HC Deb 06 June 1932 vol 266 cc1746-50

Provisions as to the Validity and Date of Operation of Compulsory Purchase Orders.

  1. 1. So soon as may b after a compulsory purchase order has been confirmed 1747 by the Minister the authority by whom the order was made shall publish in a local newspaper a notice in the prescribed from stating that the order has been. so confirmed and naming a place where a copy of the order and of any map therein referred to may be seen at all reasonable hours and shall serve a like notice on every person who, having given notice of his objection to the order, appeared at the local inquiry in support of his objection.
  2. 2. If any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provision contained therein, on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act or of any order or regulation made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the order, he may within six weeks after the date on which notice of its confirmation is published in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph make an application for the purpose to the High Court, and upon any such application the Court—
    1. (a) may by interim order suspend the operation of the order or of any provision contained therein, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings; and
    2. (b) if satisfied that the order or any provision contained therein is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act or of any order or regulation made thereunder not having been complied with, may quash the order or any provision contained therein, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.
  3. 3. Subject to the provisions of the last preceding paragraph, a compulsory purchase order shall not, either before or after it has been confirmed, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever, and shall become operative at the expiration of six weeks from the date on which notice of its confirmation is published in accordance with the provisions of paragraph one of this Part of this Schedule.
  4. 4.Except by leave of the Court of Appeal, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this Schedule.
  5. 5. This Part of this Schedule does not apply to an order which is provisional only until confirmed by Parliament.—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Sir R. GOWER

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in line 16, to leave out the words "thirty-three and," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty to."

I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Schedule agreed to.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in line 79, to leave out the words "either before or."

This Amendment raises a matter of some importance, which is to reserve to the individual the right of questioning the whole action of the local authority in passing a resolution at the earliest opportunity, if he wishes to take a question to the court when the action is ultra vires. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), at an earlier stage referred to the constitutional question and said that a scheme might be questioned on its final approval but not before. The words of paragraph 4 of Part II of the proposed new Schedule are: Subject to the provisions of paragraphs two and three of this Part of this Schedule, the validity of a scheme shall not, either before or after it has been approved or made, be called in question in any legal proceedings whatsoever, I desire to leave out the words "either before or," that is to say, I desire to preserve the right to question the validity of a scheme at the earliest opportunity and before its final approval. To do so must be to the advantage of everybody concerned, if the local authority's action goes beyond the powers conferred by the Act. It must be to the advantage both of the local authority itself and of the person affected, to have a decision at the earliest possible time as to whether the proposed action is illegal or not. If it is illegal then the local authority can at once alter the scheme and make it legal; instead of spending time and trouble upon measures which may turn out to be ultra vires. The individual would be benefited, because he would be able to deal with his property instead of having it tied up. Between the passing of the resolution which is the commencement of the proceedings and the final approval of the scheme, two or three years may elapse, and it seems foolish that in a case such as my Amendment contemplates, everybody should do a loc of useless work on a scheme which eventually is decided to be illegal. The Amendment would enable the question of legality or illegality to be raised in the courts at once.

Sir R. GOWER

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Schedule.

Sir H. YOUNG

I almost regret that the last Amendment which we have to consider to-night, is not one which I can recommend the House to accept, and that we have not had the happy ending to the tale which we might have desired. But I believe that the Amendment is based upon a misunderstanding as to the very full powers which are given in the Bill to the aggrieved person to test the validity of the scheme and also as to the reasons why those powers are denned in the way they are denned, by reference to the time at which the application can be made. As I am advised, the first difference between the scheme of the Bill and the proposal in the Amendment is that the scheme of the Bill provides for procedure by application, whereas my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would preserve what I may, with great diffidence, describe as the more old-fashioned right of procedure by injunction. Procedure by application is perhaps the more economical method.

The second difference is as to the stage at which the application may be made and I cannot help thinking that my hon. and learned Friend has got it actually the wrong way round. I think that the provision, of the Bill will prevent a waste of expenditure upon legal proceedings which may subsequently turn out to be quite unnecessary. What the Bill says is that you are not to have recourse to legal proceedings until you are sure that there is something to have proceedings about, whereas my hon. and learned Friend would rather entice people to start legal proceedings at the stage of the development of a plan, and it might turn out in the long run, because the scheme was never approved or for some other reason, that they had no need to have recourse to their legal remedy at all. In these circumstances I trust that further examination will persuade my hon. and learned Friend to agree with me that on the whole the scheme in the Bill is the most practical, that it secures ample rights, that it is the most convenient method by which the aggrieved person may pursue his legal remedy, and that it secures it to him at the first moment that it is prudent and wise for him to undertake proceedings.

Amendment to the proposed Schedule negatived.

Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

Back to