HL Deb 25 July 1983 vol 443 cc1365-6

2.46 p.m.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made over the last four years in the disposal of surplus publicly-owned vacant land; and whether a collective census of unused publicly-owned land has been programmed showing the amount of such land still held and the amount that is classified as surplus to requirements.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I regret that the information is not readily available in the terms requested, but I can inform the House that, between April 1979 and March 1983, the proceeds from sales of Government, new town and water authority land amounted to £870 million. As to the second part of my noble friend's question, the information for England is to be found in the registers of unused and under-used land published under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. These contain nearly 12,000 sites covering about 110,000 acres, including land surplus to requirements. Six similar registers are being compiled for Wales. The provisions do not extend to Scotland.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer, can he say what proportion of land on the registers is suitable for house-building?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, an analysis of a sample of registers suggests that about one-sixth of the total is specifically suitable for house-building. This means 2,000 sites and 18,333.3 recurring acres.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, may I ask the Minister what the phrase "surplus to requirements" means? Who decides "requirements"?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, in the first instance, the owners of the land decide requirements. It could be that there are very valid reasons for land being under-used or totally unused—for example, buffer zones round mental hospitals or prisons, or rather wide embankments along railway lines. In the second instance, should my right honourable friend the Secretary of State decide that these reasons are not valid, he has the power to direct disposal, but only after first informing the owner that he intends so to do.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, since my noble friend has referred to British Rail, can he say whether he has a figure for the acreage of land still sterilised by British Rail?

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords, I regret that I have not.

Lord Hawke

My Lords. can my noble friend say whether the system still prevails which used to prevail—that when a department wished to sell a single acre of land to anybody it had to pass the news round to every other department to find out whether they wanted it before it went on the market?

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords. This was so up to June 1979, but that scheme was abandoned in favour of the current scheme which we are now discussing.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister assure us that any land in the green belt which is considered to be surplus to requirements will still remain carefully controlled and protected as part of the green belt?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, planning restrictions obviously apply to the use of this land. It is just the fact that it is unused or under-used which is currently concerning my department.