House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 May 1999 (pt 43)

8.38 pm

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I am delighted to have this debate on compensation to be paid on the compulsory acquisition of land. I am sure that the House recognises the growing demand for reform of our system of compulsory purchase and compensation. It is an extremely complicated area of law and, currently, 42 separate Acts of Parliament apply. The system is complex, slow, expensive and inefficient. It is grossly unfair and heavily biased in favour of national companies, such as the National Grid Company, and other powerful bodies. Might is not always right, so I welcome the Government's fundamental review of laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation, and the interim report.

I should also like to take this opportunity to ask that the Electricity Act 1989 be revised and amended. My particular reason for asking for this debate is the overhead power lines that transmit electricity across the Vale of York and elsewhere in North Yorkshire. A review of both compensation and compulsory purchase and the Electricity Act would help to restore the balance by tilting it more in favour of individual landowners' rights and property interests. It is generally recognised that the Englishman's home is his castle, so how many of us would welcome agents of the National Grid Company entering our property and trampling over our land, often without sufficient warning?

Problems arise at various stages. There will be blight both before the pylon is in place and following construction. There will be a substantial drop in the value of the properties and in the enjoyment of those who live there, as their view will be impaired and there will be pollution from the lines.

The first problem is the serious lack of agreement and the inability of landowners and the National Grid to negotiate about the dent in property values. There is a discrepancy of hundreds of thousands of pounds. That problem must be addressed, procedures must be adopted and compensation levels for pylons must be put on the same basis as for road construction and flood defences.

The second problem is referred to in paragraph 8.5.1 of the interim report commissioned in the Government review. It states:

"A major source of grievance among property owners is the right of private companies to use compulsory powers to acquire property, paying a form of statutory compensation which is commonly perceived as benefiting shareholders at the expense of landowners."

Aberdeen university is conducting research into wayleaves. Chapter 9 of the interim report examines the programme of further work, but, surprisingly, does not mention any review of wayleaves once Aberdeen university completes its research. Why not?

The purpose of this debate is to put before the House and the Minister the real concerns that my constituents have expressed about these problems. Tempers are running high in the Vale of York, and there was nearly an assault prior to Christmas last year because of the failure to reach an agreement. Little notice is given and scant regard is shown for property and for landowners'

12 May 1999 : Column 388

rights. I shall give some examples of unsympathetic, hostile and offensive behaviour, particularly by the National Grid or its contractors.

Before the wayleave hearings, the National Grid sought to reach agreement with the landowners by offering easements for the overhead line. By offering an easement, as opposed to a wayleave, the National Grid offered a capital payment to reflect the depreciation in the value of the properties, particularly the residential properties, that would be affected by the proximity of the proposed electricity line. Any landowner who did not sign up to the easements before the commencement of the wayleave hearings had the offer withdrawn, with the threat that, once the wayleave hearings were completed and the National Grid had obtained consent for the line, the landowner would receive only an annual wayleave payment that would not reflect the depreciation in capital values suffered. That is a clear abuse of compulsory purchase powers.

I shall refer briefly to correspondence that I have received from my constituents about this matter. One letter referred to a wayleave pre-hearing meeting at Northallerton in December last year. The inspector was asked about the width of the wayleave required over a particular constituent's land. He was unsure of the answer and referred the question to the National Grid. It declined to state the required width of the wayleave to the inspector, so my constituent's question went unanswered. The National Grid then refused to state the width of the wayleave required; that places my constituent in an unacceptable position, as he is uncertain about the amount of land that will be taken out of production. My constituent believes that withholding such information is an infringement of his rights, and I share that view.

Another constituent asked that farmers be given reasonable notice--six months' notice--before the commencement of construction in order to assist them in going about their business. That is a perfectly reasonable request, particularly when such a large project is in hand. I ask the Minister why the rights of farmers are not respected in that regard.