HC Deb 22 February 1973 vol 851 cc879-86
Mr. Mulley

I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 17, line 19, at end insert: 'and if so required by the owner thereof shall'. This amendment was moved in similar form in Committee, where we had a considerable discussion on it, but I make no apology for raising the matter again tonight, even at such a late hour, because it is a point to which we attach great importance and one which has been the subject of a great deal of attention from those concerned outside.

The new clause, which is now Clause 20, has been generally accepted as an important innovation, since it gives highway authorities the power to acquire land compulsorily under subsection 1, in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the use of a highway, while subsection 2 permits them, by agreement, to acquire land the enjoyment of which is seriously affected by the use of the highway.

What they do not have to do, and what this amendment is directed to requiring them to do, is to acquire the land if, in the opinion of the highway authority, it is not necessary hut, in the opinion of the owner or occupant of the property, it is. It is a very one-way system. A highway authority can say, "We shall buy this land or property because you are complaining that its amenities are destroyed by virtue of the public works", and an agreement can be made. But if the highway authority is difficult or feels that it wants to be extremely economical in its use of public funds, it can refuse to make such agreement and accordingly the person concerned has to continue living on that property. He may get some compensation by way of injurious affection, but in not nearly the same way as if he could require the local authority, as people can under the blight provisions, to take over the property at a proper valuation.

1.0 a.m.

As we know, some people, particularly the elderly, are more worried than others by noise and the consequences of a highway running very close, in some cases just outside windows. As the Bill is drafted, whether that is such as to seriously affect the enjoyment of the land in question is entirely at the discretion of the highway authority. The owner or occupier ought also to have a view. In the event of a dispute as to whether a claim was reasonable, the matter could always be settled by the courts. This would not give the owner or occupier any right, without a check, to say, "You have to buy my property". As is always the case, disputes will arise, under all parts of the Bill, and there is recourse to the courts and other procedures to satisfy them. But at present the Bill is wholly geared on the side of the local authority and there is no right to the owner to exercise what in other parts of the Bill would be a blight notice to require the property to be taken over.

If I may make a pun, we feel that this is the one blight on an otherwise admirable clause. Even at this late stage in the progress of the Bill, I hope that the Government will look at this again to see whether it is possible to meet the anxieties of the many people who have written to me and the surveyors and others who have made representations to this effect.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydvil)

I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has said. We discussed this matter in some detail in Committee. One of the major targets of criticism of the Bill by many groups and professional organisations, ranging from Justice to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, has been the failure of the clause to provide a power for the resident owner-occupier to serve a blight notice when he believes his property to be adversely affected.

The clause gives tremendous discretion to the local authority to acquire a property. If it does not wish to do so and wishes to dispute whether there has been an adverse effect as a result of developments, the householder can take no action to challenge the local authority's discretion.

We feel strongly that, alongside the new discretionary power given to local authorities to acquire property that is adversely affected, the Government should also give the right to the individual to challenge the local authority and to say, "I think that my house is seriously affected, whatever you say." The local authority then would have perfectly reasonable power to oppose a blight notice and, if necessary, the matter could be resolved in the courts. But at least the individual householder should have the right to try to challenge the point, especially if the local authority is not willing to comply with the spirit of the clause.

In Committee the Under-Secretary said, at column 234, that he could see considerable difficulties in accommodating our point where temporary disturbance was created. He said that he would nevertheless look seriously at the question of permanent and serious disturbance. He has not produced anything on Report but I would ask him now to tell us whether he has considered the matter. Will he now put down an amendment giving a right to the individual to serve a notice where serious and permanent disturbance is created by the works of a local or public authority? That would be establishing a right which is sought not only by hon. Members but by a large variety of organisations which are deeply involved in these issues and which believe this to be a major omission.

Mr. Julius Silverman

I also rise to support this very important amendment. We are dealing here with probably the most serious defect in the Bill. It has been recognised as such by many authorities. I wish to speak from my practical experience. As I have said before in the House my constituency includes the interchange known as the Gravelly interchange or sometimes as "spaghetti junction" where many hundreds of house-owners are affected by the development of the M6 through Birmingham. People react differently to this sort of nuisance and noise. Some of them may be content to live in their present homes provided they get the necessary mitigation by insulation and other works, and the necessary compensation. Some find the situation intolerable, and what they desire most of all is to get away and get out. I suggest that some provision should be made for those who do not desire to live in these circumstances.

That is what the amendment is about. I realise, as the Minister said, that this cannot apply to temporary arrangements under which temporary works are done. It would be unreasonable to expect a responsible authority to buy if the work is merely temporary. But where the trouble is permanent the owner should have the right to serve a notice. I hope that even at this stage the Minister will look at the matter again. It is of great importance for many houseowners and as has been said already, practically all the various authorities and the various learned organisations would approve of such an amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I think that hon. Members will agree that whenever a powerful case has been put my right hon. Friend and I have tried to consider it with a view to meeting the case wherever it can be met. This matter was discussed in Committee and we have given a great deal of consideration to the points that were made. Our investigation has led us to take the same view that we took during the Committee stage. It is mainly because in the case of properties which are seriously affected by the carrying out of works, it would be wrong to require a local authority highway authority to buy properties which it does not need and which may be subject to a purely transitional disturbance. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it should be only where serious and permanent damage is done. But the Bill already provides a good measure of protection to be given to the blighted occupiers. It gives them the prospect that the highway authority will be able to provide sound insulation or at its discretion to acquire properties that are severely affected.

The question is whether the local authority will behave in the spirit of the Bill. I have no reason to think that it will not do so. If hon. Members feel that there is evidence of authorities that will not, my right hon. Friend and I would very much like to have it. We expect to introduce at a later stage a provision enabling the highway authority to reimburse temporary hotel expenses while the noise from the carrying out of the works is at its worst, so we are meeting the point about the temporary nuisance.

The real problem is in requiring local authorities to buy with public funds properties that they do not need.

Mr. Julius Silverman

The Minister said that he hopes that local authorities will act within the spirit of the Bill. But they may not be the highway authority. It may be that the hon. Gentleman's Department is the highway authority. Will the Department act within the spirit of the Bill and be prepared to buy houses that have been seriously injuriously affected by public works?

Mr. Griffiths

I will not give an undertaking now that my Department will for all time buy out all properties seriously affected, because it is a matter of judgment as to how serious is serious or how permanent is permanent. But I do give an undertaking that my Department, which is a major road-builder in its own right, most certainly will operate entirely within the spirit of the Bill.

Mr. Mulley

It is impossible to furnish any of the evidence for which the hon. Gentleman asked, because the powers do not exist. Therefore, we do not know whether local authorities will or will not exercise the discretionary power given them. So far, when they have been told, "You are bringing this very near my house. It will be a great nuisance", they have said, "We should like to help you, but the law does not permit us to buy anything that is not on the line of the road." That is why this innovation has been made.

As to local authorities not wanting to buy property they do not need, if that is to be the criterion, the clause is superfluous, because it says that they can do it by agreement. Clearly, they will not need either of these two provisions. They will be doing it to try to mitigate a nuisance. That is the principle we want to be extended.

Mr. Griffiths

It is the question of forcing them to buy what they do not need. The clause says that they should behave like good neighbours and agree to acquire the property from people who would be seriously affected. But it is a matter of not forcing them to do so, as the amendment would.

Where properties are affected by the use of new and improved highways, the Bill's proposals already give even wider protection than before to those with qualifying interests. For example, if a property is depreciated, compensation is paid and sound-proofing is provided on the responsibility of the highway authority. I believe that in most cases those two measures would bring up the value of the affected properties in the open market to a point where the owner will not necessarily suffer all that much financial loss.

To give the owner-occupiers of affected properties the right to require the highway authority to buy them is a proposition that can easily be made in the persuasive way in which the hon. Gentleman has made it. The disturbance is to be permanent. It is to be serious and, as he said, the purchase will be by agreement, or, if there is a disagreement it can be settled in court. But the amendment does not say that. As the Bill is drafted, the introduction of the term "shall acquire" is not really compatible with the essence of the clause—that it should be done by agreement. Once one says that, one compels which it not agreement.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Rowlands

If the amendment does not achieve what we want, we ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider it and redraft it. We are suggesting that an owner-occupier be given the right to service a purchase notice. It will, of course, be a minority of cases, but we are trying to safeguard the minority. As in so many other blight notice provisions, the authority should be entitled to resist a notice where it can provide the evidence. That is what we are after. If the hon. Gentleman says that the amendment does not fit the point, I will gladly withdraw my objection and ask him to draft something on the lines he suggests so that blight notice can be served and the authority will have the power to resist it where it has the evidence.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I see the point, but in practice that is the position at the moment. The authority may acquire by agreement. If it can be persuaded or cajoled into doing so, it can do it by agreement. The amendment brings in the possibility of compelling the authority to do it—that is the difficulty.

However, I have had a word with my right hon. Friend about this. We have to safeguard the minority of interests which might be affected, and we also have to protect public funds. There is a problem of balance. There is the difficulty about importing the right to compel a local authority to do it. There is a basic incompatibility between compelling it to do it and having it done by agreement. But in the light of the arguments we will have another look at this. I can give no undertaking, but we want to help if we can, and we will see whether we can come a little closer to what the Opposition want. I cannot undertake that we will succeed, for I find it difficult to agree that the authority should be compelled. I think there must be an element of agreement.

Mr. Mulley

We are obliged to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to have another look at the problem. I hope he will bear in mind that under subsection (1) the highway authority has powers compulsorily to acquire. We are only asking that the owner-occupier should have a little bit of reciprocity. I accept the difficulty where the situation is going to be temporary and we understand that the amendment would have to be redrafted to meet that point.

On the understanding and in appreciation of the fact that the Government will consider the problem further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 19, line 4, leave out 'or improvement of the highway' and insert 'of the highway or, as the case may be, the improvement'. This is essentially a drafting amendment intended to remove the ambiguity of the words in question.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to