moved Amendment No. 192:"Page 5, line 23, leave out subsection (4)."
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment designed to discover the nature of the proposed experimental schemes and the probable areas of land likely to be affected. We should also like to know what type of land is likely to be acquired, and its location relative to other land owned by the same person. If Natural England will look around for small parcels of land—say, at the edges of woods, fields or ponds, or close to riverbanks—there will probably be no important problems at all. If, however, the requirement is for a few acres in the middle of a field or wood, the knock-on pressures on that landowner could be significant. The price to be paid under compulsory purchase legislation may be inadequate to compensate for the difficulties of the farming in the rest of that land. Is there any overwhelming reason why Natural England should not purchase land in the open marketplace, in the normal way? I beg to move.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Byford
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c284 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:01:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296934
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296934
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296934