BOGNOR REGIS U.D.C. COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (Hansard, 20 July 1964)

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)
My Lords, my right honourable friend has had an opportunity of reading the judgment, which includes the points noted by the noble Lord. The compulsory purchase order was made by the Council in their capacity as coast protection authority and related to land proposed to be acquired in connection with a scheme of coast protection works. The recommendation of the inspector who presided at the public inquiry arising from objections to the order and the scheme was that the order should not be confirmed, on the ground that the scheme of works could be carried out even though the Council did not own the land.
My right honourable friend nevertheless confirmed the order, for reasons which were set out in his decision letter. He had regard to the considerable cost and to the permanent nature of the proposed works, and considered that as the Council already owned the foreshore in the vicinity of those works it was appropriate that they should own the freehold of the land required for the works rather than have to exercise their powers to construct them on land not vested in the Council. He also had in mind the urgency of the works—a point which was stressed by the inspector. In his view, the area proposed to be acquired was not unreasonably large in relation to the scale of the works, and bearing in mind that the exact line of the proposed wall could not be defined with accuracy. It was no part of my right honourable friend's reasons for confirming the order that the Council wished to have a paved promenade behind the works. He was aware of this wish, and took pains to impress upon the Council in the decision letter that, although he confirmed the compulsory purchase order without modification, there was in his view no case for paving this strip of land.
It emerged at the inquiry that, in deciding to make the order, the Council had been advised by their surveyor, and not by their consultants for the work, as they had previously claimed. As I 439 have already indicated, my right honourable friend took his decision on his own view, reached in the light of the evidence given at the inquiry, about the amount of land which the Council reasonably required for the purposes of the scheme. He was in no way endorsing any purpose other than coast protection which may have been in the mind of the Council. As your Lordships are aware, the learned Judge has himself severely rebuked the Council for such of their actions as were reprehensible. Reports of the case will be diligently studied in my right honourable friend's Department and, he is sure, also by local authorities. He believes, however, that the circumstances of the case have been quite exceptional and that there is no general action open to him which would not imply an unwarranted reflection on the good faith with which local authorities use their powers.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that the Council has been definitely accused of bad faith in making the compulsory purchase order and publishing a document which contains much that was manifestly false to its knowledge, and is he not aware that the Minister has in fact condoned both these actions by confirming the compulsory purchase order, against the advice of the inspector? And while recognising that any Minister may make a mistake, or may even give a decision without having read the relevant documents, would it not have been more frank to the House if that had been accepted—that it was a mistake of the Minister—instead of trying to justify his action?

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, the matter before the Minister really was to decide whether the land was in fact required, and therefore I could not accept that he was condoning an action which was condemned by the Judge as in bad faith. He was aware, of course, that there had been this mistake in presentation, but he did not think that affected the question whether the land was in fact really required for these works. He came to the opinion that it was required. As to the rest of the noble Lord's question, whether it would not be better for my right honourable friend to accept that a mistake has 440 been made, of course there is no question of questioning in any way the Judge's findings or his comments, and I made a careful and long statement giving, as I think the House would wish, the Minister's considered reasons for going against his own inspector.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, the noble Lord has not really answered the case. The case is that both these findings set out in the Question were contained in the inspector's report. If the Minister had read the inspector's report carefully, he would have found that the compulsory purchase order was based on bad faith and was being supported by false statements, according to the report of the inspector. Was there not, therefore, an obligation on the Minister not to confirm the order, in those circumstances, but to take some steps? I do not know whether it is intended to take further action over this. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises it is a very serious matter. It approximates to the Crichel Down case, where the facts were very similar, and I do not think it should be allowed just to drop in this way.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, I would say once again that my right honourable friend was acting entirely in good faith. The fact that the evidence given at the public inquiry showed that the advice given to the Council came from a different source from that which had been claimed, was known. But it was still the opinion of my right honourable friend that this land was desirable for the carrying out of the works, and my right honourable friend did dissociate himself most particularly and entirely from the question of obtaining land for putting the paved promenade behind it, which he says specifically in his decision letter was not necessary. If the Council had pursued that course, it would, no doubt, have led to other difficulties for the Council with its ratepayers. As for carrying out any further action, I said my right honorable friend is considering the matter most carefully within his Department, and I am sure he will take any action necessary to see that mistakes of this nature do not occur again.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I should like to give the noble Lord 441 notice that I will take an early opportunity—as early as I can in the short time remaining available this Session—of raising this matter again in the House.