I have two points. First, if compulsory purchase is to remain in the Bill, the landowner or whoever can sometimes appeal against it. That can be costly and, with the state of the rural economy at present, possibly unaffordable, so funnily enough one can be easily blackmailed. That should be borne in mind. I do not need answers, but I ask the Minister to consider these points.
Secondly, the National Trust was exempted from this provision and I could not see any justification for that, because it may be just as guilty as anyone else of not being co-operative. If there is to be a principle that land and property can be expropriated from someone in a non-communist environment, I do not see why it should not apply equally to charities, government bodies and private landowners.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Erroll
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c281 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:01:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296925
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296925
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296925