Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 20:"Page 9, line 12, at end insert—" ““(e)   the extent to which the replacement land is not less advantageous than the release land in meeting the requirements of this subsection”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with government Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which go some way to meeting the issue. However, I shall speak to those amendments when I speak again after the Minister replies so that I can respond to his comments. Amendment No. 20 seeks to include, as one of the criteria that the appropriate national authority has to take account of when considering deregistration and exchange applications,"““the extent to which the replacement land is not less advantageous than the release land in meeting the requirements of this subsection””." We debated this matter at length in Grand Committee. It concerns circumstances in which greens and commons are deregistered and in which replacement land may or may not be provided. Where replacement land is provided—and where the land in question is more than 200 square metres in area—we discussed whether there should be criteria to ensure that it was adequate as a replacement for the release land. I proposed an amendment that suggested it had to be equally advantageous. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, proposed an amendment that suggested it had to be equal in area. Various other proposals and suggestions were put forward. The Minister—I think quite rightly—indicated that there had to be flexibility and that to propose exact equivalence was silly as the replacement land might constitute a larger area and be of better quality, and therefore would be more advantageous than the land that was given up, and that in any case it was sensible to look at individual local circumstances on their merits and to retain flexibility in the matter. We have taken account of what the Government have said and of the need for flexibility. As we believe that the quality of the replacement land constitutes an important issue which should appear on the face of the Bill, we have listed it as one of the criteria under which the application should be determined. Clause 16(6) states:"““In determining the application, the appropriate national authority shall have regard to—"" (a) the interests of persons having rights in . . . the release land . . . ""(b) the interests of the neighbourhood;""(c) the public interest;””," and so on. We propose the addition of the words,"““the extent to which the replacement land is not less advantageous than the release land in meeting the requirements of this subsection””." That is a reasonable measure to ask to be included in the Bill. It would not impose any rigidity; it would impose flexibility, if you can do such a thing. However, if the measure were included in the Bill, it would have to be considered. As I said previously, making people consider something and reach decisions on it is important in legislation. I beg to move.