New clause 18 - Procedure for authorisation of compulsory purchase by authority other than a Minister
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
9:45 am
Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
We do not expect the approach that we have taken, and matters that arise from the new clauses, to be a constraint on the Law Commission or any response that we might make to it. It has become clear from the debate in Committee that hon. Members of all parties recognise that the changes are sensible and will make life simpler, speeding up the process and making it fairer for particular groups. As we are dealing with a planning Bill, it seems right to move on with the items on which there is broad agreement and which will make things better in the short term. It is always possible for the best to be the enemy of the good and, in parliamentary terms, for the whole to be the enemy of the parts. We could delay doing sensible things until we had resolved every detail of the future of the universe. I do not think that we should do that now; it is right to introduce the measures in question.
The hon. Member for Cotswold raised a point about abandoned properties and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked what would happen if an owner reappeared. If owners do not come forward, so long as reasonable attempts have been made to identify them, compulsory purchase orders can proceed. There are sometimes different procedures for dealing with the matter through the general vesting declaration. Compensation would be paid into court and could be claimed if an owner subsequently reappeared.
The written procedure would not disadvantage someone whose objection was disregarded. If the objection were disregarded because it was purely about compensation it would go to the Lands Tribunal, just as it currently does. The person concerned would be in exactly the same position as they would under the current arrangements. With luck, the process might be resolved considerably faster, because of the written procedure.
Secondary legislation, following consultations, would be needed to set out the detail and workings of the written procedures, and the method for making
objections. However, we have attempted to inform the Committee's deliberations in a paper setting out our broad intentions, which I believe hon. Members have now been sent, and which I have already mentioned. However, further consultation will clearly be needed before we can specify exact details.
To respond to what seemed to be the concern behind this question, the point is the need for clarity for all concerned. That has been the problem so far, and it is the reason why there has never been agreement on a written procedure, even though it was possible in theory. No one can agree on a case-by-case basis about what would constitute nice, clear, fair procedures that would enable everyone to know the deal and understand at what point representations would be considered or a full representation needed to be made. Statutory force is needed to provide that clarity.