is 1976, but there is no hope of achieving it. That opinion is confirmed by the Town and Country Planning Association which described itself as satisfied with this Bill. Within the framework of the structure plans which are in the condition which I have described—that is, only one having been approved—we have to frame the local plans, which are also behind schedule because they depend on the prior approval of the structure plans. But only a third of them are currently in progress and not one is in its final stage.

That is the proper planning of the area which it is necessary to promote. I put it to your Lordships that if land acquisition proceeds without regard to that proper planning, we shall indeed get the cart before the horse. It is true that there are a number of out of date, old style development plans lying about. Many of them are very out of date and some have not yet been approved. In some circumstances it might be right to have recourse to them. But the general position is that the planning of each area must go much further than it is now before it can be in the proper position to lead the land acquisition that we are talking about. It would be quite wrong, in the meantime, for land acquisition to go on in the guise of promoting the proper planning of an area, when the proper planning of the area has not yet been achieved. For all those reasons—the main one being in order to reflect in the Bill the views of the Minister—I beg to move Amendment No. 98.

Viscount RIDLEY

Before the noble Lord replies—

Lord MELCHETT

I understand that it might be convenient at this stage to deal with the Statement which is to be repeated. Therefore I beg to move that this House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.