Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
Amendment No. 327, in Schedule 3, page 53, line 29, leave out from 'authority' to 'the' in line 37 and insert
'in exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day and in particular—
shall have regard to'.
Amendment No. 63 makes only part of the change which I wish to effect in Clause 17, though I acknowledge at once that the set of amendments which the Government have put down have the same objective in principle.
In Committee, the Opposition pressed that the decisions of an authority when exercising its functions under the Bill should be guided by the planning law or planning decisions applicable to its area. That was accepted by the Government, and I am grateful for their having set down a series of amendments to put it into effect, but I think that my amendments would make matters a lot simpler. If my amendments were made, the clause would read in this simple way:
In exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day of bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land themselves or of making it available for development by others, every authority shall act in accordance with the development plan for its area and with any planning permission in force in respect of the land.
That is a simple statement, without complication, saying merely that when exercising their functions under the Bill local authorities should take into account, have regard to—whatever phrase one wishes—the development plan for the area and the planning permissions in force in respect of the land itself.
To a great extent, the Government amendments meet the same objective, and I think that my only objection is that they are rather more elaborate, with rather more escape provisions for a local authority to escape from paying full attention to the development plan and planning permissions in force in respect of the land. I refer in particular to Government Amendment No. 70 and paragraph (c) thereof.
Amendment No. 70 seeks to direct local authorities to look to the delevopment plan and to planning permissions, as indeed do my amendments, but it also adds paragraph (c):
any other considerations which, on an application for planning permission for any relevant development on the land, would be material for the purpose of determining that application.
That widens the sphere and does not pin down local authorities to look at the development plan.
If we extend the considerations to local authorities too far under the clause, the danger is that the local authority is both the acquiring and planning authority. If it pays attention to an existing development plan or to existing planning permissions in respect of land, the danger of its deciding via planning functions in respect of the acquisition of land is reduced. I am anxious to divide those functions as much as possible. There is a danger that if a local authority has the right to acquire land for development—and later in the Bill there is the duty to acquire it for development—and if it also has all the planning functions, it may well be judge and jury in its own case and consider more the question of profitability and acquisition than the question of planning amenities.
I had hoped that the Government would accept my simple statement—namely, that in exercising those functions they should act in accordance with the development plan and with the planning permission relating to the land. It is a simple statement, it would simplify the Bill, and would oblige the acquiring authority to pay full attention to the planning law affecting the area.
This series of amendments constitutes an important part of the debate because it raises the question of the Government's approach to the planning implications of the Bill.
When the Bill appeared, the objections that were strongly pressed against it on planning grounds included three of particular importance. First, there was the conflict between the planning rôle of the local authorities and their new rôle under the Bill as developers with a clear financial incentive to development. That point has been made over and over again. Secondly, there was the absolute need to maintain planning standards and considerations and to consider the fact that this was in no way written into the Bill. Thirdly, there was the objection that the Government had never explained why the existing combination of local authority powers to draw up plans and to determine applications was inadequate.
One of the feeblest aspects of the Government's performance is that they have never got down to explaining what is wrong with the present set-up. They have relied on the age-old Socialist shibboleths as a substitute for what shoud have been considered arguments. We consider that the Government were pushed into this position by the way they rushed out their White Paper in a flood of pre-election documents which appeared in September of last year.
When the Minister was challenged on Second Reading, he said he did not care, he was not interested in achieving consensus, and he added that this was a radical measure of which he was proud. That complete lack of interest in trying to build up an agreed solution has led to the cascade of opposition aroused by this Bill. Everybody will agree that it has aroused more opposition from informed quarters than any other piece of legislation in memory.
The Minister took the view then that he did not mind. He should have said to all the relevant bodies "What do we need to produce more effective planning? What powers would you like?" It would have been reasonable for the Government to have adopted that approach. Many people would have said, if the Government had adopted that approach, that there was not all that much wrong with the present system. No doubt others would have had ideas for its improvement. Instead, the Minister produced the Bill, which aroused intense hostility, not least from the experts. As a result it had a long hot summer of sustained hammering.
We have now got concessions from the Government. There is no doubt that they are important concessions. Essentially they are, first, recognition of the desirability of securing proper planning. This is now to be written into the Bill. Secondly, the provisions of development plans have to be taken into consideration. Thirdly, so does the question whether planning permission has been refused and the whole question of planning application considerations generally.
The question is whether these concessions meet our objections. I want briefly to match them against the three general criticisms which I have put forward. The first is what might be called the rôle conflict. By that I mean the conflict between the planning duties of local authorities and their development ambitions which I suppose are kindled by the Bill. It is true that the planning rôle has been boosted and has been given safeguards, but the conflict is still there. There will still be a financial incentive for local authorities to develop. This may not be true in the big cities where, paradoxically enough, they are most likely to need the extra money and most likely not to achieve it. Overall the fact remains that there is nothing in these Government amendments which destroys the conflict between these two rôles. I hope that the Minister has seen the latest memorandum from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which makes this very point.
Secondly, there is the fact that planning considerations are written into the Bill. Clearly the position is improved by that. However, the Bill talks about having regard to the desirability of achieving proper planning. If the Minister is so dedicated to the notion of proper planning, why was it impossible to come up with a stronger phrase than
having regard to the desirability"?
That is about as feeble a way of expressing an intention as anybody could devise.
The third question was whether we need the Bill at all to secure better planning. This question has still not been answered. It is still not shown why all the apparatus, the bureaucracy, the expense, the compulsory acquisitions, are necessary for good planning. I remain entirely unconvinced of the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership. This is to be one of the considerations of the Bill, but it has never been effectively argued that it is needed. However much the Government may have modified their stance on planning in response to pressure in Committee from my hon. Friends and outside, the basic objection in principle remains. In particular, the duty to acquire from the second appointed day is as unnecessary as it is repugnant, with even the modified duty to acquire remaining fraught with dangers.
There are one or two other serious problems which the Minister must face. First, there is no doubt that this new scheme which the Government are putting forward will cause additional chaos in the planning system, in particular in the system of development control.
We had the expert report from Mr. George Dobry a year or so ago. Mr. Dobry came up with the proposal for new categories in the consideration of planning applications. The Bill also produces new categories—namely, exemptions and exceptions. Those categories will have to be fed into the planning machine. They will make it much more difficult to achieve reforms of the sort which most people accept are necessary and which were put forward in the Dobry Report. In other words, the new proposals will make our development control system a considerable mess.
Secondly, there is the difficult question of the damage which the present proposals will do to public participation in matters concerned with compulsory purchase. Under the Government's scheme a public inquiry will not always be required for compulsory purchase. That will have the effect that the countryside and amenity groups, for example, which are able to use the public inquiry system as it stands to make their views known, may well lose their chance to participate. Again, that is a grave objection.
A Justice committee has produced a report on this matter. It has made it clear that it is very concerned that the issue whether land is suitable for relevant development is entirely in the discretion of the local authority. The report reads:
The Committee feel that the issue of whether land is 'suitable for relevant development' is of crucial importance and that there should be some procedure whereby, in cases of dispute, the local authority's opinion can be tested both by the owner of the land and by representative bodies of local opinion such as amenity societies. This means that at the compulsory purchase stage there must be adequate provision for public inquiries".
I have tried to be brief, but I believe that the points I have put forward are of crucial importance in the consideration of the Bill. It is up to the Government to come up with some sensible answers to these problems. If they do not, the scheme can never command the acceptance which I think Ministers recognise is essential. We remain of the view that fundamentally the scheme is wrong. We welcome the concessions, but we think they will need much more discussion if and when they reach another place. I hope that the Minister will meet the points that I have tried to put to him.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) rightly considers that the Government amendments to Clause 17 fundamentally alter the clause. The amendments were made as a result of the discussions that we had in Committee. It was felt not only by Conservative Members but by some outside bodies that the idea that there should be a planning framework or planning basis under the Bill should not be implicit but explicit. The amendments that the Government have brought forward, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) accepted, make the proposition explicit except in one particular to which I shall refer at a later stage.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury has gone much wider than the amendments. The hon. Gentleman is criticising the fundamental concepts of the Bill. Within the concept and constraints of the amendments I do not think I can adequately deal with the almost Third Reading speech that the hon. Gentleman delivered in his opposition to the concept of a Community Land Bill.
As regards the planning framework, I deal first with the point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby. The right hon. Gentleman used the words "in accordance with the planning framework" rather than the wording within the Bill, words that have had many contentious hours of debate in Committee—namely,
to have regard to the Bill".
The difficulty with the more simplistic framework of Clause 17 which would result from the amendments of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is that it would tie all local authorities in a restrictive way, through the use of the words "in accordance with"—particularly in the early years of the scheme—to the structure and local plans which in many cases are not ready or the old-style development plans, some of which are out of date.
Such an approach would prevent the majority of authorities from effectively implementing the land scheme. For many years much of the release of land in the main pressure areas has taken place outside the framework of the statutory planning system. In many areas local authorities have prepared non-statutory plans which have been accepted as forming a basis for the consideration of planning applications. Decisions on applications for development which would constitute a substantial departure from the plan have taken into account the content of non-statutory plans where these have been the subject of adequate public participation. Again, this is something that we are insisting upon in the Bill.
Different words have been used from those in his amendment—the words "pay attention to" the planning framework. I believe that the words "have regard to" which we have included in the Bill substantially meet the point raised and the points made to us by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee when we were urged to include in the Bill the provision that acquisition should be made within a planning framework. That, clearly, is done by the Government amendments to Clause 17.
It is not only a question of outside bodies. These schemes are subject to the Secretary of State's investigation, too. We have said that when any scheme is put up the Secretary of State will look to the planning structure and planning base to see whether the planning base has been observed by the authority which wishes to acquire.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr, Raison) went a little outside the narrow terms of the amendments to discuss development control and the new categories of such control contained in the report of Mr. George Dobry, which is at present being considered by the Department. I do not accept that the amendments to Clause 17 will make a considerable mess of that report, as he claimed. Within the planning framework we have set down in Clause 17 we have in effect met perhaps 95 per cent. of the points made by Conservative Members in Committee. At this hour and this stage I do not want to answer the many points raised by the hon. Gentleman which are Third Reading points.
For the reasons I have given I cannot accept the words put forward by the right hon. Member for Crosby because "in accordance with" would mean in accordance with some plans that are not yet made and some plans that are out of date. Other material considerations have to come into it because of the transitional phase.
I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 15, line 16 at end insert—
'Subject to the proviso that no land shall be acquired more than five years ahead of need'.
It is sufficient to say that we all have experience of the poor estimating of both national and local government. We had an example earlier of the Welsh Authority. By means of this amendment, we hope to put a discipline on the local authorities by saying that, instead of the 10-year sphere of activity, they should be restricted to five years. This is an arbitrary figure, of course, but we believe that it is a practical one and that, bearing in mind the recent strictures of the Secretary of State on local government expenditure, it would be no bad thing if the Government took on board this amendment.
I had thought that we had dealt with this argument adequately in Committee, when we said that we would issue guidance to local authorities dealing with the very point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). On that assurance, the amendment moved in Committee was withdrawn.
The Government do not dissent from the principle behind what the hon. Gentleman seeks in the amendment. But I ask the House to resist it, and I shall give an illustration to exemplify why. I ask hon. Members to consider a town centre development scheme. It could take a local authority a number of years to assemble the land needed for it. Experience shows that this can be a very slow process and, although there are existing powers for acquisition for that kind of development, it would be absurd not to allow the authority concerned to use its powers to acquire all the land that it needed within the context of this Bill rather than acquiring part of it under existing powers and part under the powers in this Bill. The five-year absolute limitation proposed in the amendment would prevent this.
There are other circumstances in which it would be right for an authority to have an opportunity to acquire land for relevant development some time in advance of need. One example, with which I am sure no one would wish to interfere, is where an authority proposes to buy in advance of need from an owner who wishes to move from the area where acquisition was proposed in the longer term. It would be possible for such cases, which would be rare, to be considered on their merits rather than being ruled out absolutely by this amendment. That is why I gave the assurance in Committee that the Department would issue guidance to local authorities on the issue. I repeat that assurance in the House today. But the amendment should be resisted because it is unduly restrictive, for the reasons I have given.
With this amendment, we are to discuss the following amendments:
No. 72, in page 15, line 31, at end insert:
'(c) any other material considerations, including the need to ensure an adequate supply of land for the continuing and uninterrupted supply of both public and private housing and other development within the area of the authority.'
No. 77, in Schedule 3, page 53, line 36, at end insert:
'(c) in considering other material considerations including the need to ensure an adequate supply of land for the continuing and uninterrupted supply of both public and private housing and other development within the area of the authority'.
No. 81, in page 53, line 36, at end insert:
(c) in considering the desirability of facilitating and encouraging the continuing and uninterrupted provision of housing and other development within the district'.
No. 87, in page 53, line 46, at end insert
which may include a requirement that sufficient land is acquired and serviced and made available to private builders to enable the maintenance of a supply of private houses in at least the same proportion in relation to the total supply of houses in the area of the authority as had applied prior to 12th September 1974'.
No. 119, in Schedule 5, page 70, line 1, at end insert:
'(c) maintaining a fair balance in the amount and quality of land available for local authority housing and private housing.'
No. 239, in Clause 46, page 41, line 36, at end insert
'and shall so direct if on submission to him by any interested party he is satisfied that prima facie land or a material interest in land which is for the time being entered in the authority's community land account should be disposed of so as to contribute to an adequate supply of private housing and other development within the area of the authority'.
We discussed this amendment at length in Committee. For that reason, I shall be brief, although it is a very important amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to get it clearly on record in the Bill that one of the duties of local authorities under the land scheme will be to ensure that land is provided for the uninterrupted provision of housing and other development within their areas. It cannot be said too often that land is the vital commodity for the provision of houses.
The use of land and the development of houses on land is the difference between a developer and a contractor. The developer is risk-taking on the land whereas the contractor is not. Even with the accepted development provisions which the Minister has brought before the House this evening, with this new limit of 10,000 square feet the majority of houses, if this scheme goes through, will still be on land either in public ownership or which has passed through public ownership. The Opposition are not imbued with great confidence in the ability of local authorities to make land available for development in the future if they are to be the monopoly suppliers of building land. There is nothing in their previous record which leads us to have great confidence in them.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was Minister he had to issue three circulars—10/1970, 102/1972 and 122/1973—asking local government to ensure that more land was released for house building. In each case slightly stronger language was used year after year, but nevertheless the response was very poor.
The report of the Housing Research Foundation found that 40 per cent. of land used for housebuilding was land which had been white land, that is to say, builders had found it for themselves rather than it being marked on a development plan. Some major builders who are household names have publicly said that they get 80 per cent. of their land for providing houses on appeal to the Minister. In eight cases out of ten the local authority had refused them planning permission and they had to get it from the Minister, on appeal. Therefore, the record is not good. Certainly the builders themselves are not imbued with confidence that local authorities will do the job properly. The President of the House-Builders' Federation, writing in the Building Trades Journal on Friday 10th October, said:
The proposals will cause a serious land famine within two years at the most. That will bring the housebuilding programme practically to a dead stop…. We are particularly concerned that the transitional system will lead to a damaging shortfall in the supply of land over the next few years
which will have a disastrous impact on the housebuilding programme.
Already there are signs that this is happening, and reports from our members indicate that many land-owners who were previously considering the sale of their land for development purposes have abandoned their plans because of the proposed development land tax and the existing development gains tax.
There are already serious grounds for concern about the future prospects of land for development. There is not much we can do about improving the position in the Bill, because it is a Bill which will inevitably dry up the supply of land. However, we can only put a duty on local authorities to take that into consideration. That is the purpose of the amendment.
If I deal with the amendment briefly it is not a sign of discourtesy to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) but because this issue was debated at length in Committee. Much of the argument was rehearsed in Committee and has been repeated tonight. For that reason I do not intend to deal with the matter at length.
However, there appears to be some inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument when he talks about his lack of faith in local authorities to provide land for building. He seems to presuppose that if land were released for building, building would take place. The history of 1972 and 1973 under the previous administration shows that housing starts in England, Wales and Scotland were the lowest we have ever had on record. There is no evidence to suggest that the two issues are in any way related. Government policy must inspire both public and private building. The decline in housing starts in 1972 and 1973 were, in our view, directly related not to the lack of development land but to the policy being pursued by the then administration.
The objective behind the first group of amendments, Nos. 68, 72 and 77, is to
ensure that the exercise of the functions given to the authorities under the Bill does not have the effect of holding up housing and other essential development. This concern is entirely reasonable and, indeed, is fully shared by the Government. Therefore, on this issue there is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
The proposed contents of the accepted development regulations are framed to achieve precisely this object. The importance of ensuring that private development goes ahead without interruption is enshrined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, which lists among the factors to which authorities should have regard in exercising their functions not only the needs of people living or carrying on business in the area or wishing to do so but also and quite specifically the needs of builders and developers engaged in or wishing to engage in development in the area. These provisions are included in the Bill with a view to providing precisely the same assurance as that which these amendments are intended to offer.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that I argued at length in Committee that there was no need to include in the Bill the specific provisions to which the amendments refer. We have seen nothing to alter our view on this issue. Indeed, if anything, the argument that I put forward in Committee has now been strengthened by the accepted development regulations. Therefore, I again rest my argument on the view and the belief that there is no need to include these provisions in the Bill.
|Division No. 332.]||AYES||[11.16 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Baker, Kenneth||Boscawen, Hon Robert|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Banks, Robert||Bottomley, Peter|
|Alison, Michael||Beith, A. J.||Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Benyon, W.||Braine, Sir Bernard|
|Awdry, Daniel||Biffen, John||Brittan, Leon|
|Bain Mrs Margaret||Body, Richard||Brotherton, Michael|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Hooson, Emlyn||Rathbone, Tim|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Howell, David (Guildford)||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Budgen, Nick||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hunt, John||Reid, George|
|Burden, F. A.||Hurd, Douglas||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Carr, Rt Hon Robert||James, David||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Jessel, Toby||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Clegg, Walter||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Cockcroft, John||Kimball, Marcus||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Cope, John||Knight, Mrs. Jill||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Costain, A. P.||Knox, David||Scott, Nicholas|
|Crawford, Douglas||Lamont, Norman||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Critchley, Julian||Lane, David||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Crouch, David||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Shepherd, Colin|
|Crowder, F. P.||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Shersby, Michael|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Lawrence, Ivan||Silvester, Fred|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Lawson, Nigel||Sims, Roger|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Lester Jim (Beeston)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Lloyd, Ian||Speed, Keith|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Loveridge, John||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||MacCormick, Iain||Sproat, Iain|
|Emery, Peter||Macfarlane, Nell||Stainton, Keith|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||MacGregor, John||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Eyre, Reginald||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Madel, David||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Farr, John||Marten, Neil||Stokes, John|
|Fell, Anthony||Mates, Michael||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Maude, Angus||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Mawby, Ray||Tebbit, Norman|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Mayhew, Patrick||Thomas, Dafydd (Marioneth)|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Fox, Marcus||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Thompson, George|
|Freud, Clement||Mills, Peter||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Fry, Peter||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Moate, Roger||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Montgomery, Fergus||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Morgan, Geraint||Viggers, Peter|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Wakeham, John|
|Goodhew, Victor||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Gorst, John||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Wall, Patrick|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Mudd, David||Walters, Dennis|
|Grant Anthony (Harrow C)||Neave, Airey||Warren, Kenneth|
|Gray, Hamish||Nelson, Anthony||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Grieve, Percy||Neubert, Michael||Wells, John|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Newton, Tony||Welsh, Andrew|
|Grist, Ian||Nott, John||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Hall, Sir John||Onslow, Cranley||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Page, John (Harrow West)||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Hannam, John||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Parkinson, Cecil||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Pattie, Geoffrey||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Hawkins, Paul||Penhaligon, David|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Percival, Ian||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Henderson, Douglas||Pink, R. Bonner||Mr. Richard Luce and|
|Heseltine, Michael||Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Mr. Anthony Berry.|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Raison, Timothy|
|Abse, Leo||Booth, Albert||Carter, Ray|
|Allaun, Frank||Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Carter-Jones, Lewis|
|Anderson, Donald||Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Cartwright, John|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Bradley, Tom||Castle, Rt Hon Barbara|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Bray, Dr Jeremy||Clemitson, Ivor|
|Atkinson, Norman||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Cohen, Stanley|
|Bates, Alf||Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Coleman, Donald|
|Bean, R. E.||Buchan, Norman||Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Buchanan, Richard||Conlan, Bernard|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Campbell, Ian||Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Canavan, Dennis||Corbett, Robin|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Cant, R B.||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Boardman, H.||Carmichael, Neil||Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cryer, Bob||Judd, Frank||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Kaufman, Gerald||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Kelley, Richard||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Davidson, Arthur||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Kinnock, Neil||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Lambie, David||Rooker, J. W.|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Lamborn, Harry||Roper, John|
|Deakins, Eric||Lamond, James||Rose, Paul B.|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Leadbitter, Ted||Rowlands, Ted|
|Dempsey, James||Lee, John||Sandelson, Neville|
|Doig, Peter||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Litterick, Tom||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Dunn, James A.||Loyden, Eddie||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Luard, Evan||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Eadie, Alex||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Edge, Geoff||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Sillars, James|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Silverman, Julius|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||McCartney, Hugh||Skinner, Dennis|
|English, Michael||McElhone, Frank||Small, William|
|Ennals, David||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Snape, Peter|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Mackintosh, John P.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Flannery, Martin||Maclennan, Robert||Stallard, A. W.|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Stoddart, David|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McNamara, Kevin||Stott, Roger|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Madden, Max||Strang, Gavin|
|Ford, Ben||Magee, Bryan||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Forrester, John||Mahon, Simon||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Swain, Thomas|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Marks, Kenneth||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Marquand, David||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|George, Bruce||Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Ginsburg, David||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Gould, Bryan||Meacher, Michael||Tierney, Sydney|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Tinn, James|
|Graham, Ted||Mikardo, Ian||Tomlinson, John|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Millan, Bruce||Torney, Tom|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Grocott, Bruce||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Hardy, Peter||Molloy, William||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|Harper, Joseph||Moonman, Eric||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Ward, Michael|
|Hatton, Frank||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Watkins, David|
|Hayman, Mrs Helene||Moyle, Roland||Watkinson, John|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Weetch, Ken|
|Hooley, Frank||Newens, Stanley||Weitzman, David|
|Horam, John||Noble, Mike||Wellbeloved, James|
|Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Oakes, Gordon||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Ogden, Eric||White, James (Pollok)|
|Huckfield, Les||O'Halloran, Michael||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian||Whitlock, William|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)||Orbach, Maurice||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Ovenden, John||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Hunter, Adam||Owen, Dr David||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Padley, Walter||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Palmer, Arthur||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Park, George||Wise, Mrs. Audrey|
|Janner, Greville||Parker, John||Woof, Robert|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Parry, Robert||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Jeger, Mrs Lena||Pavitt, Laurie||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Pendry, Tom|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)||Perry, Ernest||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|John, Brynmor||Phipps, Dr Colin||Mr. J.D. Dormand and|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Mr. James Hamilton.|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Radice, Giles|
No. 70, in page 15, line 18, leave out from 'to' to end of line 34 and insert:
'(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material,
(b) whether planning permission for any relevant development on the land is in force or has been refused, and
(c) any other considerations which, on an application for planning permission for any relevant development on the land, would be material for the purpose of determining that application.'.
No. 284 in page 15, line 39, at end insert:
'(4A) In this Act "development land" means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting.
(4B) Schedule 3 to this Act, which imposes further duties on authorities, shall have effect.'.