| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: The group of amendments illustrates probably better than most others the difficulties in which we find ourselves due to the Government's arrogant attitude towards the legislative process and the House itself. I reckon that there are 12 pages of text in amendments Nos. 238 to 268 alone--the group of amendments within the main group--which we are being asked effectively to nod through the House at this late stage. The Government are saying to us arbitrarily that they will limit the time available for considering the amendments to 10 o'clock. There is no reason for that, but that is what the Government have said. We find ourselves with only 10 minutes to go and amendments Nos. 238 to 268 take up 12 pages of text.
I shall not attempt to wade through all those amendments because I cannot, but I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have said about amendment No. 256. Before I do so, I pause for a moment on amendment No. 240. It refers to the Nature Conservancy Council and its powers of notification. It says that it must notify the local planning authority, every owner and occupier of the "extra land" and the Secretary of State.
There is provision--the Minister touched on it in his brief remarks--for an appeal mechanism, but that is not good enough. For a bureaucracy or quango such as the Nature Conservancy Council, or any other, to have the power conferred by statute--in this case, by an amendment--simply to say, "It is all right; there is an appeal mechanism" is not good enough. The onus is then always on the hapless owner and occupier, presumably at his own expense, to seek to defend his interests, where necessary, against the depredations of the quango. It does not matter that the quango may sound warm and good and no doubt wants to do excellent work. It is still a bureaucracy and it is given extensive powers within statute--through an amendment--that must be watched closely.
The Secretary of State can look after himself. He has unlimited taxpayers' money and unlimited officials to look after him and teams of junior Ministers to support him. The local planning authority can more than ably look after itself, too. It also has taxpayers' money, officials and endless resources with which to do battle with the bureaucracy. Who is the odd person out? Surprise, surprise, it is the owner and occupier, who may be sitting on what is called extra land. He may be subject to some ghastly bureaucratic notification, feel aggrieved, seek to exercise his right to appeal, and then find that he must reach deeply into his own pocket to do so. For the Minister to say, "Do not worry, chaps; there is an appeal mechanism," is not necessarily the whole story. I hope that he might already be feeling a bit guilty about that, although it does not look as if he does.
When I come to amendment No. 256, I think that guilt would be a modest term to apply to what I hope the Minister will feel. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire drew the House's attention to the fact that there is a new set of powers--it seems that the Nature Conservancy Council is again the relevant body--where the owner of the land becomes aware that his land
is occupied by an additional or a different occupier. I imagine that if the area of land is relatively small, the matter will appear fairly straightforward, although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, some of the additional or different occupiers may not be there with the consent of the owner of the land. I wonder whether that gives rise to a different or new set of circumstances.I suppose that it is also quite likely, if the land is a reasonably extensive holding, that someone could occupy part of it without being noticed by the owner for some time. It would therefore be fairly easy for the owner to fall foul of the provisions in proposed new section 28N(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which sets out a 28-day time limit, and then fall even further foul of proposed new subsection (4), which states:
- A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of this section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
A heading that is found much later in the 12 pages of text--it appears at the beginning of Lords amendment No. 268, which proposes an entirely new schedule to the 1981 Act--is "After Schedule 9" and the following amendment runs to several pages. I do not have time to detain the House with a detailed examination of the amendment, which tells its own story--[Hon. Members: "Go on."] Labour Members appear to find this amusing, but it is their Government who are denying the House of Commons, of which they are Members, the opportunity properly to examine pages and pages of detailed statutory requirements which have come to us from another place and which are not going to be properly examined. I have the opportunity only to flag up to the Minister for the Environment, who I hope will answer the debate properly, the provisions set out in paragraphs 19(1) and (2) of the new schedule under the heading "Compensation and grants". Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the provisions will be adequate for the purpose? Given the imbalance between the powers available to the bureaucracy and those available to individual landowners, matters such as compensation and grants become of the greatest importance.
That is even more important in connection with a provision that is almost hidden away at the end of the pages and pages of detail: our old friend "Powers of entry". Is the Minister satisfied that that provision is necessary to fulfil the objectives of this part of the Bill and that proper protection is given to individual citizens against powers of entry? Those are important questions, but we do not have the time needed to deal with them properly. I must conclude now, because of the artificial time limits that have been placed on our consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked some detailed questions about Lords amendments Nos. 240, 241 and 256. I shall try to answer in the time available to me.
Lords amendment No. 240 relates to minor changes to the boundaries of existing SSSIs which involve no change to the list of damaging operations for the SSSI. Owners of land proposed to be added to an SSSI may object under new subsection (4) and English Nature is obliged to consider the objection. In that case, owners of the pre-existing part of the SSSI are unaffected and so have no right to object.
By contrast, Lords amendment No. 241 relates to significant enlargements to an SSSI. In such cases, the whole area of the SSSI--that is, both the pre-existing part and the proposed addition--must together form an area that meets SSSI criteria. English Nature is likely to want to change the list of damaging operations in such cases, so all owners of both the pre-existing part and the additional land will be affected, therefore the whole procedure for making an SSSI and considering objections applies. It was English Nature which asked for the provisions, and it is happy with them.
On amendment No. 256--if I have a minute, but I shall have to cut short my remarks--I want to reassure the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and confirm that, by virtue of section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, there are limits on the operation of byelaws--
It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [27 November].
Mr. Speaker then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 281 agreed to.
Transport Bill
Commons reasons for insisting on disagreeing to certain Lords amendments and Government amendments in lieu, considered.
10.1 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Mr. Prescott: I do not know where my opposite number, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is for this debate--perhaps one statement was enough for him today. One might have expected him to attend the debates on either the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill or the Transport Bill--presumably he has responsibility for both--but we shall have to make do with his second in command--[Interruption.] Yes, perhaps he is away--tired, exhausted and unable to deal with the details of this Bill.
When the Transport Bill first returned to the House, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave a full and clear explanation of the Government's reasons for opposing the Lords amendments. I shall not repeat those reasons at length, but I should briefly remind the House of them, particularly as the debate will last only approximately one hour.
First, we do not agree that the public-private partnership needs to be deferred until after the next general election. We made our policy clear before, during and after the previous general election campaign, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we had to bring together in partnership the public sector and the private sector to give us the infrastructure that we need in the transport system.
A month before the general election, in April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that we would consider National Air Traffic Services for a public-private partnership. We were faced with a situation in which the outgoing Government had already calculated the receipts from a full privatisation of NATS and taken them into account in the subsequent two years' spending plans. All Labour Members fought on that policy at the general election.
Since the general election, we have consulted at great length on the PPP proposal and listened carefully to the replies. All the issues have been debated at length, not least during passage of the Bill in this House and in another place, and in the Select Committees. We remain convinced that the public-private partnership is the right solution for NATS. Indeed, the Bill itself is a better Bill for the discussions, and the changes that they brought about.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |