|
Column Number: 435
Standing Committee G
Tuesday 28 January 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]
8.55 am
Clause 73
Compulsory acquisition of land
for development etc
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): I beg to move amendment No. 434, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 425, in
Amendment No. 430, in
clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'think' and insert 'can demonstrate'.
Amendment No. 431, in
clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'will facilitate' and insert 'is necessary for'.
Amendment No. 426, in
Amendment No. 432, in
clause 73, page 47, line 16, leave out 'think' and insert 'can demonstrate'.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Good morning, Mr. Amess, and members of the Committee. Today we have reached the home-straight—the last two sittings on the Bill—and, following the extremely tight timetable set by the Government, we will be considering part 7, which relates to compulsory purchase, and part 8. We would argue that that timetable is unsustainably tight, in that much of parts 1 and 2—the two key sections of the Bill—was not debated. There was a reasonable debate on part 3, but important aspects of part 4, on simplified planning zones, were not debated, and part 5—''Correction of errors''—was not debated at all. We did, however, have an entire sitting on part 6, ''Wales'', and debated that part fully; we believe that the system suggested for Wales is better than that for England.
Let us see whether we can do better on part 7. Compulsory purchase is a pretty all-embracing power. Totalitarian, authoritarian, dirigiste regimes all over the world—Zimbabwe is a typical example—have three features. They tend to kill people on a whim, they tend to imprison people without proper trial and proper process, and they take property away from people without proper compensation or process.
We in this country, as a democracy, are far more civilised than that, and we have a proper compulsory
Column Number: 436
purchase regime. The Government intend to revise that regime, and we are concerned this morning to make sure that that revision is even fairer to the citizen than the present system, and that it delivers a speedier outcome at a reasonable cost. There is no doubt that the proposed measures will cost more.
Westminster city council, for example, tells us that the problem with the current system is that
''the laws and procedures affecting compulsory purchase are unwieldy and extremely complex. This has led to a situation where the vast majority of local authorities have little or no expertise or experience of compulsory purchase orders''—
I will refer to them as CPOs from now on—
''and are therefore reluctant to use them.''
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): Good.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Compulsory purchase orders should be used only as a last resort, because they are a pretty all-encompassing power—[Interruption.] I shall now come, as the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister suggests I should, to amendment No. 434.
By tabling this group of amendments, we sought to explore with the Government what the acquiring authority must do before it enters into the compulsory purchase procedure. We have received several representations on the subject, not least from the farming community. Many compulsory purchase powers are used to acquire farms and agricultural land, and the Country Land and Business Association argues that
''Local authorities have not made the case for a change in section 226''
of the principal Act.
''This matter was discussed at length by the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group, set up by Government to advise on reform.''
The CLA continues:
''The law at present affords reasonable protection for individuals' private property without unduly constraining the ability of local authorities to engage in regeneration projects. This was demonstrated by the Group, which pointed to major regeneration undertaken under section 226 powers by Medway Unitary Council in an underutilised area, and Leicester City Council at the Bede Island site.''
That is one of the major reasons why we use compulsory purchase powers to aid inner city regeneration, which has slowed down under this Government because there are too many fragmented schemes and nobody knows what they all are. It would be better if they were amalgamated; it would make it easier for the acquiring authorities, too, although that is another matter.
The CLA goes on to argue:
''it is reasonable for local authorities seeking to exercise the draconian power of compulsory purchase to demonstrate the acquisition of land is necessary to achieve the desired objective. The power to dispossess an individual, perhaps to deprive a senior citizen of the home in which he or she grew up, by compulsion, is one that we argue should be properly tested''—
exactly as I said in my opening remarks—
''before being exercised. The proposed clause does not provide that test.''
Note the words at the end of that passage.
Column Number: 437
In addition, the National Farmers Union argues that some acquiring authorities, which are subject to the courts, exercise their powers unreasonably. It cites the case of a dairy farmer in the Isle of Wight who had his farm acquired simply because the local council was pandering to the whims of neighbours who did not like the smells and noise.
We seek, through the amendments, to probe the Government's thinking on the behaviour of acquiring authorities. Through amendment No. 434 we aim to specify what the local authority has to do before it exercises the powers. We say:
''after 'authority', insert 'after consultation with all interested parties and the public.'.''
Before those draconian powers are exercised, it is reasonable that some form of consultation should take place. It will be interesting to see what the Minister has to say about that.
Amendment No. 425 involves the old argument about the subjective test. We say:
''leave out 'think' and insert 'has reasonable grounds to believe'''
because there should be a more objective test. We have noted too many times in this Bill that the authority only has to ''think''. That is a subjective test. If a matter goes to the High Court for judicial review, the judge cannot think what a reasonable man might construe as being reasonable, he only has to think what the authority thinks is reasonable. I object to that subjective wording. Surely in a democracy, particularly in relation to such overwhelming powers, the test should be more objective. That might sound like an esoteric argument, but it is important.
Amendment No. 431 aims to make it absolutely clear what the acquiring authority must comply with before a CPO is issued. One of the tests must be that it ''is necessary for'' something—again, strengthening the objectivity. When somebody's home is being repossessed, it should be made crystal clear not only to that person but to all his relatives, and to the public, why the local authority is doing that. The amendments would make the clause clearer. I welcome the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women to her place today—it is always nice to see her smiling face—and it will be interesting to hear what she has to say.
The Chairman: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I remind the Committee that we can have only one clause stand part debate.
Matthew Green (Ludlow): I was about to speak to the Conservative amendments with some degree of enthusiasm—until I heard the hon. Gentleman likening the situation here to that in Zimbabwe, which worried me a little.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Again, the hon. Gentleman deliberately misrepresents me. I specifically said that we were trying to make things fair, so that it will not be like such regimes here.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has now clarified that for the Committee.
Column Number: 438
I support the amendments. They are relatively modest, and I hope that the Minister will consider them in that context. The compulsory purchase provisions are generally welcomed by many organisations. However, we must ensure that the Bill includes sufficient safeguards. I think that Ministers will find it difficult to argue against the sort of consultation suggested in amendment No. 434, although I expect that we shall be told that it will be done through regulations. We have this argument so many times in Committee—whenever I speak, I suspect—but we need to be reassured that there will be consultation; if not, I would like to see a requirement included in the Bill.
The insertion of the words ''reasonable grounds to believe'' and ''can demonstrate'', as suggested in amendments Nos. 425 and 430 respectively, would strengthen the test that a local authority has to apply when seeking a compulsory purchase. On balance, our proposals have a degree of merit, and I hope that the Minister will address sympathetically those modest but necessary amendments.
Mr. Wilshire: I, too, welcome the Minister of State to the Committee. The big guns have clearly been wheeled out for the final day. I hope that the hon. Lady will be as entertained as her colleagues have been; in their absence, we shall certainly do our best to give her an interesting morning.
I appreciate what you said about a clause stand part debate, Mr. Amess. However, there are some general issues associated with compulsory purchase that I would like to raise, especially with regard to suggested new subsection (1A) of section 226 of the 1990 Act, which are outside the scope of the amendments. If as the debate on this or the next group of amendments unfolds, you change your mind and decide not to allow a general debate, I shall take the opportunity to speak on that subject now; otherwise, I give notice that I shall wish to speak on those other matters later.
For the moment, however, we are debating six amendments. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said, amendment No. 434 is the most important of the group. I have huge reservations about compulsory purchase, which I shall explain later. I believe that the overriding argument that brings me to support it in certain circumstances is the public interest, which must be balanced against the interests of the individual. I would not trust—I use that word advisedly—experts and officials to judge that. The public should be involved when the power of what I would call confiscation is used in their name against individuals.
I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Bill must include reference to consultation with the very people who are being invoked as the justification for the use of those powers. It is essential that some form of words should appear in the Bill. I have said many times—although I realise that the Minister of State was not here to hear me—that I am not personally wedded to the wording of the amendments; there are many other ways of saying that there must be consultation with the public and with interested parties. We must ensure, when we use that power in the name of the public, that the public
Column Number: 439
are with us. That part of the consultation becomes crucial.
People who are about to have their land confiscated deserve to be involved in the process. It is far better to begin discussions with interested parties, which would include the landowners, at the earliest possible moment, because there is then a sporting chance that the person who is about to lose his land may begin to understand why it is a good idea. Simply to say, ''We are going to talk to the public, we are going to do this and that,'' and then tell people what is going to happen is no way to win them over to what will always be a difficult process.
Amendment No. 434 is essential if the Bill is to be even-handed. The Minister may not accept its wording, but if the Government were to say that they would table a similar amendment on Report or in another place, we would not press it to a Division.
Amendments No. 425 and 426, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke, are a pair, which substitute the phrase ''has reasonable grounds to believe'' for the word ''think'' in two different parts of the clause. I cannot cope with the idea that one has only to ''think'' that something is necessary and ergo, under the legislation, it is so.
Other hon. Members may have only noble and pure thoughts, but I admit to thinking things that could not always be defined as reasonable or having reasonable grounds. The answer will be, ''Ah well, that is the test if it ever gets to the High Court on judicial review''—but I have never been involved in judicial review. I have been told what it costs and it makes my eyes water, especially if it is the only remedy against people who have had a bright idea late at night after the pubs have closed and ''think'' that it would be a good thing to do. The amendment would make it much easier for people to make sure that the criteria used for arriving at a conclusion were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, objective rather than subjective, and in the public interest rather than just a whim.
If the Minister does not like phrase ''has reasonable grounds'', amendments Nos. 430 and 432 use the formula, ''can demonstrate''. I prefer the former, but the same principle applies: there must be an objective test rather than the ability to act on a whim, which will be the case if the amendments are not accepted.
Amendment No. 431 is more significant than it appears at first glance. I can almost hear the Minister limbering up to say that it is rather pedantic, but I do not see it like that, because there is a difference between doing something to make things easier, and doing something because it is the only way of achieving what one sets out to do. I do not see compulsory purchase as a means of making things easier, and I doubt that any member of the Committee could persuade me to do so, although I am prepared to listen to their arguments. That may be the quick and simple way to proceed, and people may say, ''We can go home earlier if we do it,'' but compulsory purchase is not about facilitating those objectives. It is the ultimate last resort, which becomes necessary if all else fails and there is an overarching interest—if it is the
Column Number: 440
only way to do something that most people agree needs to be done.
There is a great distinction between the Bill as drafted, which says, in effect, ''We can do it this way if it will facilitate things,'' and a Bill that says, ''If all else fails and there is no other way, you may use compulsory purchase powers.'' That is the spirit of amendment No. 431: to introduce the idea that compulsory purchase must be necessary, rather than simply convenient, if land is to be acquired. There may be another way of doing it. After all, the Government have all the lawyers and experts, whereas we must rely on our native common sense. Common sense tells me that using the words ''is necessary'' is the way to do it. However, I am prepared to listen if someone has a better way of achieving that important goal.
9.15 am
|
