The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Brake,
Tom
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
Buck,
Ms Karen
(Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab)
Clark,
Paul
(Gillingham)
(Lab)
Davidson,
Mr. Ian
(Glasgow, South-West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Dunne,
Mr. Philip
(Ludlow)
(Con)
Fabricant,
Michael
(Lichfield)
(Con)
Fraser,
Mr. Christopher
(South-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Gove,
Michael
(Surrey Heath)
(Con)
Lepper,
David
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Lab/Co-op)
Munn,
Meg
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and
Local
Government)
Purchase,
Mr. Ken
(Wolverhampton, North-East)
(Lab/Co-op)
Rogerson,
Mr. Dan
(North Cornwall)
(LD)
Shaw,
Jonathan
(Chatham and Aylesford)
(Lab)
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield, Hillsborough)
(Lab)
Truswell,
Mr. Paul
(Pudsey)
(Lab)
Turner,
Dr. Desmond
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab)
Mark
Oxborough, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 9
May
2007
[Hugh
Bayley
in the
Chair]
Draft Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Corresponding Amendments) Order 2007
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Meg Munn):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004 (Corresponding Amendments) Order
2007.
I am sure that
this will be a most illuminating and interesting Committee,
Mr. Bayley. The draft order makes a series of technical
amendments to certain compulsory purchase powers and brings them into
line with mainstream compulsory purchase legislation. The drafting of
the order may appear complex, but the effect of the amendments is quite
straightforward.
It may be
helpful if I provide some background information to the order. The
schedule to the order deals with compulsory purchase powers used by
certain Departments and statutory undertakers that do not depend on the
Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for the procedure to make compulsory
purchase orders and certain other orders. That means that the
amendments made in 2004 to the 1981 Act do not apply to those powers.
Before the 2004 amendments came into force, the 1981 Act provided for
those who own or occupy land that is to be acquired to be notified of
the proposed compulsory acquisition, and for their right to object and
appear at an inquiry. The right of notification was limited to the
owner, lessee or occupier and excepted those people whose tenancy
period was for a month or less. That meant that monthly or weekly
tenants were not included even though they may have had security of
tenure and had lived in the property on that basis for a number of
years.
Changes made
to the compulsory purchase procedures set out in the 1981 Act by the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 mean that any person who is a
tenant, whatever the tenancy period, is entitled to receive
notification of a compulsory purchase order affecting the property or
land that they occupy. They also have the right to object to the order
and appear at a public inquiry into the order. In addition, changes
were made to the 1981 Act so that notice must be given to all those
with a sufficient interest in the land being acquired for the acquiring
authority to serve on them a notice to treatnotice to open
compensation negotiationsif it is acquiring the land under
section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, or persons who are
likely to be entitled to make a claim for compensation under
section 10 of the 1965
Act.
The legislation
in question is the Military Lands Act 1892, the Requisitioned
Land and War Works
Act 1945, the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, the Pipe-lines Act 1962,
the Harbours Act 1964, the Gas Act 1965, the Forestry Act 1967, the
Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991. The relevant
Departments have been consulted and have agreed to the terms of the
draft order. The powers identified in the order are in fact rarely
usedtypically, they will be used less than once a
yearand my Department's regulatory impact unit is satisfied
that the order does not require a regulatory impact
assessment.
It is
worth noting that when this amendment to the 1981 Act was
being considered in Committee the Opposition spokesperson made it clear
that the Opposition welcomed the clarification of the categories of
people to be notified, which included tenants, whatever their tenancy
period. There was a consensus that it would be unfair if monthly or
weekly tenants occupying land affected by a compulsory purchase order
were not entitled to receive notification just because the compulsory
purchase powers being exercised were not governed by the 1981
Act.
Section 110 of
the 2004 Act gave the Secretary of State powers to amend corresponding
enactments in connection with the compulsory acquisition of an interest
in land. That provision was introduced as an amendment when the 2004
Act was in Committee in the Lords. The amendment was accepted and was
not subject to any discussion. This is the first time that these powers
have been exercised and, if we have got it right, it will be the
last.
The order will
bring compulsory purchase order powers into line with the mainstream
compulsory purchase provisions set out in the 1981 Act, so that any
person who is a tenant, whatever the tenancy period, will be entitled
to receive notice of a compulsory purchase order relating to the land
that they occupy. They will also have a right to appear at a public
inquiry to consider the justification for the compulsory purchase
order.
The draft
order also amends the enactments, where relevant, to require that
notification of a CPO be given also to persons to whom the acquiring
authority would be required to serve a notice to treat or to those who
would be entitled to claim compensation. The effect of the order on the
enactments that it covers varies slightly to take account of
differences in the relevant primary
legislation.
It will
perhaps be helpful if I draw hon. Members attention to
paragraph 4(4) of the schedule to the draft order, which provides a
reasonably clear example of its effect. It makes an amendment to
schedule 2 to the Pipe-lines Act 1962, which deals with applications
for compulsory purchase orders and refers to the serving of a notice
about a proposed compulsory purchase order on
every owner, lessee and occupier
(except tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any
land proposed to be comprised in the
order.
Paragraph
4(4)(a)(i) of the schedule to the draft order replaces that with a
reference to every
person
who is an owner,
lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of any land
proposed to be comprised in the
order.
The order
continues, in paragraph 4(4)(a)(ii) and (iii), by specifying that
notification must also be given to
every person with a sufficient interest in the land being acquired for
the acquiring authority to be required to serve on them a notice to
treatin other words, a notice to open compensation
negotiationif it was proceeding to acquire the land under
section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, and to persons likely
to be entitled to make a claim for compensation under section 10 of
that Act.
The draft
order will update the existing compulsory purchase legislation and
ensure that it operates in a fair and consistent manner. It therefore
tidies up a loose end from 2004 and ensures that all people affected by
compulsory purchase orders are treated the same way, irrespective of
the powers under which the orders are made. I hope that I have
explained adequately to the Committee why the order is needed and the
context in which it is being made. I commend it to the
Committee.
2.37
pm
Michael
Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Bayley. I congratulate the Minister
on the exemplary clarity with which she set out the issues for the
Committee and the authority that she brought to analysing each issue of
principle and practice.
I also
congratulate the usual channels on assembling in the Committee such a
weight of expertise. I see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
North-East; the hon. Member for Pudsey, who has taken a close interest
in planning; the hon. Member for Gillingham, who served as
Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister; and the
hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, who has a close
interest in housing and social justicenot to mention the hon.
Member for Glasgow, South-West, whose interest in constitutional
procedures is second to none. I am forced to conclude that we have the
equivalent of the justices of the US Supreme Court trying a traffic
offence, because the order makes purely technical amendments. It seems
curious to have such a preponderance of expertise considering the
order, considering that it is primarily a matter of technical tidying
up.
It is
nevertheless appropriate that we have that expertise here because, as
we are all aware, compulsory purchase strikes at the very heart of
property rights and the balance between the individuals right
to maintain the free and unmolested use of his property and the
states right in certain exceptional circumstances to take
control of it for the greater good and the common weal. Those issues of
principle have preoccupied the House for centuries, but through the
debates on the 2004 Act they were crystallised into legislation that,
as the Minister pointed out, passed in many cases, although not all,
without undue contention. She is right to point out that when we
discussed the provisions that the order will amend, there was broad
consensus. Consensus is a word dear to my heart, and I assure the
Minister and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford that we do not
intend to divide the Committee this
afternoon.
Technical
though the order is, we should like the Minister to address a specific
matter. She pointed out that, understandably, there is no regulatory
impact assessment attendant on the order; nevertheless, it will have
cost implications for the planning process. One
point that the Opposition have sought to make in the past 18 months has
been that, as matters stand, the planning process adds both cost and
complexity to development decisions. It would be instructive if the
Minister stated in Committee or subsequently in correspondence the
Government estimate of the additional cost to the public purse of
implementing the order.
As the Minister said, it is
the purpose of the order to extend to tenants a right that they have
not hitherto enjoyed and to regularise legislation to ensure that that
right is made universal. She rightly said that there are those who
exercise a weekly tenancy who nevertheless have a right in custom and
in law to consultation in other respects because they have occupied the
property for a considerable time. The complicated system of tenure that
prevails governs a number of different tenancies and perhaps needs to
be looked at in the future. When will the Government be moved to
introduce legislation to regularise the position in respect of tenancy
and
leaseholders?
With
those two questions hanging in the air, I congratulate the Minister on
tidying up a loose end that was left over from 2004. As we are just
hours away from the Prime Minister announcing his resignation as leader
of the Labour party, it is perhaps appropriate to tie up this piece of
unfinished business. Tomorrow, when the Prime Minister announces his
resignation and an imminent general election, we can acknowledge that
this loose end will not need to be tied up by the incoming Conservative
Government.
2.41
pm
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr.
Bayley.
I
thank the Minister for her detailed explanation and for giving us the
opportunity to agree to this small but important measure. I should,
however, advise her that it would be useful to breathe occasionally
during her speeches. I worried at one point that she might expire from
lack of oxygen. The urgency with which she delivered her
speech gave me the impression that she might have another, more
pressing appointment to go on
to.
I welcome the
presence of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath as spokesman for the
official Opposition, although I confess that it rather surprised me, as
I thought I had read that he was due for promotion. He must be feeling
somewhat offended at having to share with us the trying of this traffic
offence this afternoon.
It
is entirely appropriate to rectify the omission of monthly or weekly
tenants from existing provisions. The Minister answered my question
about the frequency with which these provisions are exercisedon
average, it is once a year. I hoped that she might give the Committee
some idea of how many weekly or monthly tenants are affected now and
will no longer be affected when the draft order is made.
I will not seek to divide the
Committee, so we should be able to bring our proceedings to a fairly
prompt conclusion to enable the Minister to move on to other
matters.
2.43
pm
Meg
Munn:
I assure the Liberal Democrat spokesman that I was
breathing at the appropriate
point. Having sufficient breath is not something that usually troubles
me, and I am not rushing off to anything else, although I am looking
forward to having a little longer to consider some of the other
planning casework that crosses my
desk.
I
shall respond to the questions asked about cost and how often these
provisions will be used. We decided that it was inappropriate to
produce a regulatory impact assessment because some of the Acts covered
by the draft order are rarely used. Few tenants are likely to be
affected and the cost of collecting that information would be
disproportionate. Our expectation is that the costs will be negligible
and will fall in different parts of the country at different times. The
measure is important to ensure that all tenants can be consulted, even
if there are only a few to which it applies and it will result in only
a few extra letters being sent.
I know the process relating to
compulsory purchase orders only too well. The office in Sheffield in
which I am a tenant has been subject to that process. The effect of the
order will be that some people will receive an occasional letter
inviting them to respond and to
express any interests or concerns. I understand why hon. Members would
like to tie down the issue of cost a bit more; cost to the public purse
is something that concerns hon. Members in all parts of the House.
However, the cost involved in finding out that information would
probably be greater than the cost of the additional work resulting from
the provisions of the draft order. I am therefore unable to provide
that information
today.
The
hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked whether we are considering tenancy
and related matters. That goes a bit beyond the scope of the draft
order, but I will say that the Government are always open to looking at
such matters, and planning issues and a White Paper on the subject will
be considered in time. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to make
suggestions to the Government in future. On that basis, I commend the
order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004 (Corresponding Amendments) Order 2007.
Committee rose at fourteen
minutes to Three
o
clock.