Skip to main content

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Corresponding Amendments) Order 2007

Volume 692: debated on Thursday 17 May 2007

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 March be approved.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order makes a series of technical amendments to certain compulsory purchase powers, so bringing them into line with existing mainstream compulsory purchase legislation. In effect, it tidies up loose ends from 2004. It ensures that all people who are affected by compulsory purchase are treated the same, irrespective of the powers under which the order is made.

The drafting of the order may appear complex, but the effect of the amendments is quite straightforward. It may, however, be helpful to the House if I provide a bit of further background to the order—the chronology and so on. Noble Lords will be aware that the order was passed by a resolution of the Delegated Legislation Committee of the other place on 9 May.

Before the implementation of Part 8 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in October of that year, tenants for a month or less were not entitled to be notified of a compulsory purchase order affecting the relevant property, nor were they entitled to be heard at any public inquiry. The 2004 Act amended the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to require that such tenants were to be notified of a compulsory purchase order and would be entitled to appear at an inquiry.

Almost all compulsory purchase orders are governed by the 1981 Act, but there are a few, made under the Acts listed in the schedule to the order, which are not. Our proposal is simply that the gap should be closed, so that tenants with tenancies of a month or less who are affected by compulsory purchase orders made under the powers conferred by those Acts should also benefit from being notified and being heard at an inquiry. In practice, such tenants would almost certainly hear about the compulsory purchase orders, and would almost certainly be given a hearing at an inquiry, but this was not their right.

We believe that very few people will be affected. Compulsory purchase orders made under the Gas Act and other Acts in the schedule will mostly be in rural areas, where monthly or weekly tenancies are not common. However, it is obviously proper that all tenants who could be affected should have the same rights to be notified and to be heard.

The legislation that we are proposing to amend is set out in the Schedule to the order. They are the Military Lands Act 1892, the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act 1945, the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, the Pipe-lines Act 1962, the Harbours Act 1964, the Gas Act 1965, the Forestry Act 1967, the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991. The relevant departments have been consulted and have agreed to the terms of the order.

I shall briefly take noble Lords through the chronology. The legislation set out in the schedule to the order contains compulsory purchase powers used by certain government departments and statutory undertakers that do not, as I have indicated, depend on the 1981 Act for the procedure to make compulsory purchase orders and certain other orders. As I said, they include such things as compulsory rights orders under the Pipe-lines Act or storage authorisation orders under the Gas Act. Consequentially, that means that the amendments made in 2004 to the 1981 Act do not apply to these powers.

Before the 2004 amendments came into force, the 1981 Act provided for people who own or occupy the land that is to be acquired to be notified of the proposed compulsory acquisition and of their right to object and to appear at an inquiry. This was limited to the owner, lessee or occupier, but did not include people whose tenancy period was for a month or less. That meant that the right of notification did not include monthly or weekly tenants, even though they may have had security of tenure and may have lived in the property on that basis for a number of years.

Changes were made to the compulsory purchase procedures set out in the 1981 Act by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, so that any person who is a tenant, whatever the tenancy period, will be entitled to receive notification of a compulsory purchase order affecting the property or land that they occupy, and they have a right to object to the order and to appear at a public inquiry into the order. Changes were also made to the 1981 Act so that notice would have to be given to all persons who had sufficient interest in the land being acquired, and the acquiring authority would be required to serve on them a notice to treat—a notice to open compensation negotiations— if it was proceeding to acquire the land under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Notice would also have to be given to persons who are likely to be entitled to make a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Let me reassure noble Lords that the powers identified in the order are very rarely used. Typically, they are used less than once a year, so my department’s Regulatory Impact Unit is satisfied that the order does not require a regulatory impact assessment. The issue was addressed in the Commons committee that considered the amendment to the 1981 Act. The opposition spokesman made it clear that he welcomed the clarification of the categories of people, which included tenants with whatever tenancy period, to be notified. That was on 16 October 2003. The Government therefore recognise that it would be unfair that tenants with monthly or weekly tenancies who are occupying land and are affected by compulsory purchase orders would not be entitled to receive notification of that order just because the particular enabling powers being exercised were not governed by the 1981 Act.

Section 110 of the 2004 Act therefore gives the Secretary of State a power to amend corresponding enactments in connection with the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land. I am sure that the noble Baroness will remember that that provision was introduced in Committee in the Lords when we considered the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill on 5 February 2004. The amendment was accepted without discussion. This is the first time that this power has been exercised and, if we have got it right, it will be the last.

The effect of the order on the different enactments that it covers varies slightly so as to take account of differences in the respective primary legislation. Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to paragraph 4(4) of the schedule, which provides a reasonably clear example of its effect. It deals with an amendment to Schedule 2 to the Pipe-lines Act 1962 in relation to an application for a compulsory purchase order.

Paragraph 4(4)(a)(i) identifies the current formulation in Schedule 2 to the Pipe-lines Act, which refers to the serving of a notice about the proposed compulsory purchase order on,

“every owner, lessee and occupier (excepting tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any land to be … comprised in the order”.

The order goes on to replace this phrase with the words,

“every person … who is an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of any land proposed to be comprised in the order”.

The order continues in paragraph 4(4)(a)(ii) and (iii) to specify that notification must also be given to every person who had a sufficient interest in the land being acquired for the acquiring authority to be required to serve on them a notice to treat—as I have said, a notice to open compensation negotiations—if it was proceeding to acquire the land under Section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, or to persons who are likely to be entitled to make a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

I should emphasise that the order has no effect on entitlements to compensation or the amount that can be claimed. I know that the order is complex. In the light of what I said about tidying up loose ends and ensuring that people receive equal treatment, I hope that noble Lords will accept why the order is needed and the context in which it is made. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 March be approved. 15th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Baroness Andrews.)

My Lords, there is clearly nothing one can say to object to this order. It is eminently sensible. I can see why it has taken some time to come around to this: a number of Acts have to be amended in order to introduce it. It seems equitable in every term and perfectly proper. The Minister has forestalled the one question that I had buried in the back of my mind, which was whether this would extend the right of compensation. She said that the order has nothing to do with that, and one assumes that anything to do with compensation will come in under other provisions. I am very happy to accept that the order is appropriate.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very clear and full explanation of the order. While much of it is clearly technical, as the Minister has said, it is very necessary and welcome. It seems only fair that all tenants should have rights in relation to compulsory purchase orders. On that basis, I welcome the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.