Lord Lucas:

Moved by Lord Lucas

238ZA: Clause 100, page 141, line 23, at end insert—“(A1) In section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (interpretation), after the definition of “local authority” insert—““local news publisher” has the meaning prescribed to it in Schedule 2ZA.”.(A2) After Schedule 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, insert—“Schedule 2ZALocal news publishersDefinition of local news publisher1 The term “local news publisher” means a business that—(a) has as its principal purpose the publication of original, local news content, where such material, whether or not publication is done with a view to making profit—(i) is published, online or in print, no less than once every 31 days;(ii) is subject to editorial control;(iii) is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), or by IMPRESS;(b) is legally resident in the United Kingdom;(c) is owned and operated within the community; and(d) is considered by the relevant local authority to be an effective means of drawing the notice to the attention of local people who would be interested to read it but are not actively looking for it.2 An organisation is a relevant local authority if it is—(a) identified as a principal council within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1978 for England or section 21 of that Act for Wales, and(b) required by law (such as section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to issue a public notice relating to any powers it exercises.””Member's explanatory statementThis Amendment, together with two others to this Clause in the name of Lord Lucas, is to update the 1981 definition of newspaper so that it takes account of the substantial changes in local media this century, in relation to newspaper notices required under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

First, my Lords, I note with unrestrained delight from the Annunciator that Parliament is being presented with the opportunity to spend another £10 million on a new door, and I look forward to the announcement shortly.

My amendments concern the advertising requirements in the Bill and indeed elsewhere in legislation. The purpose of the advertisements is to tell people what is happening, and there are two main routes through which that information has to flow. One should be a central database of all such announcements run by the Government so that all the professionals can immediately go where they need to in order to look at it every day, see what is happening and be completely up to date without having to faff around.

The other is that they ought to go in publications that ordinary members of the public read so that they can say, “Oi! What’s going on? I need to take an interest in this”. It is that second section that particularly concerns me because the rules as to where these advertisements can be put were set down in 1881 and need updating. The Minister has kindly promised me a meeting—which has yet to be arranged—with her department and DCMS; I look forward to that very much, but this needs doing.

There are a number of other amendments in this group, the presentations of which I will listen to with interest. The only one that I have a particular interest in is Amendment 250, which seems an undesirable bit of retrospective legislation designed to enable the All England Lawn Tennis Club not to have to negotiate fairly with the people it is disadvantaging as a result of its plans. I hope the Government will reject it, but I declare in saying so my interest, in that I am a resident of Eastbourne, which has been disadvantaged by the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s plans, and I have numerous friends and relations who are Wombles. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 238A in this group, which is in the same terms as an amendment that I tabled and withdrew in Committee, reserving the right to return to it later. I have decided to bring it back for further consideration and will seek to reinforce the arguments for it.

This takes us into the largely unexplored Part 5 of the Bill and concerns the scope of exceptions to home-loss payments in what is now Clause 105. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a drastic step for which clear and proper justification should be required. Normally the person displaced from a property that is his or her dwelling receives the market value of the property, together with compensation by a statutory home loss payment, which provides some modest recognition that the person concerned is being compelled to leave his or her home.

However, in Clause 105, a proposed new section of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures to comply with notices or orders which have been served. Homeowners caught by those exceptions will be denied any home loss payment. Of course, the assessed amount which the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect the lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would be therefore in addition to the reduced price reflecting a poor state of repair.

Repairs or improvements to a home may not always get done, for a variety of reasons. There may well be situations in which denial of home loss payments would be justified when there has been a significant, culpable failure to comply with statutory obligations to maintain, repair or safeguard a property wholly or in part. But the proposed list of unqualified exceptions in the Bill as drafted could operate unduly harshly and punitively, taking no account of individual circumstances or any underlying reason for non-compliance with the notice or order, which would automatically trigger forfeiture of the home loss payment.

The Bill does not allow for the exercise of any discretion in depriving the homeowner of that payment. In her helpful response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that it would be for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the 1973 Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the owner. I am sure that is correct, but the situation contemplated by my amendment is that arising at a later stage, after the order or notice has been served, when the homeowner to be displaced may reasonably want to show why personal circumstances do not then allow him or her to comply with the notice or order.

I wish to stress as quickly as I can three points. First, the amendment would not place any obligation on the local authority to investigate the reasons for non-compliance in any way, unless and until the person concerned tried to show that the omissions were not deliberate and that the cause of non-compliance was either that the required work could not have been carried out because of that person’s ill health or infirmity or that it could not have been afforded because of financial difficulty, such as an inability to obtain or afford funding. The burden of proving any of that would remain on the person to be displaced and would require credible evidence. The only obligation on the local authority at that stage would be to look at the realities of the cause for non-compliance.

Secondly, in these cases the property being compulsorily acquired is a home, and the displaced homeowner will almost certainly need the home loss payment to help find a replacement home. All this amendment seeks to do is obtain some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments in an attempt to make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable when there has been what might be called no-fault non-compliance.

Thirdly, of course it is important to consider the financial implications for local authorities, but compulsory acquisition of homes in disrepair where notices have not been complied with is rare and, if the amendment is accepted, the number of cases in which the claimant could show genuine inability to comply with the required work because of ill health or lack of finance will be rarer still. This amendment would allow those people some opportunity to show those reasons and receive the payment which the Bill would otherwise take away from them. If the Government are not minded to look at this again and reconsider the amendment or something like it, I at least hope there would be an indication that guidance would allow such circumstances to be considered. If it were possible for that to happen, I suggest that unnecessary appeals could be avoided.

My Lords, Amendments 242 and 243 are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is simply to eliminate the ability of the Government to ignore hope value when assessing value on compulsory purchase orders. The Minister has kindly laid out in writing that this will happen only in limited circumstances and, by implication, that it is of little concern. That is wrong. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put it far more simply and elegantly than I when he said that hope value is actually market value. He is right. Other government departments accept this. When land is valued for inheritance tax or capital gains tax on non-financial transfers, hope value is explicit. Tax is paid on that hope value, so why should another government department be entitled to disregard it?

Under this Government’s family farm death tax, greater inheritance tax will be paid based on this hope value of land that might lift it, in certain circumstances, from around £10,000 per acre to as much as £50,000 per acre. What happens if the Government then turn around two years later and compulsorily purchase that land at £10,000 per acre because they want to disregard hope value? This is surely absurd; that hope value has not disappeared. The Government should pay for it.

This is a power of confiscation and, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is probing with Amendment 251, and as I raised at Second Reading and again in Committee, it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s previous responses that the ECHR allows for CPOs is right, but it does not allow them at less than market value. His Majesty’s Government appear to put the ECHR on a pedestal; I am curious whether that is only when it suits them. CPO powers are, of course, essential to a modern Government carrying out their duties, but this cannot be a tyranny of the Majority. The rights of the individual have to be respected.

Can the Minister assure us that, should she reject my amendments, CPO valuations will include all elements of market value attributed to that land under historic valuation parameters, as I believe the Red Book valuations already incorporate? I refer the House to my declaration of interests as a landowner, among other things.

My Lords, Amendment 250 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Grabiner, who are unable to be here this evening but who continue to support it, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell. This amendment would address the wide-reaching consequences for persons who acquire former open-space land in light of a Supreme Court decision in 2023, R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8. Given that this amendment has been misunderstood by some and mischaracterised by others, I need to explain what it is and is not about.

Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that the local authority may not dispose of

“any land consisting or forming part of an open space” unless before it does so it advertises its intention in a local newspaper for two weeks and considers any objections received in response to that advertisement. Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust.

If a local resident or community group considers that the disposal of land is unlawful for any reason, including but not limited to a failure to comply with the requirement to advertise, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision in the High Court. If they have good reason for bringing the claim late—for example, if they were not aware of the decision at the time it was made—they can draw the court’s attention to that in support of an application for a discretionary extension of time.

In public law, the normal position is that, if a public body’s decision has not been successfully challenged by way of judicial review, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that, even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged, and even if it was made many years or even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertising requirements means that the statutory trust continues to exist, and therefore continues to frustrate the beneficial repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question.

Crucially, that is the case even if the land was sold in good faith by the authority to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements when it was sold.

The effect of this is deeply unsatisfactory and a blocker to growth. It means that land that has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision that it is in the public interest to disposed of it and that may now have lawful planning permission for beneficial repurposing is none the less permanently bound by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial reuse. Given that the advertising cannot be done retrospectively, the land is potentially blighted forever. This sits uncomfortably with the public law principle that unchallenged public decisions should be treated as valid, and it sits equally uncomfortably with the property law principle that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of equitable interest, takes land unencumbered by those interests.

This issue is causing huge uncertainty in relation to land purchased from authorities in good faith, sometimes decades ago. The evidence about whether the land in question had been properly advertised prior to sale may no longer be readily available, particularly in historic cases.

This is holding up many developments across the country that already have planning permission. One high-profile example—although I stress it is only one of many— is the current proposal to expand the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s internationally renowned facilities at Wimbledon to include an adjacent former private golf club site, the planning permission for which was recently upheld by the High Court. Claims that it is subject to a statutory trust in light of the Day judgment are holding up the development, and with it the benefits that the planning decision, which has been upheld by the High Court, said it would deliver. It is very important to appreciate that this is not just about Wimbledon. There are other instances in, for example, Bristol, Winchester and Shrewsbury. Across the country, there are instances of developments in the public interest being held up due to this issue.

Amendment 250 would deal with this by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successes in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. Yes, it has retrospective effect, but only in response to the Day judgment, which itself retrospectively changed the understanding of how statutory trusts operate. It is far from unprecedented for Parliament to legislate with retrospective effect, either in response to a court judgment, for example, the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed the effect of Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] 2 AC 572 in relation to mesothelioma claims, or to deal with an important problem, a recent example being the Building Safety Act 2022, the retrospective effect of which has been upheld by the courts.

The amendment would not remove the local authority’s duty to advertise before disposing of open-space land. It would not remove any of the other legal safeguards on the decision-making process relating to such disposal, such as the need for the land to be surplus to requirements. It would also not interfere with the public’s right to challenge a decision by way of judicial review, either within the usual three-month window or subject to an extension of time where there is a sufficiently compelling case for that to be granted. Nor would it alter the onerous restrictions in the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the redevelopment of open-space land. The planning policy protections on open-space land would remain entirely unchanged. Nor would the amendment apply to transactions that were not made in good faith.

What it would do, however, is ensure that where there has been no challenge to the disposal and the transaction was made in good faith, the purchase is not subject to the deleterious uncertainty and potentially permanent burdens that I have outlined.

I understand that the Government accept the case for a legislative solution in response to Day as part of a wider consideration of the statutory protections of open space—but that they intend to bring forward that solution in another MHCLG Bill in the near future. The obvious candidate, I would suggest, is the English devolution Bill. That is encouraging to hear, but I must confess that I am a little disappointed that the Government have not grasped the nettle now, just as they have not on my amendment in relation to the Hillside judgment. It seems ironic—as the Home Builders Federation and the Land, Planning and Development Federation observed in a letter to the Chancellor last week—that, in relation to those two Supreme Court decisions that add to planning regulation, the acknowledged need for a solution is left to a later Bill, but in relation to last week’s Supreme Court decision in CG Fry, which reduces planning regulation, the Government have immediately amended this Bill so as to reverse it straight away. I did not speak in the debate on Amendment 208 because I was leading counsel in Fry, and I did not vote on it either, but it seems to me that the Government will live to regret their decision to extend the habitat regulations to Ramsar sites to which the parent EU directive does not apply.

All that said, I am very keen to continue working with the Minister and her officials, and with Minister Pennycook, and I am genuinely grateful for the engagement on this issue so as to ensure as swift and effective a resolution of this issue as possible. With that in mind, and depending on what the Minister says in winding up this debate, it may be that the reassurances she provides mean that I do not need to press the amendment now, although I really encourage as much pace as possible in dealing with this issue.

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 250 because I believe that it is a necessary and proportionate measure to remove a legal blockage to sustainable growth—a blockage that is holding back both our national well-being and our economic prosperity. I declare my relevant interests. On the well-being side, I am a member, unpaid, of the board of the World Wellbeing Movement and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics. On the economics side, I am a professional economist with decades of experience at the Treasury, and unpaid president of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, I naturally view this issue through the twin lenses of economic growth and fiscal sustainability. Of course, I am a member of the committee of the All England Lawn Tennis Club, which is obviously where I have experience that others can, I hope, learn from.

Regrettably, the decision that this House made in April, that we must exclude our non-financial interests from the register, has led to a degree of misunderstanding and, in some quarters, to unwarranted personal attacks on me—hence my need to put these matters on the record at my first opportunity. This is the first time I have spoken on this issue. I note that I asked the registrar’s office about this on 6 March: I wanted to carry on including my non-financial interests in the register, because they are really important, and I was told that this was not possible. It is ridiculous, so I am stuck with this.

I go back to the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, mentioned all the KCs and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rest of them have all the legal arguments; I will not even try to rival their expertise. I am an economist—that is what drives me—and I care about well-being. As was said, this amendment responds to the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Day case. In essence, that judgment created a new and retrospective uncertainty over land ownership, affecting potentially innumerable development sites across the country. This is the important thing to get across. This is important for the economic growth of the country. The Wimbledon example is an important one, but it is only one among a number. The Minister is very aware of the long list of projects—because I sent it to her—that are now held back by this legal Shadow. Because the problem is itself retrospective, the remedy must necessarily also be retrospective if we are to restore the legal clarity that the market and our communities so badly need.

I will go to my area of expertise: the real-world effects are best illustrated, to me, by the experience of that much-loved British institution, Wimbledon. I declare again that I have been a long-standing member of its main committee and put this in the register for many years, until that April change. The Day judgment has created significant delay and uncertainty for Wimbledon’s ability to transform the land that has, for more than a century, been a private members’ golf club.

I stress that there are lots of other examples but, in the Wimbledon example, the expansion already has planning permission from the Greater London Authority; it has been upheld by the High Court, yet progress is now halted because of the uncertainty surrounding the Day case. But this is about far more than economics. Wimbledon is a jewel in the crown of British sport. The other Grand Slams are investing heavily in their facilities and the fan experience. For Wimbledon to maintain its place at the pinnacle of world tennis, it must be allowed to evolve as they are. This expansion is crucial to that future. It is not only about elite sport; it is also about national well-being. The proposed development would turn qualifying week into a festival in its own right, offering three weeks of world-class tennis and community celebration rather than two. It would enhance the experience for the thousands who camp out each year in the queue. Let us remember that Wimbledon is not a profit-maximising organisation: 90% of our surplus goes back into the LTA and the other 10% goes into improving Wimbledon every year. So it would allow fans to have a better experience and capitalise on one of the country’s finest examples of soft power by extending the celebration of Britishness that the nation holds so dear.

Yet, perhaps most importantly of all—I stress this to my colleagues to my right—the benefits extend to the environment and local community. This is not an act of overdevelopment but of restoration, environmental enhancement and the opening up of new green space. Let me be specific: the project will convert 27 acres of private land into publicly accessible park land—a 50% increase in green space for local residents. It would restore the historic Capability Brown Wimbledon Park lake, which is terribly silted up at the moment, creating a circular boardwalk and reviving a landscape feature of national heritage. It would help to deliver a substantial biodiversity net gain, with the planting of at least 1,500 new trees and the creation of rich habitats for wildlife. These arguments were made at the GLA planning stage, and the environmental case won the day. As someone who massively believes in green spaces and in well-being, I am afraid that I have to disagree with those who think that somehow this development will do the opposite of that. It is not—it will make things better.

I urge the Government to swiftly find a way to support the amendment, which is a modest and necessary measure to restore certainty, enable sustainable growth, strengthen our national well-being and help to deliver the kind of forward-looking development that future generations will thank us for. I honestly do not understand why the Government, who accept that the current situation needs to be changed via legislation, cannot bring forward at Third Reading in their own wording, taking account of any issues that they may have, something that can solve these problems.

I have experience of these matters; there are more there are more than 50 brilliant and excellent draftsmen in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Every department has additional drafters. It is not beyond the wit of man to do this reasonably quickly. When I am told that we might do this in some future legislation, I remember the words of my successor as Cabinet Secretary, alas, the late Jeremy Heywood. When faced with issues like this, he would say to me, “Gus, we need to get a grip”. He was right. Can we please get a grip, get on with it and solve this problem, which will enhance national well-being, improve the environment and stimulate economic growth?

I do not want to take up the time of the House at this stage of the evening, but I want to speak against Amendment 250 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Pannick, Lord Grabiner and Lord O’Donnell. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in one respect, that it is a backwards step for what the register of interests now represents, in that non-financial interests absolutely ought to continue to be highlighted. We have just had a prime example of that tonight, if I may say so.

I was slightly nervous about saying anything against such an illustrious line-up as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has lined up, but my understanding of the situation is not that, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, tried to persuade me, we are all misunderstanding the position. I do not think we are; there is a real need for this to be gripped, but this is not the way to do it. This amendment has caused substantial concern that it erodes the protection of green space and removes long-standing public rights to green spaces, where the land is sold by local authority, with or without consultation. For the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to say that a judicial review is the way forward, frankly, misrepresents the position of many local communities, which are absolutely incapable of bringing a judicial review, either by degree of organisation or financially.

This is an important problem but the amendment is the wrong answer and I would support the Minister in having further discussions and not rushing to grab the nearest passing parliamentary draftsman who can write a better amendment than the one we have. We have to remember history in this issue to some extent. Until 1980, local authorities had to get parliamentary approval to make these sales, so it was a big concession to get to the point where a public consultation was granted, rather than the need for a parliamentary decision. Now we are talking about sweeping that away; I think it ought not to be swept away without further discussion. We have to make sure that the community’s ability to challenge the intention to repurpose land remains, and we must make sure that the signals are right for local authorities, which may be—would you believe?—short of funds and looking to dispose of recreational land.

The Minister, my noble friend Lady Taylor, said in Committee that the Government will

“require engagement with the sector

I was not quite sure which sector she meant. I do hope it includes the open spaces sector, and I urge her to make sure that any future consideration of this issue does not make local authority disposal of these sites easier and does not reduce the democratic input on any sales through public consultation.

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with pleasure and particularly agree with her point about judicial reviews. I have visited more local communities than I can count, where they have desperately been trying to bake cakes and to collect pence and pounds here and there, struggling to stand up a judicial review and simply unable to do it. I have no nervousness at all in opposing Amendment 250, because I bring voices from the community, something I often seek to bring into your Lordships’ House, as represented by the Wandsworth and Merton Green parties and Merton Friends of the Earth, which are strongly opposed to the development by the All England Lawn Tennis Club and opposed to the kind of changes that this amendment would bring. It is also, of course, strongly opposed by the Open Spaces Society.

I want to make two specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, talked about “beneficial repurposing”, saying, “Oh, it’s fine if it’s beneficial repurposing”. Beneficial repurposing, I am afraid, is often in the eye of the beholder, and there can be many different perspectives on what it is. The other contextual point I wish to add—these are figures from 2018, which will undoubtedly be out of date—is that what has been described as “the new enclosure”, from the late 1970s to 2019, has seen 10% of what was public land in Britain transferred into private hands. That is 2 million hectares of land. This is probably not large in terms of scale, but it would be yet more loss of public good for private profit, not for the people who have already lost so much. I finally note the strong vote for the recent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, on protecting blue and green spaces: that is the House strongly showing what it wants to do.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 250. I know that many noble Lords are much better versed in the law around this than I am. However, I want to touch on the point about land held in trust for enjoyment by the public. In situations where such a purchase will mean that the public’s rights of enjoyment will not be maintained, surely there should at least be extensive consultation with local communities, with their views taken into account, and where there is strong objection, surely at the very least some alternative provision should be made.

Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, I am concerned that this amendment will erode the rights of the general public and that they will not have a suitable, easily accessible mechanism to defend their rights or negotiate a solution to satisfy both parties. The law is beyond the reach of most normal people as it is so expensive. Judicial review would probably be off-putting to local communities not familiar with law.

If I have read this amendment correctly, it would appear to backdate this right. Surely that is very unusual and we ought to be looking to the future. I hope that when this issue is given further consideration by the Government, they will consider the rights of local people and ensure that their voices are heard and they are given primary consideration.

My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee. I want to follow up briefly, because in this debate we are getting a more comprehensive view of the problem and, potentially, of the solution. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to the fact that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 brought in the provisions now in the Local Government Act 1972. Last time we were told about these ancient pieces of legislation: the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906. The fact that they are ancient pieces of legislation is neither here nor there. The thing we are dealing with was inserted in 1980, which is why the Amendment refers to 1980.

What should happen in the future? In future, if land to which the public have some rights of enjoyment and access is to be disposed of by a local authority, the local authority should consult. And what the legislation requires is not too onerous: it is to advertise for two weeks and consider any objections raised. This is hardly too much. That is for the future. Clearly, the public benefit should be incorporated into whatever decisions are made as a consequence of that.

For about 45 years local authorities thought, because of what is in Sections 122(2B) and 123(2B) of the Local Government Act 1972, that if they did not do that, not only was the sale still valid but the trusts relating to that legislation were extinguished. They were wrong about that, so we have to put them back in that situation. Essentially, we have to look back and say, in all these decisions made over that period, where local authorities operated on what turned out to be a false basis, they must take into account the public benefit that might have been derived from the trust and find some other way of doing it. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, explained to us how, in one instance, it is the intention of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to ensure that significant public benefit continues to be provided by way of access to open space and public enjoyment. That is exactly where we need to go. But the legislation needs to reflect both the requirement for consultation and that there may be some continuing necessity for the public benefit either to be enjoyed in that open space or by some alternative means.

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just said. Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we all complain that there are no more playing fields, for example. This smells a bit like that. It is almost land that has been protected by accident by a legal quirk that has prevented it being developed subsequently or sold on for development unwisely.

To my mind, this is surely a case-by-case matter. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made a very powerful case for Wimbledon. Maybe he is right, but I am sure that plenty of sites around the country are not quite so green and lovely in their eventual outcome. I find it difficult to support an Amendment that alters everything across the board. Going back, almost in a time machine, doing a proper consultation and the substitution of what is being lost has to be the approach, rather than what is proposed in this amendment.

My Lords, this is quite a wide-ranging group of amendments, and fairly disparate at that. I will first briefly focus on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In Committee he raised those issues about the publication of public notices, with which I had, and continue to have, some sympathy.

The sad demise of the printed local newspaper means that fewer and fewer people will have access to the public notices. This is partly in reference to Amendment 250, because where would people read the notice about Wimbledon Park or any other site of that sort? I am sympathetic to the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes in his amendment.

Moving to Amendments 242 and 243 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I remember the long debates we had on this very issue during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I recall that it was the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who passed the levelling-up Bill, now Act, and included in it the very issue he now wishes to undo.

We have been listening to arguments about growth and economic development, but for many parts of the country, without access to land at affordable prices for the public good, those sorts of developments, such as community health centres and so on, will never come to fruition. We had those arguments on the levelling-up Bill. For me they are still important issues that we ought to respect, so for the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I am afraid it is a big cross—I cannot support those amendments.

This leads us on to Amendment 250. It is always worth looking through the other lens of an issue of development, or no development, whether it is for the public good, public well-being and economic development, or the lens of the residents who live in the area. I have used that theme throughout discussions on this Bill. It is very important to those of us on these Benches that the views of local people who are affected by a development, be it a national strategic infrastructure project, a local planning application, mayoral development corporation plans or this issue, should and must be at the heart of those decisions.

What happens on the land affects their lives. It might be that the development is beneficial but, unless you take local people with you, it will not be, because they will constantly oppose it. I hear the legal arguments, but let us listen to people. I have been a local councillor for many years, and one thing I know for certain is that if you try to impose a decision on people—certainly in Yorkshire, anyway; I do not know about the rest of the country—and say, “It’s to do with the law. This is what’s been agreed. It’s bound to be good for you”, they will make their voice heard loud and strong and long. You need to take people with you on these big issues.

As far as I can see, that has been the utter failure of what is happening, particularly in the Wimbledon Park issue. There may be other similar sites across the country; they are not cited in the amendment. But you cannot make decisions of this enormity without proper, full consultation: listening to voices, hearing what they have to say, responding to them and not just doing a steamroller job, which too many developments seem to want to do.

I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, suggested that people can go to judicial review. Call me cynical, but lawyers love people going to judicial review because it helps their income line. Perhaps they have missed this point but, during the course of the Bill, we have discussed how fewer recourses to judicial review ought to be permitted.

It seems that we are closing out local voices and making it more difficult for them to go to the law to have their case heard, none of which is acceptable. Without the merits of the issue in question, it seems that what is needed is a full, proper and open consultation with local people to hear what they have to say—though I fear that, because we have had this steamroller going on, we will lose the ability to be heard when making rational arguments, because people will feel that they are not being listened to by folk who want to make a lot of money out of development.

I am getting the hard stare from the Government Whip, but these are important issues. Listen to people, and then we might get some of this right.

My Lords, I will say just one sentence in support of Amendment 238A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is a deeply humane, very minor amendment, and I hope that the Government will get behind it.

My Lords, Amendments 238ZA, 238ZB and 238ZC from my noble friend Lord Lucas seek to change the definition of a local newspaper for the purpose of compulsory purchase orders. I listened carefully to his argument for these changes, but we have some concerns that these amendments might be overly prescriptive and place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. That said, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on improving the transparency of public notices relating to CPOs. Clearly, where CPO powers are exercised by Ministers or Natural England, the public should be made aware, so can the Minister set out the Government’s assessment of the current requirements and confirm whether Ministers have plans to strengthen them?

Amendments 242 and 243, in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, seek to return to the position whereby farmers are paid the market value of their land when it is subject to compulsory purchase. As we have heard, these amendments seek to reverse changes made under the previous Government, but under this Government the situation of farmers has changed significantly. The Government’s policies have put farmers in an impossible position. Noble Lords listening to this morning’s “Today” programme will have heard James Rebanks’s comments on the challenges faced by farming communities across this country.

We have spoken consistently of the need for food security, and Ministers need to deliver a fairer deal for farmers. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will consider giving farmers whose land is subject to compulsory purchase the fair market price for their land? While we may not get an agreement this evening, we hope that Ministers will take on board these concerns and seek properly to support farmers across this country.

Amendment 251, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, also speaks to fairness in the compulsory purchase system. The amendment calls for a report on the compatibility of compulsory purchase powers with the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes a specific right to property. Given the expansion in compulsory purchase powers in the Bill, we agree with my noble friend that the impact of these powers on landowners’ rights should be considered carefully and in full. We hope that the Government can give an undertaking that they will commence a report on that.

Finally, Amendment 250 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. Listening to our proceedings, I am not quite sure whether the things I thought we would be debating have been debated. None the less, this amendment seeks to establish legal clarity. We have seen too many examples of development being blocked after permission has been granted, based on historic technicalities. There will be circumstances where historic constraints are appropriate and should be heeded, but there have also been some very high-profile examples of historic technicalities resulting in perverse outcomes in the planning process, inappropriately blocking the delivery of much-needed homes.

I will take this opportunity to describe my understanding of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked a lot about consultation, but it is my understanding that this amendment would not change in any way the requirement for consultation. Also, if there is a change of use for any piece of land, planning permission will still be needed, and the things we have discussed in this debate can be relooked at, discussed and consulted on, and decisions can then be made on the proposed changes.

I understand that the Government are looking seriously at that, which I welcome. These are complex and technical issues, but I hope that the idea that the decision will come in future legislation can be made much clearer. Perhaps the Minister could say that it could be brought back in the devolution Bill, which is in the other place and is likely to come here in the new year. That would be an ideal way forward in our opinion.

We need legal clarity. Given the hour that this amendment will come for a decision, we may not get a final answer tonight. However, I hope that Ministers will continue to talk to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments, take them away, look at them in detail and, very soon, in the next available Bill, establish a better way forward.

My Lords, I am grateful for that very interesting debate on a wide-ranging set of issues in the Bill. There are a number of amendments in this group relating to compulsory purchase. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about that subject as well as the other issues raised in this group. I hope noble Lords will understand that, out of respect to you, these require a fuller response than I would otherwise have given at this late hour, because I think it important that I respond to the points that have been made.

Amendment 238A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, relates to compulsory purchase compensation rules and home loss payments. The amendment would ensure that homeowners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action required.

A home loss payment is a separate payment made to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. It is an amount paid in addition to compensation for the market value of a property subject to a CPO. Under current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with notices or orders served on them to make improvements to their land or properties, their right to basic and occupiers loss payments is already excluded.

As mentioned in the previous debates on this issue, there are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments, which is an inconsistency. Clause 105 of the Bill amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 to apply this exclusion to home loss payments. Where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be paid compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation and other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. Clause 105 does not prevent these other heads of compensation or costs being claimed. It will be for local authorities to decide whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order, taking into account the circumstances of the property owner.

Furthermore, individuals are able to challenge improvement notices or orders served on them by local authorities, and Clause 105 does nothing to interfere with this right. The provision introduced by Clause 105 will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring substandard properties back into use as housing where there is a compelling case in the public interest, and this will enable more empty properties to be used as family homes and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.

Amendments 238ZA to 238ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper which notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain criteria. As mentioned in previous debates, the legislation already requires authorities to publish notices in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. As introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, CPO notices are also published on the acquiring authorities’ websites. The purpose of this change was to modernise the CPO process to ensure that local people are fully informed. I agree with the comments made by Peers in the debate on these amendments that there are significant costs associated with publishing newspaper notices, and we therefore have to be mindful of adding new burdens to already hard-pressed local authorities.

That is why the Government have introduced Clause 107 in the Bill. The purpose of Clause 107 is to simplify the information required to be published in CPO newspaper notices, to reduce administrative costs and to improve the content of such notices. The amendments would also increase the complexity of the CPO process. Amending the existing requirement by stipulating in primary legislation a certain type of local newspaper would create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty, make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process and increase the potential risk of legal challenges, resulting in additional costs, and in delay in decision-making and in the delivery of benefits in the public interest.

I reassure the noble Lord that DCMS has committed to a review of statutory notices as part of the local media strategy. I, for one, really welcome that; it is very much time we did it. It is important that a coherent and co-ordinated approach be taken to this issue, rather than picking it up piecemeal. For these reasons, while we agree with the intention behind the amendments, I hope noble Lords will not press them.

Amendments 242 and 243, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, relate to compulsory purchase compensation. The amendments would repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, where justified in the public interest, for certain types of schemes. They also seek to omit Clause 107 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient.

The amendments would remove the power introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on behalf of the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Gove, which allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase to pay reduced value for land where it is justified in the public interest. The public interest test ensures authorities are not permitted to unjustifiably interfere with the human rights of individuals via the use of the power to remove hope value by directions.

As mentioned in previous debates on this issue, to support the delivery of housing that the country desperately needs we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. Many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations on land values. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused, meaning that the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, enabling infrastructure and schools is more costly.

The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of our communities. We believe it is right that landowners, including farmers, receive a fair value for their land, but that authorities should not have to compensate landowners for the value of the prospect of a hypothetical planning permission being granted for certain types of development, when to do so is demonstrated to be in the public interest.

On Amendment 250, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, I am grateful to him for raising this important matter both in Committee and during this debate. The amendment relates to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is preserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following statutory consultation procedures. Open and green spaces, including public parks, are an essential part of local social infrastructure. They are the lifeblood of local communities. When people are asked what they value about their local area, parks and green spaces are consistently cited as a priority, particularly for those living in urban areas.

The Government are committed to continuing to explore how we might seek to resolve the issues that have come to light following the Supreme Court’s judgement in R (Day) v Shropshire Council. We welcome the ongoing engagement with Peers to that end. Irrespective of the outcome of this debate, our exploration of this issue has revealed the fragmentary and complex nature of existing legislation relating to the protection of public recreational space. The Government are therefore announcing a wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected. We will aim to bring coherence to the legal framework, making protections more transparent and accessible, so that communities can protect their most valued open spaces.

The Government recognise that the issues relating to statutory trusts need to be resolved. We have engaged proactively with Peers on this matter and have had productive discussions. As a result, we are committed to working at pace to find a solution that works for developers and councils, while safeguarding the local spaces that are most valued by communities. We will seek to resolve this issue in future legislation.

However, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, will not resolve this issue effectively. It would create a contradiction to the procedures in the Local Government Act 1972 and would operate retrospectively, which could have unintended consequences. It would not provide robust safeguards which would ensure that local authorities are not incentivised to sell land without following the statutory consultation process. The duty to consult before disposing of land subject to a statutory trust remains an important safeguard, as it gives local communities an opportunity to speak up in favour of preserving their most important local spaces. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, would impact on other government priorities, such as increasing tree canopy and woodland cover to 16.5% of total land area by 2050 and ensuring that everyone lives within a 15-minute walk of green or blue space.

Our cherished public green spaces must be protected for future generations, and we need to find a solution that will balance this duty while enabling the development of land to house our young people and drive our economy. I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.

Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, relates to the use of compulsory purchase powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights are adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities.

As mentioned in previous debates on this topic, the power to compulsorily acquire any person’s land is a draconian power which engages the European Convention on Human Rights and raises questions of common law fairness. It is a fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process that the decision-maker must be sure that the use of the power justifies interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. In every instance of the use of a CPO, authorities must demonstrate to the decision-maker that such an interference is so justified.

When making a decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest, the decision-maker will always give consideration to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to, and in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of, the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected. To uphold the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR, the compulsory purchase process enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of inquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent inspector reporting to the Secretary of State, whose decision is subject to legal challenge.

When justifying their CPOs, the government guidance on compulsory purchase is clear that acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impacts on human rights from the respective order have been considered. To help justify and limit infringements of ECHR rights, a person who is entitled to compensation may request an advance payment of that compensation from the acquiring authority. If an advance payment is requested, the acquiring authority must make the payment once it has begun implementing the CPO and within a specified timeframe.

To address the noble Lord’s comments from Committee directly, first, where a CPO is made with a direction for the non-payment of hope value, for the direction and the CPO to take effect there must be a compelling case in the public interest as the CPO and the direction itself must be justified in the public interest. Where the land subject to a CPO with a direction had a long-established realistic prospect of planning permission for future development, any hope value direction would need to be justified by a sufficient public benefit.

Secondly, in relation to safeguarding the interests of landowners who have had land acquired without being compensated for hope value, where an authority has not fulfilled the commitments it relied on when obtaining the CPO and the direction which allowed it to acquire the land without hope value, landowners can seek directions from the Secretary of State for the payment of the compensation they missed out on. Where the Secretary of State decides that such compensation is payable, it must be paid by the acquiring authority.

The noble Lord invited me to say plainly that, where property is taken by compulsion, there must always be fair dealing. Compulsory purchase should only ever be considered where efforts to acquire land by agreement have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for the use of a CPO. In addition, directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation must always be justified in the public interest. There are no exceptions to these principles.

The compulsory purchase process provides necessary protections for the rights of individuals affected by compulsory purchase. It already requires that individual CPOs are consistent with the ECHR, which is the aim of this amendment. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a full and helpful reply to my Amendment. I look forward to the meetings which we are in the process of arranging. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 238ZA withdrawn.

Amendments 238ZB and 238ZC not moved.

Clause 105: Home loss payments: exclusions

Amendment 238A not moved.