Compulsory Purchase (Hansard, 27 July 2000)

§ Mr. Raynsford

I am pleased to be able to announce that my Department has today published two reports. The first sets out the final recommendations of the advisory group set up in June 1998 to undertake a Fundamental Review of Compulsory Purchase Laws, Procedures and Compensation. The second sets out the findings of Gerald Eve and the University of Reading on the operation of the Crichel Down rules. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

We are publishing the findings of the advisory group in order to give interested parties an opportunity to comment before we in Government prepare our own response. The response will also take into account the many views which we have already received, including those from the Urban Task Force, on ways in which the compulsory purchase system might be improved. It is unlikely that any compulsory purchase arrangements could please everyone, but I welcome this opportunity for debate both to help clarify key concerns and to indicate the level of consensus likely to be achievable.

The advisory group have said that they consider that the current compulsory purchase arrangements are basically sound. However, they have identified a number of ways in which the existing procedures could be speeded up and the compensation provisions made simpler, more equitable and quicker to apply.

They also explored the scope for using existing compulsory purchase powers for regeneration purposes. The group concluded that, although local authorities could make greater use of their existing powers than most of them currently seem prepared to do, there would be advantage in clarifying the position by making an appropriate specific statutory provision.

The group found no justification for making any additional blanket payments over and above market value to compensate for the compulsory purchase of all properties, but they do suggest a proposal for "business-loss" payments aimed at small businesses and payable on a similar basis to the current "home-loss" payments. They also propose a power for those whose property is being compulsorily acquired which would enable them to serve the equivalent of a "notice to treat" on the acquiring authority; and one of their suggestions is that acquiring authorities should have explicit powers to ensure that, in tightly defined circumstances in areas 777W where local collapses in the property market have resulted in very low open market values, owner-occupiers can be provided with adequate replacement housing.

Turning to the operation of the Crichel Down rules, the Government acknowledge the shortcomings which the researchers have identified. They have confirmed the suspicions, which led to the commissioning of the research, that the current arrangements are not working well and, again, we need to establish a dialogue. We therefore invite views not only on the detailed operation of the rules but also on such fundamental concepts as the purpose of the rules, whether they are needed at all and, if so, whether they should be statutory and to which bodies they should apply.

We look forward to receiving views on the two reports. All comments received by my Department by Friday 13 October 2000 will be taken into account in preparing the Government's response. That will represent the second stage of the Fundamental Review and, as a third stage, we will then consult formally on those proposals.