| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 71:
- Page 56, line 35, leave out from "section" to "there" in line 36 and insert "321A of the principal Act (inserted by section 80 above)"
- Page 56, line 40, leave out "reference in section 321(5)" and insert "references in section 321(5) and (6)"
- Page 57, line 16, leave out "reference in paragraph 6(7A)" and insert "references in paragraph 6A(1) and (2)"
- Page 57, line 20, leave out "6(7C)" and insert "6A(3)"
- Page 57, line 23, leave out "6(7C)" and insert "6A(3)"
- Page 57, line 36, leave out "reference in paragraph 6(7A)" and insert "references in paragraph 6A(1) and (2)"
- Page 57, line 40, leave out "6(7C)" and insert "6A(3)"
- Page 57, line 43, leave out "6(7C)" and insert "6A(3)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 91 [Special provision for certain circumstances where disclosure of information as to national security may occur: Scotland]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 75:
- Page 65, line 27, leave out "to any inquiry held" and insert "in relation to the holding of inquiries"
- Page 66, line 10, leave out "a local" and insert "any such"
- Page 66, line 22, leave out "appointed person" and insert "representative"
- Page 66, line 37, after "inquiry" insert ", or prospective inquiry,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 76:
- Page 66, line 40, leave out "appointed person" and insert "representative"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a problem in that I think that these amendments are covered by what I said when speaking to the first group.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, on my list these amendments are grouped separately. Nevertheless, we will take them en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 77 to 83:
- Page 66, line 41, leave out "appointed person" and insert "representative"
- Page 67, line 1, leave out "appointed person" and insert "representative"
- Page 67, line 7, at end insert —
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92 [Urgent Crown development: Scotland]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 84:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Urgent works relating to Crown land: Scotland]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 85:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Compulsory acquisition of land for development etc]:
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 86:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with these amendments we return to the subject of local authorities' powers of compulsory purchase. On Report I said that we welcome the provisions of Clause 99 to the extent that they clarify and widen the powers of local authorities. Clause 99 will assist local authorities to fulfil their duties under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 to promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of their areas. However, we remain concerned that, although the Minister gave a substantial response at the previous stage, he has not engaged with the causes of unease expressed by the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union, bodies representing those sectors of the community most likely to be affected by Clause 99.
Clearly it is important that when compulsory purchase orders are made as a final resort, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union are signed up to the legitimacy of this process. Although the Minister outlined extensively the safeguards within the current system, a pragmatic solution would be to adopt these amendments as a way of reassuring the concerned parties that their substantial interests in the compulsory purchase regime are being taken into account.
These amendments would not make substantial changes to the legislation, but they usefully emphasise the delicate balance that local authorities must strike between the rights of private individuals and the public interest. As such, they reiterate the nature of compulsory purchase as an avenue of last resort, while not in any way undermining the Government's objectives. I believe that, in the long run, local authorities will want a robust system that is broadly supported by the communities affected. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening at this rather late stage, but I have been following the debate on this issue with some interest. I also declare an interest as an owner of land. I have come to the conclusion that the Government's proposals under these new compulsory purchase powers are far too wide and impinge on fundamental property rights.
Having read what the Minister said in response to the same amendment on Report, I confess that I am no wiser as to why the Government feel it necessary to turn the existing legislation on its head and provide local authorities with such wide-ranging powers for compulsory purchase. What baffles me is the fact that the Government invited the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group to investigate the effectiveness of the existing law. To the best of my knowledge, its findings from the various case studies that it undertook were that everything was working perfectly well. Furthermore, when the advisory group invited local authorities to provide examples of where the present law had proved inadequate, there were no responses.
So I think it is perfectly reasonable to say to the Minister that it is incumbent on him, given the magnitude of the proposed changes, to give the House compelling reasons, or even examples, of why he feels that the existing system has failed so badly that he has to introduce these draconian measures simply to allow an authority to enter into the compulsory purchase process because it thinks that the land in question is likely to contribute to the promotion of the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of that area.
As the law stands, there are a number of clearly defined tests by which local authorities must abide before such rights can be compulsorily acquired. Ideally, I would like to see the status quo retained but I appreciate that the Bill will change matters sufficiently for a compromise to be necessary. I believe
In his response to my noble friend Lord Hanningfield on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, stated that a local authority, when considering acquiring lands through compulsory purchase powers, would be obliged to have regard to its planning proposals, and that these may be found in either the community strategy or the pathfinder area prospectus. The point is, as I see it, that the community strategy is no more than an aspiration and does not have the same legal status as the local development plan to which the local authority must have regard under existing law before entering into compulsory purchase negotiations. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, which requires the local authority to have regard to the community strategy, which rather undermines the Minister's argument.
As I said, the Minister also made reference to the pathfinder area prospectus in the context of it being a part of a local authority's planning proposals. I am not aware of such a term, so I invited someone to look it up on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Much to my surprise, it revealed no results at all; there was no reference to it. I then got my contact to refer to the Google website. The only reference to it was in the Minister's speech at Report. So I am none the wiser. No doubt the Minister will give an explanation for that when he replies.
The Minister—and, indeed, the Minister in another place, Barbara Roche—suggested that these new wide-ranging compulsory purchase powers granted to local authorities should not be of concern to those who might be affected as they could always challenge the local authority in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described judicial review as a "perfectly adequate safeguard". I regard that as being a rather cavalier attitude. A reference to courts is surely a blanket cover for bad legislation. Given that the right of the owner to challenge the decision would arise only after the decision had been made, it would inevitably result in very considerable expense. Surely it must be preferable to have a properly worded Bill that requires the local authority to consider at the outset whether it was necessary to acquire the land in the first place.
I will briefly say a few words about human rights. Two of the convention rights refer to the compulsory acquisition of someone's property—Article 8 and Article 1 of the first protocol. Without going into details, both articles lay down conditions that must be satisfied if the acquisition of property is to be human rights compliant. Among them is the requirement for necessity. Clearly, Amendment No. 87 would comply with both articles.
The Minister stated that the whole purpose of Clause 98 was to clarify the existing compulsory purchase powers. I strongly suggest that the Government are deliberately extending them and that there is no justification for that. The compulsory purchase of private land should be a matter of last
I conclude by quoting the late Lord Denning, in the case of Colleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1971). He said:
"( ) Subsections (7) to (11) apply even if the inquiry does not take place."
Page 67, line 19, leave out "an inquiry held" and insert "the holding of an inquiry"
Page 67, line 20, leave out "an inquiry held" and insert "the holding of an inquiry"
Page 67, line 26, leave out "an inquiry held" and insert "the holding of an inquiry"
Page 67, line 27, leave out "an inquiry held" and insert "the holding of an inquiry"
Page 68, line 30, leave out "Subsections (7) and (8) above are" and insert "Subsection (7) above does not apply to the extent that the document or other matter is"
Page 69, line 33, leave out "Subsections (7) and (8) above are" and insert "Subsection (7) above does not apply to the extent that the document or other matter is"
Page 74, line 16, leave out "think" and insert "have reasonable grounds to believe"
8 p.m.
"When seeking to deprive the subject of his property and cause him to move himself, his belongings and perhaps his business to another area, the onus lies squarely on the local authority to show by clear and unambiguous evidence that the order sought for should be granted".
The local authority may think that the acquisition of private land is appropriate, but that falls a long way short of showing clear and unambiguous evidence. I hope that the House will support my noble friend's amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page