HC Deb 26 October 1966 vol 734 cc1176-84

Amendment made: In page 6, fine 42, leave out from 'as' to end of line 6 on page 7 and insert: 'it applies to a compulsory acquisition by a Minister in a case falling within section 1(1) of that Act: Provided that, in relation to any compulsory acquisition by the Commission,—

  1. (a) in section 1 of that Act any reference to Schedule 1 to that Act, and
  2. (b) in Part IV of that Schedule any reference to that Act or that Schedule,
shall be construed as a reference to that Act or Schedule (as the case may be) as modified by or under this Part of this Act'.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, to leave out lines 38 and 39 and to insert: '(4) By statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, the Minister whose authority is required in relation to a compulsory purchase order may order that so far as that compulsory purchase is concerned'.

The Clause sets out what is called the normal procedure for compulsory purchase orders. It is normal in that it is not so extraordinary and special as the procedures set out in Clause 8, but otherwise I would not call it normal by any means. One abnormality is that under subsection (4) the Commission can make a compulsory purchase order without specifying the purpose for which it desires to acquire the land. Here again, I can recollect no occasion on which the House has given power to an elected or an appointed body to take the subject's land without stating the purpose for which it requires it. Normally, any body which has compulsory powers can use them only for the purposes stated in the Statute which gave it those powers.

In this case, as we saw in our earlier discussion, the Commission has power to acquire land with no particular purpose in mind. I suppose that it follows, in the mind of the draftsman of the Bill, that the Commission should not be obliged to state in the notice relating to the compulsory purchase order the purpose for which it wants the land. There may be some need for secrecy. If on any particular occasion there is, the Minister should come to Parliament and say clearly, "In the public interest, neither the Commission nor I can state the purpose for which it wants this land." This should be frankly stated to the House, if so, and that is what the Amendment is intended to achieve.

If it is desired that the Commission should not state the purpose for which it wants a piece of land, the Minister should seek an Order of Parliament to that effect, otherwise the normal rules about compulsory purchase should apply—that the acquiring authority should state the purpose for which it wants the land.

There is a practical point which should be taken into consideration. Suppose that the Commission is acquiring a part of someone's land and is therefore severing the land by a compulsory purchase order. The owner of the land will have certain rights of compensation for damage to the land which is left in his possession. How is he to know whether or not it will be damaged unless he knows the purpose for which the Commission intends to use the adjoining land? A more substantive question is, how is the unfortunate victim to know whether he should oppose the compulsory purchase order or not unless he knows the purpose for which the land is to be used?

Normally, if one wishes the Minister to hold an inquiry into a compulsory purchase order and to be heard before a representative appointed by him, one considers whether the purpose for which the order is made is correct for that land. The order may state that the land is needed for an electricity substation and one may argue that the substation would be better situated on a vacant piece of land down the road than in one's back garden. One then has something to argue. But how does the victim of a compulsory purchase order know whether he should ask the Minister to hold a public inquiry or whether he has any case against the order, unless he is told the purpose for which the land is required?

This provision, as it stands, is monstrous. I cannot think of any occasion when this may happen, but we recognise in the Amendment that the Minister may be able to prove to Parliament, in a particular case, that the purpose should not be stated. We say that, in that case, he should come before the House and say so.

As the Clause stands, an owner can have his property taken away from him by a compulsory purchase order without the slightest clue as to the purpose for which it will be used by the Commission and, therefore, without any clue as to whether or not he would have any case for opposing it. This is monstrous.

Mr. John Wells

There can be no doubt that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about an owner who suffers from severance without the purpose of the compulsory purchase acquisition being given to him could be very grave. This particularly applies to owners of horticultural holdings on the fringes of large cities.

The Minister and Parliamentary Secretary have been made well aware in Committee of my interests in horticulture. They agree with me that there is this continuing pattern of farm, horticulture, suburbs and then city centre. This has been the traditional layout of our towns; from the outwards in. The sort of areas which the Commission is likely to deal with are those very areas in which horticultural growers tend to have their livelihood.

I see no reason for this possible secrecy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I cannot see why an electricity substation or anything else should not be stated. I do not see why a civilian body should be given these extraordinary powers; except that under the present Government we are slowly slipping into a totalitarian system where the Government do things without stating any reason to the private citizen. For this reason every private citizen will wholeheartedly reject the thinking behind the Bill. I trust that the Minister will give us an assurance on this point.

The previous Amendment, which we whistled through in a few seconds—because the Minister merely said that it was a "drafting Amendment"—is yet another indication of the slipshod methods of the Minister and his Department. I trust that he will accept my hon. Friend's proposal or at least have the grace to have a suitable Amendment made in another place.

Mr. Skeffington

Perhaps I can assist the House. With respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it seems that the Amendment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "purpose".

There are two appointed days in the Bill. After the first appointed day, and before the second, the purposes for which land can be acquired by the Commission are set out in Clause 6(4). There are four categories, (a), (b), (c) and (d), set out. There may come, after the proper procedure has been gone through, the second appointed day, after which the Commission can acquire land in much wider categories.

The provision as now drafted provides that when the second appointed day has arrived, and the purposes of the Commission are much wider, the limiting provision in the Clause disappears. It is in that sense the the word "purpose" is used. It is when the second appointed day has arrived that there must be provision for that part of the Clause to drop out.

11.30 p.m.

What I think hon. and right hon. Members opposite are thinking is that here "purpose" means land use, and that therefore only land owners' rights will be prejudiced because they will not know the land use. But it has been said again and again, and perhaps I might now repeat it—that the Commission, even in those circumstances, after the second appointed day will only work when there is a planning permission, either by the local authority or by the Minister. That is provided for in Clause (3). Therefore, if there is any question of severance or injurious affection it will be part of the procedure, with all that that entails.

I really think that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has confused purpose with use, but he will now see that it is quite obvious that one must provide for the limitations of Clause 6(4) and then afterwards rely on the general planning provisions.

Mr. Graham Page

The Minister has just said something that is very important, but I cannot follow it in the Bill as it stands. He said that after the second appointed day the Commission will only acquire land when there is planning permission. That does not follow from the paragraphs in subsection (3). It is true that there may be general development orders over the land, but not planning permission. Then he says that we have misunderstood "purpose". Perhaps I may ask him quite specifically: will the Land Commission in a compulsory purchase order have to state the purpose for which the land is to be used, or the planning permission which it has over the land?

Mr. Skeffington

The Commission will be acting within the planning apparatus and, as a result, the normal rights of the individual will be safeguarded in that way.

Mr. Allason

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be a little more helpful here. Is he referring to subsection (3) of Clause 6 or of Clause 7? It does not seem to follow from Clause 7, but from Clause 6 where, in subsection (3,a) there is the question of planning permission. Paragraph (d) says solely … the land forms part of an area designated as the site of a new town … It follows that if anyone owns any land within the designated area of a new town that land can be taken from him by compulsory purchase, and the sole reason given in the compulsory purchase notice served on the owner, on which the owner may wish to object, is that the land is part of an area designated for a new town, and the Commission is then entitled to get the land.

The land concerned may be a quiet residential area where the intention is to introduce some rather unpleasant factory, or something like that. In those circumstances, the owner will have no right to object on the grounds that the land is being taken from him for an objectionable purpose, because the only purpose he will be shown is that the land is part of the designated area of a new town. In that case, there is no planning permission whatever, so I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary can say that in all cases there must be planning permission before there can be compulsory purchase.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 41, leave out from 'a' to 'order' in line 42 and insert: notice relating to a compulsory purchase'.—[Mr. Willey.]

Mr. Farr

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 21, at the end to insert: (6) A compulsory purchase order which is made under the provisions of this section as it affects the winning and working of minerals, shall have effect only in relation to the minerals to be extracted, whilst the title to the land containing such minerals shall remains with the original owner. It is with a great deal of optimism that I move this Amendment. We have had a series of negative replies from the Government, but I feel that a sensible Amendment of this type can do nothing but appeal to the Minister. As he will recall, in Committee we raised what we considered a sound Amendment asking that the procedure prescribed under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1966, should first be exhausted before the Land Commission came into the field to acquire minerals. We understood from the reply which the Minister was good enough to explain with great courtesy and at some length, that that Act was unsatisfactory for two reasons.

First, it was a consolidating Act and, secondly and more important, it did not embrace sand and gravels among the minerals it referred to. In his remarks in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said: In the meantime, assurances have been sought that if necessary, to expedite the provision particularly of sand and gravel, in suitable circumstances the Land Commission could purchase the land.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 30th June, 1966; c. 243.] It is not the desire of hon. Members on this side of the House to hamstring the acquisition of minerals of any sort where they are urgently needed in the national interest. Incidentally, I am not aware of an example where minerals have not been readily made available when needed. The Minister apparently requires the Land Commission to have these additional powers, as explained in Committee, to expendite the provision of all minerals. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide just that without the Minister burdening himself with the ownership of the land within which the minerals lie.

Some hon. Members on both sides of the House might think this a matter of little importance. Often when minerals have been extracted and the workings are exhausted little is left but a hole in the ground. It is no asset but could be a burden to someone. That applies to some minerals, but I have particularly in mind iron ore deposits which lie very near the surface in many parts of the country and especially in Northamptonshire. Thousands of acres have been worked there and from the royalties which the owners receive there is a deduction, in some cases amounting to 50 per cent., towards a restoration fund. The restoration scheme has worked well. Great care has been taken by the operators, the subsoil has been returned, then the topsoil and land drains, and in a very few years the land has been restored to those who wish to farm it, in good heart and condition. It can then in no way be compared to merely a large hole or pit.

If the Minister desires these powers of acquisition to assist the provision of minerals, he could have all that he wants by applying the provision specifically to the minerals needed and without the quite unnecessary acquisition by the State through the Commission of large areas of good farmland from which it is in the national interest that maximum product should be achieved with the minimum of disruption.

Mr. Willey

I appreciate the interest and concern of the hon. Member for Har-borough (Mr. Farr) in this, but he will recognise that we have had close consultation with the minerals industry and have reached agreement about the steps which we should take under the Bill.

The difficulty about the Amendment is that it is not limited to cases in which there is a severance of ownership between the minerals and the rest of the land. The Amendment would hamstring the Commission and in some cases would prejudice the land owner. It would hamstring the Commission because it might be in the public interest that minerals should be worked which could not be worked without some interference with the land. Similarly the landowner might prefer to sell the land and not to dispose only of the minerals. For these reasons, I do not think that we can tackle the problem in the way which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Allason

I am astonished that the Minister suggests that he is trying to protect the land owner. We are discussing compulsory purchase. At the beginning of Clause 6 there is the operation of the voluntary system. If the land owner wants to sell this land, there is nothing in the Amendment which would prevent him from selling it to the Land Commission. The Minister's excuse is utter nonsense. And that leaves very little in the Minister's case.

He spoke of close consultation with the minerals industry, with the implication that they are entirely satisfied with the situation, but I do not think that that is the case with all the interests concerned with the industry. I ask the Minister to look at this proposal again and, if he cannot accept it at this stage, to see whether he should not put down an Amendment on similar lines in another place.

Mr. Willey

The fact that it is compulsory purchase does not affect the point which I made—that the owner may wish to dispose of his complete interest in the land.

Amendment negatived.