It is a one-way ratchet because it is designed to prevent somebody in a monopoly bargaining position from putting unfair pressure on the owner. If somebody has compulsory acquisition powers, they are not obliged to go through the free bargaining process. That is why the ratchet deliberately goes in that direction. It would prevent what I hope responsible acquiring authorities would not generally do. However, there is a risk that instead of using compulsory acquisition as a last resort, which is what we all want, acquiring authorities have a perverse incentive to say, “We will use the compulsory powers early on in the process, because otherwise, if we acquire by private treaty, we might be forced into an overage.” We would not want that where the powers or the agencies of the state are potentially bearing down on individuals or small businesses. That is the thinking behind the amendments and new clauses.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Neill
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 December 2016.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Legislative Grand Committee proceedings (HC) on Neighbourhood Planning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
618 c677 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-02-10 15:26:39 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-13/16121349000044
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-13/16121349000044
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-13/16121349000044