Clause 73 - Compulsory acquisition of land for development etc
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
8:55 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
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.
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.