Member

On the other amendments in this group, I remind noble Lords on the Conservative Benches that it was their Government that agreed through the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act these clauses about disregarding hope value for some of the public uses that were identified—schools, hospitals, social housing and so on. All my simple amendment attempted to do was to ask whether recreation is not as important as those other public benefits. So, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and others have tabled their amendments, as it is in total contradiction to the view taken by the then Conservative Government on the importance for public benefit of removing hope value. The noble Lord and others talked about fair dealing and land being taken away. Neither is the case. Land is not being taken away; a fair price is being given that is minus any hope that it might be of higher value. That seems to me, if we live in a society where we are trying to do the best both for the individual and for society or communities, a fair way of looking at things and getting that balance right.