Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2003.

Standing Committee G

Clause 73 - Compulsory acquisition of land for development etc

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 434, in

clause 73, page 47, line 10 after 'authority', insert

'after consultation with all interested parties and the public.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 425, in

clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'think' and insert

'has reasonable grounds to believe'.

Amendment No. 430, in

clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'think' and insert 'can demonstrate'.

Amendment No. 431, in

clause 73, page 47, line 10, leave out 'will facilitate' and insert 'is necessary for'.

Amendment No. 426, in

clause 73, page 47, line 16, leave out 'think' and insert

'has reasonable grounds to believe'.

Amendment No. 432, in

clause 73, page 47, line 16, leave out 'think' and insert 'can demonstrate'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Good morning, Mr. Amess, and members of the Committee. Today we have reached the home-straight—the last two sittings on the Bill—and, following the extremely tight timetable set by the Government, we will be considering part 7, which relates to compulsory purchase, and part 8. We would argue that that timetable is unsustainably tight, in that much of parts 1 and 2—the two key sections of the Bill—was not debated. There was a reasonable debate on part 3, but important aspects of part 4, on simplified planning zones, were not debated, and part 5—''Correction of errors''—was not debated at all. We did, however, have an entire sitting on part 6, ''Wales'', and debated that part fully; we believe that the system suggested for Wales is better than that for England.

Let us see whether we can do better on part 7. Compulsory purchase is a pretty all-embracing power. Totalitarian, authoritarian, dirigiste regimes all over the world—Zimbabwe is a typical example—have three features. They tend to kill people on a whim, they tend to imprison people without proper trial and proper process, and they take property away from people without proper compensation or process.

We in this country, as a democracy, are far more civilised than that, and we have a proper compulsory

purchase regime. The Government intend to revise that regime, and we are concerned this morning to make sure that that revision is even fairer to the citizen than the present system, and that it delivers a speedier outcome at a reasonable cost. There is no doubt that the proposed measures will cost more.

Westminster city council, for example, tells us that the problem with the current system is that

''the laws and procedures affecting compulsory purchase are unwieldy and extremely complex. This has led to a situation where the vast majority of local authorities have little or no expertise or experience of compulsory purchase orders''—

I will refer to them as CPOs from now on—

''and are therefore reluctant to use them.''

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Good.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is right. Compulsory purchase orders should be used only as a last resort, because they are a pretty all-encompassing power—[Interruption.] I shall now come, as the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister suggests I should, to amendment No. 434.

By tabling this group of amendments, we sought to explore with the Government what the acquiring authority must do before it enters into the compulsory purchase procedure. We have received several representations on the subject, not least from the farming community. Many compulsory purchase powers are used to acquire farms and agricultural land, and the Country Land and Business Association argues that

''Local authorities have not made the case for a change in section 226''

of the principal Act.

''This matter was discussed at length by the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group, set up by Government to advise on reform.''

The CLA continues:

''The law at present affords reasonable protection for individuals' private property without unduly constraining the ability of local authorities to engage in regeneration projects. This was demonstrated by the Group, which pointed to major regeneration undertaken under section 226 powers by Medway Unitary Council in an underutilised area, and Leicester City Council at the Bede Island site.''

That is one of the major reasons why we use compulsory purchase powers to aid inner city regeneration, which has slowed down under this Government because there are too many fragmented schemes and nobody knows what they all are. It would be better if they were amalgamated; it would make it easier for the acquiring authorities, too, although that is another matter.

The CLA goes on to argue:

''it is reasonable for local authorities seeking to exercise the draconian power of compulsory purchase to demonstrate the acquisition of land is necessary to achieve the desired objective. The power to dispossess an individual, perhaps to deprive a senior citizen of the home in which he or she grew up, by compulsion, is one that we argue should be properly tested''—

exactly as I said in my opening remarks—

''before being exercised. The proposed clause does not provide that test.''

Note the words at the end of that passage.

In addition, the National Farmers Union argues that some acquiring authorities, which are subject to the courts, exercise their powers unreasonably. It cites the case of a dairy farmer in the Isle of Wight who had his farm acquired simply because the local council was pandering to the whims of neighbours who did not like the smells and noise.

We seek, through the amendments, to probe the Government's thinking on the behaviour of acquiring authorities. Through amendment No. 434 we aim to specify what the local authority has to do before it exercises the powers. We say:

''after 'authority', insert 'after consultation with all interested parties and the public.'.''

Before those draconian powers are exercised, it is reasonable that some form of consultation should take place. It will be interesting to see what the Minister has to say about that.

Amendment No. 425 involves the old argument about the subjective test. We say:

''leave out 'think' and insert 'has reasonable grounds to believe'''

because there should be a more objective test. We have noted too many times in this Bill that the authority only has to ''think''. That is a subjective test. If a matter goes to the High Court for judicial review, the judge cannot think what a reasonable man might construe as being reasonable, he only has to think what the authority thinks is reasonable. I object to that subjective wording. Surely in a democracy, particularly in relation to such overwhelming powers, the test should be more objective. That might sound like an esoteric argument, but it is important.

Amendment No. 431 aims to make it absolutely clear what the acquiring authority must comply with before a CPO is issued. One of the tests must be that it ''is necessary for'' something—again, strengthening the objectivity. When somebody's home is being repossessed, it should be made crystal clear not only to that person but to all his relatives, and to the public, why the local authority is doing that. The amendments would make the clause clearer. I welcome the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women to her place today—it is always nice to see her smiling face—and it will be interesting to hear what she has to say.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I remind the Committee that we can have only one clause stand part debate.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was about to speak to the Conservative amendments with some degree of enthusiasm—until I heard the hon. Gentleman likening the situation here to that in Zimbabwe, which worried me a little.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Again, the hon. Gentleman deliberately misrepresents me. I specifically said that we were trying to make things fair, so that it will not be like such regimes here.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman has now clarified that for the Committee.

I support the amendments. They are relatively modest, and I hope that the Minister will consider them in that context. The compulsory purchase provisions are generally welcomed by many organisations. However, we must ensure that the Bill includes sufficient safeguards. I think that Ministers will find it difficult to argue against the sort of consultation suggested in amendment No. 434, although I expect that we shall be told that it will be done through regulations. We have this argument so many times in Committee—whenever I speak, I suspect—but we need to be reassured that there will be consultation; if not, I would like to see a requirement included in the Bill.

The insertion of the words ''reasonable grounds to believe'' and ''can demonstrate'', as suggested in amendments Nos. 425 and 430 respectively, would strengthen the test that a local authority has to apply when seeking a compulsory purchase. On balance, our proposals have a degree of merit, and I hope that the Minister will address sympathetically those modest but necessary amendments.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I, too, welcome the Minister of State to the Committee. The big guns have clearly been wheeled out for the final day. I hope that the hon. Lady will be as entertained as her colleagues have been; in their absence, we shall certainly do our best to give her an interesting morning.

I appreciate what you said about a clause stand part debate, Mr. Amess. However, there are some general issues associated with compulsory purchase that I would like to raise, especially with regard to suggested new subsection (1A) of section 226 of the 1990 Act, which are outside the scope of the amendments. If as the debate on this or the next group of amendments unfolds, you change your mind and decide not to allow a general debate, I shall take the opportunity to speak on that subject now; otherwise, I give notice that I shall wish to speak on those other matters later.

For the moment, however, we are debating six amendments. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said, amendment No. 434 is the most important of the group. I have huge reservations about compulsory purchase, which I shall explain later. I believe that the overriding argument that brings me to support it in certain circumstances is the public interest, which must be balanced against the interests of the individual. I would not trust—I use that word advisedly—experts and officials to judge that. The public should be involved when the power of what I would call confiscation is used in their name against individuals.

I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Bill must include reference to consultation with the very people who are being invoked as the justification for the use of those powers. It is essential that some form of words should appear in the Bill. I have said many times—although I realise that the Minister of State was not here to hear me—that I am not personally wedded to the wording of the amendments; there are many other ways of saying that there must be consultation with the public and with interested parties. We must ensure, when we use that power in the name of the public, that the public

are with us. That part of the consultation becomes crucial.

People who are about to have their land confiscated deserve to be involved in the process. It is far better to begin discussions with interested parties, which would include the landowners, at the earliest possible moment, because there is then a sporting chance that the person who is about to lose his land may begin to understand why it is a good idea. Simply to say, ''We are going to talk to the public, we are going to do this and that,'' and then tell people what is going to happen is no way to win them over to what will always be a difficult process.

Amendment No. 434 is essential if the Bill is to be even-handed. The Minister may not accept its wording, but if the Government were to say that they would table a similar amendment on Report or in another place, we would not press it to a Division.

Amendments No. 425 and 426, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke, are a pair, which substitute the phrase ''has reasonable grounds to believe'' for the word ''think'' in two different parts of the clause. I cannot cope with the idea that one has only to ''think'' that something is necessary and ergo, under the legislation, it is so.

Other hon. Members may have only noble and pure thoughts, but I admit to thinking things that could not always be defined as reasonable or having reasonable grounds. The answer will be, ''Ah well, that is the test if it ever gets to the High Court on judicial review''—but I have never been involved in judicial review. I have been told what it costs and it makes my eyes water, especially if it is the only remedy against people who have had a bright idea late at night after the pubs have closed and ''think'' that it would be a good thing to do. The amendment would make it much easier for people to make sure that the criteria used for arriving at a conclusion were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, objective rather than subjective, and in the public interest rather than just a whim.

If the Minister does not like phrase ''has reasonable grounds'', amendments Nos. 430 and 432 use the formula, ''can demonstrate''. I prefer the former, but the same principle applies: there must be an objective test rather than the ability to act on a whim, which will be the case if the amendments are not accepted.

Amendment No. 431 is more significant than it appears at first glance. I can almost hear the Minister limbering up to say that it is rather pedantic, but I do not see it like that, because there is a difference between doing something to make things easier, and doing something because it is the only way of achieving what one sets out to do. I do not see compulsory purchase as a means of making things easier, and I doubt that any member of the Committee could persuade me to do so, although I am prepared to listen to their arguments. That may be the quick and simple way to proceed, and people may say, ''We can go home earlier if we do it,'' but compulsory purchase is not about facilitating those objectives. It is the ultimate last resort, which becomes necessary if all else fails and there is an overarching interest—if it is the

only way to do something that most people agree needs to be done.

There is a great distinction between the Bill as drafted, which says, in effect, ''We can do it this way if it will facilitate things,'' and a Bill that says, ''If all else fails and there is no other way, you may use compulsory purchase powers.'' That is the spirit of amendment No. 431: to introduce the idea that compulsory purchase must be necessary, rather than simply convenient, if land is to be acquired. There may be another way of doing it. After all, the Government have all the lawyers and experts, whereas we must rely on our native common sense. Common sense tells me that using the words ''is necessary'' is the way to do it. However, I am prepared to listen if someone has a better way of achieving that important goal.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It is a great pleasure to return to the Committee, and I thank the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for their kind welcome. It is interesting to note the Committee's progress—progress that has been ably led for the Government by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. It is an important day today: it is the birthday of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). Disraeli said that when dealing with royalty one should lay the flattery on with a trowel, and in my dealings with the Whips Office I have often found that the same principle applies.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Of course—but first I wish my hon. Friend many more long and happy years.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If the Minister has worked out how to lay on flattery with a trowel for the Whips Office, will she give a seminar on it to some of my colleagues?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

As a former Opposition Whip, I should be delighted.

Compulsory purchase is an important subject. The amendments were probing, and let me respond to them in that spirit. Amendment No. 434 proposes that a compulsory purchase order may be made

''after consultation with all interested parties and the public.''

However, it does not clarify who ''all interested parties'' may be, or the extent of the consultation required.

I know that the Conservative Members will say that they are simply raising the issues, and that they do not have access to all the resources that the Government have. Nevertheless, local authorities must be clear about the procedure to be followed. It is also unnecessary to introduce a further consultation stage in the process. Once a compulsory purchase has been made, there is a statutory requirement—under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which was passed by a Conservative Government—to advertise the fact at least twice in a local newspaper. Obviously, that Government considered those issues at the time. Under the same Act, owners, lessees and occupiers, other than tenants for a month or less, must also be served with notice. They have a right to voice their objections at a public inquiry before the Secretary of

State decides to confirm, or refuses to confirm, the order.

Before an order is made, there may also have been consultation—for example, if planning permission had been sought for the authority's proposals. Members of the Committee will be aware that that is one of the likely circumstances in which a compulsory purchase order can be made. In addition, the circular guidance is that, where practicable, authorities should seek to acquire land by negotiation before embarking on compulsory purchase. That is an extremely sensible procedure—but I do understand the concerns that are raised by compulsory purchase.

Amendments Nos. 425 and 426 would replace the word ''think'' with the phrase

''has reasonable grounds to believe''.

I understand the spirit in which the amendments were tabled by the Conservatives and supported by the hon. Member for Ludlow, but I do not see what the purpose of making the change would be. The word ''think'' has been used extensively in other parts of the Bill, and there is no reason to make a distinction in clause 73.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sure that the Minister will agree, in her usual reasonable way, that to have one's home compulsorily acquired is more serious than anything in any other part of the Bill that we have discussed. In framing the legislation, we should try to ensure that such purchases take place on a totally objective basis, not merely at the whim of the acquiring authority.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I should make it clear that the word ''think'' does not imply a whim; I will speak about reasonableness later.

The word ''think'' or ''thinks'' is not used only in the Bill, but in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and—I have looked further back—the Fire Precautions Act 1971, as amended by the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. I asked my officials to do a search of Butterworths online—that may show that, as my 14-year-old would say, I need to get a life—and there are 4,500 references to the words ''think'' and ''thinks'' in previous legislation. As Michael Caine would say, not a lot of people know that—although the Committee knows it now.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister is deploying the sheep-stealing argument—that because people used to be hung for stealing sheep, that is a justification for carrying on hanging them. Just because the mistake has been made 4,500 times, it does not mean that we should make it again.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I had not come across the hon. Gentleman's argument before, and that is not the line that I am taking. I am saying that the drafting is not unusual for such legislation, and does not represent a new-fangled notion or definition. It has been used extensively before, not only by this Government but by previous Governments. That is

relevant, because the definition will have been the subject of other discussions.

I will also deal with what happens when bodies exercise their duties and powers. I contend that it is explicit that in exercising their duties and powers, public authorities are required to act reasonably. Therefore, that element is included. Amendments No. 430 and 432 would replace the word ''think'' with the phrase ''can demonstrate'', but ''think'' implies a belief on the part of the local authority in what it is doing, while ''demonstrate'' does not.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have been reflecting on the Minister's comment that it is explicit that public authorities must act reasonably, and I ask her to reconsider it. It may be implicit in her argument, but if it were explicit, it would be in the Bill. It is not in the Bill, which is why we have tabled the amendments—to make it explicit.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It is implicit that in exercising their duties and powers, public authorities are required to act reasonably. Government Departments, local authorities and all public bodies have a duty to act reasonably, and every local authority knows that any court would construe its duty as such.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister has just used the word ''implicit''. For the avoidance of doubt, will she confirm whether she originally used the word ''explicit'', and thus whether my intervention was correct? If she said ''implicit'' on the first occasion, I would owe her an apology for not having heard what she said properly. We are now using both words, and it would be helpful to know if her first argument was that it was ''explicit'', which is what I heard her say.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I gather that I may have said ''explicit''. ''Implicit'' is what I meant, so the hon. Gentleman was right to raise that point.

The word ''think'' implies belief on the part of the local authority in what it is doing, whereas the word ''demonstrate'' does not necessarily do so. It would seem inconceivable that a local authority would seek to ''demonstrate'' that the requirements were satisfied yet not think them appropriate—but the word ''think'' actually requires such belief. To replace it with the word ''demonstrate'' would detract from that requirement. This is not sophistry, Mr. Amess; I am trying to explain how the provision would work in practice.

Amendment No. 431 seeks to replace ''will facilitate'' with ''is necessary for''. It would cause difficulties in interpreting what is necessary. It is clear that Opposition Members are concerned that acquiring authorities will exercise their compulsory purchasing power unreasonably by using it unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Spelthorne almost suggested that they make such decisions on a whim after the pub closes at 11 o'clock. However, there are already adequate safeguards to ensure that local authorities act reasonably and cannot acquire land under compulsory purchase unless it is in the public interest to do so—the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned the public interest issue.

As I have pointed out, clause 73 will require a public authority to show why it thinks why the development, redevelopment or improvement for which the land is to be acquired would be likely to contribute to the achievement, promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of the area. Development is the usual definition. In seeking to use its compulsory purchase powers as a mechanism for implementing its duties regarding well-being, a local authority will need to be able to establish why it thinks the compulsory acquisition of the land will contribute to that objective.

As for safeguards, a CPO has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State in order to be implemented. He not only has to be satisfied as to the statutory grounds for making the order, he also has discretion as to whether to confirm it. In exercising that discretion he must pay particular regard to whether the public interest in compulsorily acquiring the land outweighs the interest of the owners and occupiers in retaining it. Owners and occupiers who object will have an opportunity to make representations at a public inquiry.

If the Secretary of State does not have proper grounds for confirming a CPO, an aggrieved party may challenge its validity in the High Court, which has powers to quash it. Clause 73 enables a local authority to acquire land that it thinks will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement as a means of bringing economic, social or environmental benefit to its area. I hope that that explanation has provided some reassurance to Opposition Members. I understand the nature of their amendments, but if they have tabled them as probing amendments I hope that they will now withdraw them.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have listened to all that, and the Minister can take a little comfort, in that she might have persuaded me that amendments Nos. 430 and 432 are not the best of amendments. I remain to be persuaded about the others. On amendment No. 434 the Minister went the long way around the course to give the simple answer, ''No, I don't agree with this.'' That is the most important amendment in the group, and I will listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has to say. I am not persuaded.

The Minister argued that the amendment should be rejected because we had not set out the extent of the consultation or what we meant by ''all interested parties''. It follows that if we can explain what is meant by consultation and who all interested parties are, she accepts our case in principle and it is only the detail that concerns her. If those were her only grounds for rejecting the amendment, the sensible thing would be to say that the Government accept the spirit of the amendment and would like to find a formula that met their objections. I know that I am putting words into the Minister's mouth, but either she is against this in principle, or she is in favour of it but does not like the wording. I think I heard her suggesting that it was the latter.

She said that the interests of anyone who was involved in this, such as owners and tenants, were already safeguarded. She said that they had to be served with a notice and that if they were aggrieved they could air their views at a public inquiry. The Minister has put her finger on exactly what is wrong. If I were minding my own business one morning and the postman delivered a letter serving notice that someone was going to acquire my land unless I objected, I would not consider that to be consultation. It is jackboot activity all over again. There should be an obligation on the person who has the power to serve the notice to talk to the people first and to say, ''We have a problem. We think that this is the only solution. Can we talk to you about this because we may have to serve a notice on you?''

That is more in the spirit of democracy than the existing arrangement and it also stands a reasonable chance of short-circuiting what can be a hugely lengthy and expensive process when everyone digs their trench, gets into it and starts to fight these things. It is not only the question of it being a more democratic process; it can also be a facilitating process. I therefore press the Minister to think more carefully about whether there is not something in the amendment, if we could get the wording right. If she is not willing to go down that route, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold will press this to a vote.

We inadvertently saw why amendments Nos. 425 and 426 are good amendments. I do not criticise the Minister, but ''explicit'' and ''implicit'' are easy words to confuse. It is easy to get the two concepts tied up together. You saw what happened, Mr. Amess, when there was a genuine misunderstanding across the Committee. These two amendments would prevent that. They would make for clearer debate. The Minister has the benefit of being a lawyer. I do not. I am very easily confused on these occasions. The Minister gave a wonderful example of why they would improve, rather than weaken the Bill.

I concede to the Minister's argument on amendments Nos. 430 and 432. On amendment No. 431, however, the Minister conspicuously failed to do anything about my reservations. She said that there were perfectly adequate safeguards. She said that compulsory purchase was a mechanism for implementation and that the use of compulsory purchase powers would contribute to the process. That is my objection. I know that they will contribute, but they can be the easy way out. The amendment says that it has to be the last resort. The example that she used reinforced my concerns. The only example that she chose to give was that compulsory purchase would contribute to the process—exactly what the amendment is designed to stop. The Minister has managed to avoid assorted debates about the way in which we are elevating the Secretary of State to a dictator who can trample over everything with his jackboot powers. Therefore, to say that the Secretary of State has discretion over something else only reinforces my sense that the Bill is bringing about a dictatorship.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The amendments are extremely important, but I shall adduce a different argument. Clause 73, and the amendments to it, relate to section 226 of the principal Act, which is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There is an important shift between what the principal Act sets out on compulsory purchase powers and what we are discussing. The threshold in section 226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act is that land is ''suitable for and required'', whereas this clause says ''will facilitate'', so one can see that the threshold that must be crossed before an authority considers using compulsory purchase is already significantly diminished. Without the suggested safeguards, and given that that threshold is diminished, we are making the system more oppressive towards the individual citizen.

The Minister said that the Secretary of State would have to confirm the compulsory purchase order, but section 226(6) of the 1990 Act states:

''Before giving an authorisation under subsection (5), the Secretary of State shall

(a) if the land is in a non-metropolitan county, consult with the councils of the county and the district;

(b) if the land is in a metropolitan district, consult with the council of the district; and

(c) if the land is in a London borough, consult with the council of the borough.''

There is all that consultation with the authorities, but not with the individual citizen. That is why the amendments are important. An additional safeguard is needed in the Bill, so that there is an objective test.

I am sorry that the Minister relies on previous legislation, much of it passed by previous socialist Governments, not a Conservative Government.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

1990?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Some of the legislation was passed under a Conservative Government, but much of it was not. The 1971 Act, which the other Minister cited, was passed under a socialist Government.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Ted Heath must have been a socialist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Previous practice does not make something right, particularly when we are considering extraordinarily wide and important powers of compulsory purchase. Taking away someone's home is the most significant thing that a state can do after taking away their liberty, so we must get the Bill right. Those in another place will no doubt consider this matter carefully and have another debate on it. I think that the Minister's colleague was wrong to reject the amendments, so I urge my hon. Friends and our Liberal colleagues to vote in support of them, in the hope that that will bring the matter to the attention of the other place and possibly our own colleagues on Report, and that we can put it right.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 433, in

clause 73, page 47, line 24 at end insert—

'(d) the assembling of land for the purpose of development either by the public or private sector where the land subject to the compulsory purchase order has no known owner.'.

I crave your indulgence, Mr. Amess, in offering my best wishes to the hon. Member for Wansdyke. I will not ask him how many times he has been 21 years old, but I suspect that it will have been more than a couple. I do not know whether it is because of his birthday or because Labour Members are demob happy, but it seems to be a lively morning. Hopefully, the amendment will add to the gaiety of events for a moment or two.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold queried why the amendment is standing on its own. When I first thought about the matter, I had it in mind to delete paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the suggested new subsection (1A), but, mercifully for the Committee, I did not table such an amendment. What I learnt about planning matters when I was in local government included a little about the proposal under discussion. I tabled the amendment to flag up circumstances that can crop up occasionally.

When I was the leader of the august Wandsdyke district council before it merged with the City of Bath, there was a site in the town of Keynsham that needed redevelopment for town centre purposes. It was thought that there was no need to invoke compulsory powers because it was a straightforward commercial development, until it became clear that it was impossible to establish who owned a piece of land in the middle of the area, no matter how hard the local authority or private sector tried. That made it impossible to assemble the entire site by negotiation because there was no one to negotiate with. I was finally persuaded that there was a need for a provision to deal with such a situation where a small piece of land was stopping the redevelopment of the town centre.

I want to explore a serious issue. It is often assumed by the majority of people that officialdom seeks compulsory purchase powers for its own benefits, such as for road widening, in the public interest. Such an argument is used regularly. However, all those years ago, there was much criticism of the council's action. Even I was persuaded to back the use of compulsory purchase powers, which was unusual for me. That the powers were used to assemble land that was for the benefit of the private, not public, sector, in itself, became an issue. The purpose of the amendment is to bring such action out into the open. We do not regard all debates about compulsory purchase as being

purely for the benefit of officialdom—the Government, local authorities and so on. It can, on occasions, be for the benefit of members of the private sector, who often complain most of all.

Some members of the Committee may believe that we should not use state powers to help the private sector. I anticipate hearing some extreme views of Labour Members and their saying that somehow or other a facility that helps the private sector will help capitalism and that that would be wrong. I thought that it was worth exploring such issues with the Minister of State. Given that I am a lay person, not a lawyer, I am the first to concede that my amendment may not be drafted in good English. I ask her to go easy on me when she says that its drafting is useless. I want to hear what she has to say about the principle of my argument.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Let me first respond to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, which are circumstances that we can all envisage, whereby the private sector might have interest in a project for which a CPO might be desired. One can imagine, for example, a big regeneration project that had the support of the local authority and the electorate, and for the completion of which one wanted to involve the private sector, as is so often the case now for such major projects. That might be a consideration for a local authority. The clause enables the local authority to do exactly that—to

''acquire land compulsorily for the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement'',

and bring

''economic, social or environmental benefit to their area.''

If the hon. Gentleman wanted to tease out that point from the Government, he has his answer.

The amendment proposes a specific ground for acquiring land in unknown ownership. It is not clear from the amendment what steps an authority must take to ascertain ownership before land can be regarded as being in unknown ownership. I hope to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is not necessary. There is no bar against an authority making a compulsory purchase order to acquire land that has no known owner. In such circumstances, there is a statutory procedure for the service of notices of the making of the order in any case in which the name or address of any owner, lessee or occupier cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry. That is set out in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which provides that the notice may be served by addressing it to that person by description of ''owner'', ''lessee'' or ''occupier'' of the land, and delivering it to some person on the land or, if there is no such person, leaving it on or near the land. I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I think that that is the answer that I had anticipated. The procedures that must be followed are engraved on my mind for ever. The leaving of the notice ''on or near'' the land raises issues of vandalism, and there is the question of how long it has to stay there for the courts to be satisfied. However, I think

that I worked on the principle that, since there was no owner, the chances of that person challenging whatever process was gone through were remote indeed. Even if that had happened, the owner would at least have been known.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she says. On the question of what steps must be taken to establish that there is no known owner, I could give the Minister a long and vivid description of the efforts made in a case that I have in mind, but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Amess. The Minister mentioned that there had to be a test of reasonableness. There is procedure—I know it very well indeed, and I knew it when I tabled the amendment. I wanted to get on record whether there can be a benefit to the private sector as well as the public sector. I have achieved that from the Minister, for which I am grateful, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We have already run through the arguments about changing ''facilitate'' in subsection (2)(b) to ''require''. There is a much higher threshold in the principal Act, which required local authorities to do things, rather than merely facilitate them. Having made that change, in subsection (3) the Government propose adding a new section 226(1A) to the principal Act, which contains three paragraphs, and details some of the entirely new objects that local authorities may consider using compulsory purchase powers for, such as

''the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area''.

The objectives might be laudable, but they are very wide and capable of wide interpretation. Proposed new subsection (1A)(b) refers to

''the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area''

which could include almost anything. Paragraph (c) is even wider. It refers to

''the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.''

Almost any development covers environmental well-being. It is almost as if, Mr. Amess, you and I get up in the morning whether we feel better or not.

The Government are giving very wide powers in the Bill to local authorities. What perceived ill is there with the existing compulsory purchase powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? What is wrong with those powers? What could be simpler than the two main grounds stated in section 226(1) of the Act? It states:

''(a) is suitable for and required in order to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement; or

(b) is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.''

That is dead simple and clear. Everybody understands it. It describes a precise power, rather than the wide power referred to in the clause.

Before we include clause 73 in the Bill, the Minister should carefully explain what is wrong with the present system. Why do the Government seek to give themselves these hugely wide powers? Too often in Parliament, we replace existing powers that are tried and tested in the courts and that have established a fairness for citizens with new wider powers, but we are never given an adequate explanation from the Government about why they are needed.

Before we decide whether to vote against the clause, we need a proper explanation. I ask with great humility why the Minister is giving herself these powers in the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Although I supported the amendment tabled by the Conservatives, which would have improved the clause, I cannot support them in opposing it. The changes to compulsory purchase are necessary because the current laws and procedures are unwieldy and complex; they will still be fairly complex after the changes. As a result, the vast majority of local authorities have little or no expertise in dealing with compulsory purchase orders, so are reluctant to use them.

In my constituency, the local authority, Bridgnorth district council, would be expected to be well used to using compulsory purchase, but I have no experience of its having done so. Recently, a company in Bridgnorth went bust with the loss of 224 jobs—the town has 10,000 adults, to give the Committee some scale of the job losses. I held emergency meetings with the local authorities—the county and district councils and Advantage West Midlands—to try to find ways to assist the area before the effects became too serious.

During those meetings, it became clear that the local authority owned practically no land. Bridgnorth district council is in an objective 2 area, and could therefore have qualified for European funding to regenerate the area and put in place the basic infrastructure for a business development plan. However, it cannot do so if it has no land in public ownership. Because the business development plan is in private ownership, there is no capacity for using European objective 2 money to regenerate the area.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

What the hon. Gentleman said is incredible. He said that, because no land was in public ownership, the area cannot get objective 2 money and cannot regenerate the area. The measures are last resort powers. In the vast majority of cases, such matters are dealt with by negotiation and it is perfectly possible to bring about regeneration schemes with land in private ownership.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will realise that I am coming to that point. A lot of the land around Bridgnorth most suitable for business development is owned by a couple of landowners, at least one of whom is philosophically opposed to the public sector being involved in industrial sites, which he believes should be entirely private-sector driven. I know that because I had a private conversation with him. He is unlikely to agree to the sale of some the business land to the local

council so that it can gear in up to a couple of million pounds of European money, in some cases. I know that that can work because South Shropshire district country, which is on the other side of my constituency, has been very successful at bringing in European money from objective 2 and, before that, from objective 5b status because it had land in public ownership.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Again, the hon. Gentleman is making an unreasonable assumption. In my experience as a surveyor, if people are offered a market price, which is usually considerably above the agricultural value when land is ready for regeneration or industrial use, they will usually sell it with alacrity.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall not go into too much detail because I do not want to cause problems, but that does not apply because I am not talking about agricultural land. I agree that people would be very keen to sell agricultural land because of the difference in price. I think that agricultural land in my constituency is worth £3,000 an acre and industrial land is worth £80,000 an acre. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The land is currently zoned industrial land but because there is no land in public ownership in and around Bridgnorth, we are unable to use regeneration money and we might need to use compulsory purchase.

Bridgnorth district council would not have a clue about how to use the current compulsory purchase rules. I hope that the slight simplification of the procedures will enable it to use them, if it needs to. The changes to compulsory purchase, and especially those in the clause, are welcome. I support the clause although I want to amend elements of clauses 74 and 76.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Before I come on to the substance of what I want to say, I want to tread carefully so that I do not tax you, Mr. Amess, while commenting on the example given by the hon. Member for Ludlow as a reason why he will not support us. He gave us a classic case of using compulsory purchase powers for convenience, which is exactly what I am opposed to. He also developed a powerful argument about snouts in the trough with people saying, ''Me too, please'' and swilling around Brussels money. It is absolute lunacy to argue that money to help regeneration can be made available only if the public sector gets involved. I shall try your patience, Mr. Amess, but that is yet another example of the stupidity of so much of what goes on in Brussels. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the absurd situation that things must be nationalised before Europe wants to know about them. That is yet another powerful reason why we should say to the people of this country, ''Beware what the current Government are up to by trying to get close to those people.'' However, you would rule me out of order if I said any of that, Mr. Amess, so I shall not.

I shall come on to the stand part debate proper. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made a telling point when he quoted Westminster city council as saying that the current procedures were unwieldy and complex. That delights me because it means that they are difficult to use. The council said that local authorities are reluctant to use the powers because

they are unwieldy and complex. That is exactly as it should be. The harder I can make it for councils to use the powers and the more I can drive them to being the route of last resort, the happier I am. I am not philosophically opposed to the powers, but I do not want to hear any more arguments such as those used by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the powers being convenient.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend used a phrase that absolutely sums up the debate. The powers should be used only in the last resort. I hope that he will repeat that phrase and that the Minister will take note of it. The powers are overbearing and should be used sparingly.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Absolutely right. I would go on saying it ad nauseum except that I have been accused of being repetitive. That is exactly how I see the process. I am a very reluctant supporter of the principle because sometimes—I gave an example earlier—there is no other way of achieving something.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The classic example was the one that I gave in my opening speech. The Isle of Wight authorities tried to acquire compulsorily a dairy farm that had been there for centuries because the neighbours did not like the smells and the noise. It must be wrong to use the powers in such circumstances.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sure that that is right, and I am coming to the alarming phrase ''social well-being'', but may I stick for a moment with the general question asked by my hon. Friend, which is, why are we making the changes? If the Minister of State is to persuade me that the clause is necessary, she must give a convincing reason why the system has to be changed. She might give the reason that we need to make it simpler, but simpler in my vocabulary means easier, and if the reason for clause 73 is to make it easier to use compulsory purchase powers, I will be persuaded that the clause should be struck out.

The last thing that I want to do is to make the confiscation of land easier. Compulsory purchase is just that—confiscation. It might be confiscation with compensation, but it remains the taking away of land owned by an individual. Ownership of land is at the heart of the sort of people we think we are, how we view our future, what we want for ourselves and how our society is built. Owning one's own little patch is built into all of us. When we tell somebody that although he feels strongly about the land and owns a house and other property, and despite centuries of believing that that is the sort of country in which we live, we plan to give to the Government of the day the power to say, ''We are going to confiscate it, and all that we will discuss is an appropriate value,'' we attack the very fabric of our sense of identity. It is easy to say that the person will be paid well and can buy something else, so what is the problem, but to do so offends against the sense of self of that person. That is why I am philosophically so opposed to making the power simpler.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the rights of the individual are paramount—above the

rights of the community? If he is, would he go so far as to say that there is no such thing as society?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is a hoary old quote, and a ridiculous question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has never read the whole of what was said on that occasion. However, it is a useful nudge on to my next point, having explained how I view such matters—[Hon. Members: ''Yes or no?''] Yes, I will, as a hostage to fortune, say that if push comes to shove I will always look first at the individual—the minority of one. It is easy to be part of the majority when we debate whether we should look after minorities. One of our jobs is to defend the minority interest, and the ultimate minority is the minority of one. The rights of the individual—[Interruption.] I make no apology for that. I am a Conservative and proud of it and that is where I come from. To say that ''there is no such thing as society'' is ludicrous and it has never been said in the context suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

We are writing into the clause the phrase ''social well-being''. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of proposed new subsection (1A), which is set out in clause 73(3), all mention the

''well-being of their area''.

The hon. Member for Ludlow is right that that phrase raises the issue of the interests of the individual versus the interests of society at large. Of course it does, but one has to strike a balance. It would be just as trite if I were to say back to the hon. Gentleman that I assume, because of what he said, that he believes that everything is called society and nothing is called the individual, and I would not want to insult him by saying that that is what he was suggesting, but it explains why silly comments such as ''there is no such thing as society'' and ''there is no such thing as an individual'' get us nowhere. Both exist and we are here daily on behalf of our constituents to find a balance between the interests of the individual and those of society. I will always be further towards the individual end of the spectrum, but it is a subjective issue; no textbook can say who is right and who is wrong.

However, talking about the well-being of society gets to the heart of the Isle of Wight example and others. If someone is a nuisance and disturbs all their neighbours it is for the social well-being of the community to chuck that person out and put them somewhere else. Surely that is what social well-being means. The majority decide who is acceptable and who is not. We might return to the matter if amendments are tabled on Report.

Proposed new paragraph (b) refers to

''the promotion or improvement of the social well-being''

of an area. I certainly want that reference removed. I can see the sense of the argument about the social facilities of a community: compulsory purchase might be the only way to get enough land to provide recreation facilities such as a football pitch in a community.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

My hon. Friend might not be old enough, but I can remember the 1970s, when local authorities, using the excuses set out in subsection (3), accumulated properties by means of

compulsory purchase and then did nothing with them, to the detriment of the community. Will any action be taken to prevent that from happening again?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

In my hon. Friend's absence we said happy birthday to the hon. Member for Wansdyke, who is younger than me. I admit to being older than my hon. Friend thinks. I can remember the 1970s and some of the scandals when housing stock was assembled and then lay empty. The Government might want to make it simpler and easier to confiscate property, but what they intend to do with it remains to be seen.

I am deeply worried about the principle of the clause and about what the Government are up to. They must tell us their reason for wanting to make the changes. Why does a decent, tried-and-tested method that is complicated and hard to use need to be replaced, other than to make it simpler? If the Government are going to make it simpler, we need to know how they envisage the simpler powers being used. Are the provisions of proposed new subsection (1A) what they have in mind? I am deeply worried about ''social well-being'', and it would be helpful if the Minister said what she understands by that phrase. Does it mean the convenience of the majority who could not care less about the individual?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

This has been an interesting debate. Who said that deep political issues could not be explored when debating compulsory purchase? It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman says that there is a political difference between his interpretation and ours. Our purpose is to make the legislation simpler to interpret. However, the test will remain onerous.

Clause 73 amends the basis on which local authorities may acquire land compulsorily for carrying out development, redevelopment or improvement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It will enable local authorities to acquire compulsorily land that they think will facilitate carrying out development, redevelopment or improvement and bring economic, social or environmental benefit to the area. That will assist authorities to fulfil their duties under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. Clause 73 will give clearer criteria on which a local planning authority can make a compulsory purchase order and should encourage authorities to make better use of the power for regeneration and new development projects.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Would it be fair to say that the Minister's word ''clearer'' could be substituted by ''wider''?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

No, I do not agree with that. The clause will make the criteria more apparent to local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the subject, so he will know that the genesis of the Bill lies in wide consultation and discussion with local authorities, which have welcomed it. In its response, Worcester city council said that it

''would welcome any legislative reform which would make the CPO system simpler, fairer and quicker. In particular, we would welcome the suggested legal power which would enable local planning authorities, 'to exercise their compulsory purchase powers for a full range of planning and regenerative purposes'''.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has broadened the debate, and it is important to set the context before we decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. She has said that the Bill is only part of the legislative package on compulsory purchase, so will she tell the Committee when the other part of that package will be implemented and whether it will be implemented by primary or secondary legislation?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. We are in the process of analysing our current position. We have conducted consultation and said that we could not provide for the whole package in the Bill. I understand that we are also speaking to the Law Commission about the subject. As soon as I am aware of the timetable, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the Minister agree that by making compulsory purchase powers clearer, it will aid negotiations between councils and landowners? Currently, because landowners often have a pretty good idea that many councils do not know what to do, they can stall negotiations and put an end to the purchase. However, if they thought that the council would find it simpler to go for the compulsory purchase, that would aid the negotiations. I think that in future we will see many more speedy and successful conclusions, probably to the ultimate financial benefit of landowners.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valuable point. I hope that by setting out the criteria for the local authority, the Bill will also set them out for the landowner. I will refer to that later.

Subsection (1) provides for the amendment set out in the subsequent subsections to be made, and subsection (2) amends section 226(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As has been mentioned, section 226(1) currently enables a local authority to acquire compulsorily land that is suitable for and required to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement. However, it does not specify the purposes at which such development, redevelopment or improvement should be aimed.

The effect of section 226(1) in its amended form will be to remove reference to the need for authorities to show that the land to be acquired is suitable and required for the purpose for which they wish to purchase it, and subsection (3) will insert a new, more clearly defined subsection (1A) into section 226. Local authorities may exercise their acquisition powers only if they think that the carrying out of the development, redevelopment or improvement is likely to contribute to the achievement or promotion of the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. There must be a shorter way of putting that, and I will think of a suitable acronym later.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

Does the Minister not agree that, viewed from the other side, the provision allows an aggressive Big Brother-type local authority—there are a few of them—to use that broad approach to ride roughshod over many of the landowners for dubious benefits and just push the compulsory purchase whereas previously at least they would have had to justify it?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I do not accept it. Let me try to reassure him. In a sense this argument repeats the points that were made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The changes to the wording of section 226 should help those whose land is to be acquired to understand why the land is needed and to prepare appropriate counter-arguments if they wish to object. I have followed the arguments advanced by the Opposition closely. They believe that in some cases it is better to put more in the Bill for the sake of clarity. That is exactly what we are doing here: more is being put in the Bill.

Any proposed compulsory acquisition under the new powers would remain subject to specific authorisation by the confirming authority, which would continue to require to be satisfied that the compulsory acquisition was justified in the public interests. That must be stressed. I understand the philosophical and political objections to the clause advanced by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, and I might not have satisfied him totally, if at all, but I believe that we are taking a step that has long been requested by local authorities.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Roche It adds clarity to the process and I urge my hon. Friends to support the clause.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As the Minister did not want to give way, I simply highlight the fact that she said that the change has been requested by many local authorities. Has any member of the public or landowner ever asked for it? If the answer is no, she has made my case that the reason for the change is merely to make it simpler for local authorities to use their jackboot alongside the Secretary of State's jackboot and have a dictatorship in which land is confiscated.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I listened carefully to the Minister. There are three further matters relating to the clause that I wish to explore. The first is subsection (4). If I read it correctly, it deletes section 226(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which reads:

''A local authority and the Secretary of State in considering for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether land is suitable for development, re-development or improvement shall have regard—

a) to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material;

b) to whether planning permission for any development on the land is in force; and

c) to any other considerations which would be material''.

Perhaps the Minister could explain why that subsection is being deleted and being replaced by the three much wider tests. The Minister says that they are clearer, and they might indeed be clear, but they are also very wide powers. As I said before the economic,

social and environmental well-being of the area can encompass almost anything.

Secondly, because the compulsory purchase system will be more widely used, buying property will presumably involve more money. Will the Minister say whether the Government have given any thought to the financial implications of the clause?

Finally, I pressed the Minister on the other legislation, but we have not heard a word about the Crichel Down procedure. If someone's property is being acquired for the purposes laid down under the Bill, we need to know what will happen when the authority wishes to dispose of the property; that is covered by the Crichel Down rules. It may be a subject for debate on another day, but I know that the Government are considering modernising that procedure. Will the Minister confirm that, and perhaps write to members of the Committee and place a copy of the letter in the Library?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I shall break my habit of rising only once in order to deal with a couple of points. I cannot resist Crichel Down—I have a dim memory of doing an entrance paper that involved a reference to it, but I do not want to dwell on it because it involved ministerial resignations.

Subsection (4) provides for the omission of section 226(2) of the 1990 Act, which currently specifies matters that the local authority and the Secretary of State have to consider when determining whether land is suitable for development, redevelopment or improvement. However, it will not be necessary as a result of replacing the requirement to show that the land to be acquired is suitable for the acquiring authority's intended purposes with a clear statement of the purposes for which the authority will in future be able to exercise compulsory purchase powers provided under the 1990 Act. We have substituted one for the other.

The simplification of the provision has been welcomed by a large number of local authorities, which clearly see it as something that can be used in appropriate circumstances to deal with matters such as regeneration, which can enhance their communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Basic loss payment

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 420, in

clause 74, page 48, line 5, leave out '7.5%' and insert '15%'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 421, in

clause 74, page 48, line 6, at end insert—

'(2A) The Secretary of State may from time to time by regulations prescribe different amounts for the purposes of subsection (2) above.

(2B) The power to make regulations under subsection (2A) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 422, in

clause 75, page 49, line 10, leave out '2.5%' and insert '5%'.

Amendment No. 437, in

clause 75, page 49, line 12 at end insert—

'(d) the land and building amount.'.

Amendment No. 436, in

clause 75, page 49, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 423, in

clause 75, page 49, line 14, leave out '£25,000' and insert '£50,000'.

Amendment No. 424, in

clause 75, page 49, line 14, at end insert—

'(3A) The Secretary of State may from time to time by regulations prescribe different amounts for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above.

(3B) The power to make regulations under subsection (3A) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 438, in

clause 75, page 50, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We had a long debate on clause 73, but I make no excuse for that, because it is one of the most important clauses. It sets the context and framework for the whole of part 7 on compulsory purchase. We now move on to deal with the loss payments, which is a new concept.

As we shall see from later clauses, loss payments will form a relatively small percentage of the total amount that will be paid in compulsory purchase. They have been introduced to speed up the system and make those whose properties are being acquired feel less aggrieved, less likely to object and more likely to comply with the procedure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will not like it, but such people will feel that they have been treated more fairly if they are given generous compensation.

The purpose of the amendment is to probe that generosity. Compulsory purchase often represents only 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the total cost of a project. Whether the payment to the individual whose property is being acquired is 1 per cent. more or less makes relatively little difference to the total cost, but it can make a huge difference to the person whose home is being acquired. The odd £1,000 or £2,000 extra under the loss payments could make a great deal of difference.

The National Farmers Union states that to convince claimants that they are being treated fairly and to deter unnecessary objections, loss payments must be set at a sufficiently generous level to encourage such behaviour. It says that there is already an issue relating to whether all costs are being adequately covered, and cites one or two examples of how losses can be incurred when a farm is compulsorily acquired and the losses are not covered. For example, when a farm is acquired, the farmer probably has to go out and acquire a new farm, and he might be competing with other farmers in the area who have had their land acquired as well. The

land price is driven up, and the farmer has to pay more than the market price that he obtained for his farm. That loss is therefore not covered.

There are other types of loss. If a farmer loses his tenancy, he has to go out into the market where, if he is lucky, he can, as a result of various negotiations, replace the controlled tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 with a farm business tenancy under the 1995 Act, but that is likely to be for a shorter term and involve less security. When a barn is acquired, it is acquired at market value, not at replacement value—again, there is a loss. The loss payments are in some way intended to make up the balance. The purpose of this large group of amendments is to probe the Government about the levels and percentages that they have set for the loss payments. I will go through the amendments and probe the Minister about that.

I know that there are powers later in the Bill to vary the percentages and total amounts. That is welcome, because surely over a period of time, with inflation, the limits and percentages may well become out of date and inapplicable. It would be interesting to know why the Government have arrived at such percentages now. Amendment No. 420 would amend the 7.5 per cent. mentioned in proposed new section 33A(2)(b) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to 15 per cent., which might be fairer. We could retain the £75,000 limit mentioned in the Bill, but simply make it fairer to those who own properties that have been acquired at fairly low values. They could get an initial higher payment and the overall limit could be capped so that those who own large value properties would not necessarily be paid any more.

I suspect that that amendment No. 421 is probably not necessary because of a later clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Amendment No. 422 refers to clause 75, page 49, line 10 and proposes that 2.5 per cent. be replaced with 5 per cent. It would be interesting to know why and how 2.5 per cent. was arrived at. If one looks at the table in proposed new section 33B(8), which relates to the area of land, one sees that it has been quite cleverly set out. If one does some calculations, and talks about it in ordinary parlance that most people understand—in other words, if one talks about acres rather than hectares—one realises that it is £10,000 for 250 acres: only £40 per acre. That is for the first 100 hectares. For the next 100 hectares, the amount is only £15,000 for 750 acres—£20 per acre. We are talking about pretty small payments.

Those payments are in addition to what would be paid for the total value of the land. However, the normal value of land, even in the current agricultural depression, usually exceeds £2,000 per acre in most areas of southern England, so we are talking about values of about 1 to 2 per cent. Those are small values.

I do not wish to deal with amendment No. 437. Proposed new section 33B(2)(b) and (c), which say ''the land amount'' and ''the buildings amount'' respectively, probably already cover that. It would be otiose to try to amalgamate them in a subsection (d).

The purpose of amendment No. 436 is to leave out new subsection (3), which deals with the £25,000 limit

that may be paid to an occupier for loss of agricultural land. When compared with a farm's total value, £25,000 is a very small amount. Even a 100-hectare farm, which is relatively small, is worth £500,000 at £2,000 per acre for 250 acres. However, we are talking about an additional loss payment of only £25,000, which is 0.5 per cent. of that amount. I wish to ask the Minister precisely why that maximum amount has been set.

The purpose of amendment No. 423 is to increase that maximum amount from £25,000 to £50,000. Those are all matters of judgment as to what the maximum amount should be, and how generous one must be to achieve one's objective. In my experience, most people who have their property compulsorily acquired end up out of pocket. They never quite have all their losses or all their removal costs reimbursed. Somehow there is always a mechanism that means that occupiers are reimbursed for certain things only. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, if the state is acquiring land, it is to be hoped that those powers will be used as a last resort. If they are to be used, and somebody is to lose his farm or his home, the least that the state can do is to make a generous loss payment.

I do not believe that we should always follow everything that the Irish Government do, but they signed an agreement—

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Their planning system is good.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I shall not be led down that path, Mr. Amess, or I shall certainly be ruled out of order. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman in any case.

As I was saying, the Irish Government agreed with their farmers to pay a fixed co-operation payment of 5,000 punts per acre on top of their standard compulsory purchase payment. I know that the punt is not worth the same as the pound, but that is still a substantial payment. As a matter of judgment, it would be interesting to know how the Minister thinks that the Bill's proposals compare to the Irish Government's arrangement.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

They are in the euro.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister corrects me. However, they were not in the euro in early 2001 when that arrangement was negotiated. I cannot remember the exact date when the euro came into operation. I presume that the arrangement that came into effect in 2001 had already been renegotiated. I cannot remember the exact timing.

Amendment No. 424 would enable the Secretary of State to vary the total limit and the percentage of the loss payment. I think that clause 76 covers that.

The amendments seek to probe the Government's thinking on how they arrived at the loss payments. The Minister did not answer my questions on financial considerations, or on anything to do with compensation in clause 73. Before we finish this part of the Bill, it would be useful for the Committee to have some idea of the public sector expenditure implications that the Bill will introduce, especially in

respect of loss payments. That will be an important consideration when we decide whether we feel that they are adequate, and therefore that the clause should be allowed to stand part of the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall praise both the Government and Conservative Members, which will shock them. ''Typical Liberal,'' they will say. Well, there we are. I am pleased that the Government are incorporating the idea of loss payments into the Bill. The hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned certain circumstances, but he did not touch on the fact that when land or a building has been acquired, if the landowner wants to acquire similar land elsewhere to continue his business, he will face legal costs in respect of that transaction. Landowners are not currently covered for that, so I welcome the introduction of loss payments.

I also welcome amendments tabled by Conservative Members. I accept that some of them are not worded ideally, but they are probing amendments. While I support the simplification of the compulsory purchase elements, I agree with the sentiment that the state needs to cover the likely losses that people may incur when their land is compulsory purchased. I look forward to hearing the Government's justification of the clause. Some figures to which it refers, especially the 2.5 per cent. on agricultural land, seem low. A proposal to increase that deserves scrutiny.

To overcome the problem of people feeling so aggrieved about compulsory purchase, a reasonably generous sum would be welcome, and would assist the process, rather than a figure that is regarded as below the bare minimum. There would be less resistance to compulsory purchase, because pre-negotiations would be based on what the person was likely to receive through compulsory purchase and the loss payment. A more generous allowance would encourage an earlier settlement, without having to go through legal proceedings, which I am sure all members of the Committee would regard as a satisfactory conclusion.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold reminded me of the first 10 years that I spent in this place, when I was much involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. All my friends in the Republic wish that they had never heard of the euro and want go back to the punt. However, I would be ruled out of order if I pursued such an interesting matter.

There are one or two general issues concerning the principle of loss payments that need ventilating, but they are more appropriate to be debated when we discuss clause stand part. I shall not mention them now—unless you are minded not to have a stand part debate, Mr. Amess. For the moment, I shall stick to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 436 and 438 both relate to clause 75. I shall need guidance at some stage on whether we can have two stand part debates on clauses 74 and 75, or whether you want to wrap the debates together, Mr. Amess, because the amendments jump between the clauses.

The amendments would delete the limit on the maximum amount that will be paid. Before the Minister points it out, I accept that we could have tabled an amendment to clause 74, which also contains

the principle that the Bill should state that the maximum payment will be X. We are not debating what the amount should be, but questioning why there should be a maximum amount. I need to hear a justification for that before I can support either of the clauses, and through amendments Nos. 436 and 438, I invite the Minister to tell us why there should be a maximum payment. What is wrong with paying what the property is worth?

I turn now to amendment No. 420, which relates to clause 74, and amendment No. 422, which relates to clause 75. I accept that if the Government want to be pedantic, they could say that we could have tabled yet another amendment to subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new section 33B of the Land Compensation Act 1973 under clause 75, which is another example of a percentage being mentioned. I could be uncharitable—I try not to be—and say that the percentages have been plucked out of the air, but I doubt that. If they had been, my guess is that they would have been the same.

Why did the Minister settle on those percentages? One is 2.5 per cent. and the other is 7.5 per cent. I suspect that a great deal of thought has been given to them. It may sound pedantic to ask: why not 2 per cent., rather than 2.5 per cent.? Somebody, somewhere must have done some calculations and arrived at a conclusion. If we are to support the Government and settle for 2.5 per cent. and 7.5 per cent., we must hear the argument in favour of those figures. I might have been the author of the amendments, but I accept that tabling amendments simply to double the percentages is but a means of triggering the debate. I am not accusing the Government of plucking figures out of the air, but I will readily admit that in doubling them I was guilty of that, to test the Government's arguments. I hope that the Minister does not simply say that our figures are wrong, because I want to know why hers are right.

On amendment No. 437, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said that he thought that it was not necessary to add at the bottom of the list in new section 33B(2) the words

''the land and building amount''.

I do not know whether that would be a sub-subsection. I can never get the jargon right. I have a suspicion that sometimes the value of the land is one figure and the value of the building is a different figure, whereas their value together is quite different. At the moment, the payment would be whichever of the two sums was the higher.

From my own experience of buying a home comprising both land and a building, I learned rapidly that the combined value of the land and the building is often in excess of the value of the land or the building, and that they are complementary to one another. If the Government do not want to pay according to the combined value, they should tell us why. My hon. Friend has made the point about generosity, and I shall return to that on clause stand

part. If the Minister resists the amendment that would add

''the land and building amount'',

there has to be a very good reason for doing so, because that would be departing from the generosity principle that my hon. Friend adduced for us.

Amendments Nos. 421 and 424 would prescribe different amounts. It is perhaps ironic that my hon. Friend and I are putting forward yet more powers for that jackboot dictator, the Secretary of State, but I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. She has missed some rare occurrences of my trying to help her Government, but I do so occasionally. The amendment would get the Government off the hook of the inflation that they are stoking up for the next year or two, which will make them more mean than they are at the moment. I hope that the Minister will accept help from whichever quarter it comes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's speech, but I must take him back to his point about land and buildings. It is a good argument and it will become increasingly important over time, particularly in the south of England, where people will pay a significant premium for houses that have a bit of land with them, because they will start to become a scarcer commodity.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As the owner of a house with land, I sincerely hope so—but perhaps that is declaring an interest. The Government, who do not like people having a pleasant home in the countryside, are using their dictatorial powers to demand that concrete be spread all over people's back gardens in order to meet some artificial targets. I accept that that is the Government's policy, and making people suffer that awful future is one more reason for generously compensating them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Amendment No. 423 seeks to double the maximum amount payable. I will not go to the stake to defend the figure of £50,000; it is just a figure that has been tabled to trigger the debate. However, not even I can imagine that the Government are so stupid as to pluck the figure of £25,000 out of the air. Somebody somewhere must have had a very good reason for setting £25,000 as the maximum amount. The figure may reflect what the Government—who want to interfere in all our lives—think any individual in society ought to be allowed to have. That may be the philosophy behind it. There must have been a reason for setting a figure of £25,000, and I would be eternally grateful if the Minister would tell us what it was.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Let me see what I can do. I feel that the Opposition have been a tad ungenerous in not welcoming the new loss payment scheme, which is a great improvement on the scheme that we were left by our predecessors. The scheme will greatly assist landowners. However, I will leave their lack of generosity aside.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I, for the avoidance of doubt, put on record the fact that the official Opposition do indeed welcome the loss payments.

The purpose of the amendments is not to be mean-spirited but to probe the Government's thinking on the levels of payments in the Bill.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I accept that. Let me try to respond to the points that have been raised. I do not think that I need detain the Committee on amendments Nos. 421 and 424. The hon. Member for Cotswold has referred to them already. They are redundant because, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, if we read to the end of clause 77 we see that the new section 33K already provides the regulation-making powers that he seeks. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cotswold has welcomed them.

I turn to amendments Nos. 420, 422 and 423. It may help hon. Members if I outline the rationale behind the provisions that hon. Members are seeking to change. I understand that the purpose of the amendments is to probe that rationale. In setting the limits, our aim was to provide appropriate recompense for the impact on an owner of losing their assets at a time not of their choosing, and to offset the costs involved in compulsory acquisition by the benefits of speedy implementation. The subject of legal fees was raised, and they would be covered by the disturbance payment.

We hope that the additional loss payment will create greater good will among those whose properties are directly affected, so that they settle their compensation claims more quickly than might otherwise have been the case. That would clearly be in everyone's interests. The hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned the previous financial position of local authorities; he will know that that issue is covered in the regulatory impact assessment.

We set maximum figures because we do not consider that an ever increasing level of loss payment as the value of the asset increases is justified. The impact of the loss on the owner of the interest is unlikely to increase in proportion once the value goes into seven figures. Opposition Members will have deduced—indeed, they have said—that the maximum sum payable to an owner-occupier under the Bill's provisions is £100,000. That comprises a £75,000 maximum basic loss payment and a £25,000 occupier's loss payment to be paid if a person is also the occupier of the land. The sum will be payable where the value of the claimant's interest reaches £1 million. As Opposition Members have said, that would always be a matter of judgment based on experience. In our judgment, that figure represents the value of the kind of premises that might be occupied by the upper end of the range of small to medium-sized businesses.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne said, quite reasonably, that he imagined that the Government did not pluck the figures out of the air. He is right. The figure of 7.5 per cent. for the basic loss payment was derived from the current home loss payments regime, under which residential owner-occupiers can claim 10 per cent. of the market value of their interest in the dwelling. The smaller figure reflects the fact that those with an interest in non-residential property who are also in occupation of it will be entitled to claim an occupier's loss payment amounting to at least 2.5 per cent. of the value of their interest. That is modelled

closely on the existing home loss payments regime and it is provided for under the arrangements that would be inserted by clause 75. Thus, like a residential owner-occupier who was eligible to make a claim for a home loss payment, those who own an interest in and occupy a non-residential property will be entitled to claim a total loss payment of 10 per cent. of the value of their interest.

The notional three to one split between the basic loss payment and the occupier's loss payment is intended to reflect the fact that it would be expected that those with a valuable interest in the property would need a larger inducement to encourage them to co-operate in land assembly projects. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Cotswold, who speaks for the official Opposition, would understand that.

Home loss payments will remain at 10 per cent. There is no pressure for that percentage to change, and there is reasonably widespread agreement on it. I have to say, therefore, that we would need to see some convincing justification for specifying a different percentage under the new system. The 10 per cent. figure has been seen as a reasonable uplift for those unquantifiable losses caused by the element of compulsion; without justification, any more would seem like a free gift at the expense of the public purse. Opposition Members would expect the Government to be prudent with the public purse, and to use their best judgment about what is acceptable in the circumstances.

Nevertheless, if in the light of experience the Government believe that the percentages or maximum payments ought to be amended, they can make the necessary changes by using the regulation-making powers set out in new section 33K, which will be inserted by clause 77.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful for the Minister's cogent explanation of how the Government arrived at the percentages and maximum upper limits. However, before the hon. Lady finishes on this subject, will she tell the Committee how she expects the maximum limit to be updated? Will it be updated in line with inflation or with property values, which generally exceed inflation? Clearly, over a period of time, even with inflation at its current low level, those figures could rapidly become outdated and insignificant.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Obviously, we shall have to see how the new regime goes, but the figures would probably be updated in line with property values; the hon. Gentleman has made an important point.

By contrast, the intention of amendments Nos. 436 and 438 is not to increase the maximum amount payable, but to remove the limit completely. For the reasons that I have already set out, the amendments would, if they were accepted, cut across the whole purpose of the new loss payment regime.

The purpose of the new regime—it is important that I spend just a minute explaining it—is to make some allowance for the upset, discomfort and inconvenience of being required to leave a property or give up an interest in it at a time not of the owner's or occupier's choice. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman

recognises that that is an improvement on existing arrangements. We do not believe, however, that there is justification for an ever increasing level of recompense as the value of the asset increases.

The distress and inconvenience suffered by a claimant is unlikely to keep increasing in proportion with the value of the property. Our proposals, therefore, are aimed at giving the greatest benefit to the owners of small and medium-sized businesses, often family owned, for whom the loss of particular business premises may be keenly felt, if a family has put a great deal of time and effort into those premises. Such individuals are likely to have invested a great deal of emotional capital in their business.

I understand the spirit in which the amendments were proposed, but the changes suggested would give an ever increasing benefit to those often large corporations, with extensive land holdings and valuable assets, for which loss of the land compulsorily acquired may be less significant—certainly as regards emotional factors. Our proposals are designed to reflect the provisions of the home loss payment regime.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I follow exactly what the Minister says. I agree that there should be an upper limit for large landowners. The opposite case, however, is that if the value of a property is very small—£10,000 or £20,000—the maximum payment of 10 per cent. will be a tiny amount, which may not cover the extra losses that we have been discussing. Rather than establishing a flat rate, would the Government not consider some sort of sliding scale to be more appropriate?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand that point, but we must be clear about the purpose of the home loss payment. It is to compensate for the inconvenience of land being acquired at a time not of the owner's or occupier's choice. I am unsure whether a sliding scale could measure that. We do not believe that an open-ended regime would make the best use of the public funds available for land acquisition to facilitate regeneration or major new developments, such as much-needed infrastructure projects, in which the private sector will almost inevitably be involved.

The difficulty with amendment No. 437 is that it would give agricultural occupiers a bigger bite at the cherry than everyone else, by allowing them to receive a payment consisting of both the land and building amount, where that exceeded 2.5 per cent. of the value of the occupier's interest in the land. It would be unfair to favour agricultural occupiers over others in that way, and we can see no reason for giving anyone such an excessive sum. That would be especially relevant if the proposal to remove any upper limit to the amount payable were accepted.

The land amount and the buildings amount are each intended as alternatives where the value of the occupier's interest is very low—for example, in the case of a tenancy from year to year. The payment amounts have been calculated to take account of the fact that they are alternatives, designed to cover cases in which the occupier has very few buildings but extensive

landholdings, or vice versa. For those reasons, payment of a combined sum would be as unjustifiable as the removal of a ceiling on the maximum sum.

This has been a helpful debate, which has exposed several important issues, and I ask hon. Members to vote against the amendments if they are pressed to a vote.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have just one more thing to say about the specifics of the amendments, on which the Minister may wish to comment further. I listened with great care to her, and understood the arguments that she deployed. Because my disagreement with them is general, I shall explain why I do not agree with them when we come to clause stand part—with one exception.

The Minister's argument for a maximum figure was that with ever rising property values, there must come a time when using a percentage figure becomes unreasonable. I do not follow that. I understand what she is suggesting, but she is inviting us to draw a distinction between the cost of property or land, which will go up, and the cost of other things, which presumably will not. She is saying that at some point the two will part company. That is not logical. The Minister describes a case in which there would be a maximum figure, irrespective of what happens in the future—unless we return to a means of altering the figures.

I press the Minister to think again. If it is right to start with a percentage of the value of the land or the buildings, I do not understand how it logically follows that there can be a cut-off point. The values of land and buildings tend to be linked to inflation. If inflation applies to them, it applies to everything else, and it would be reasonable that all values would go up. The Minister certainly has not persuaded me that a maximum figure is justified.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Near the end of her comments, the Minister dealt with the issue that my hon. Friend raised about taking the value of land and buildings together, because the value of the house with land may be greater than the value of the separate parts. She skated over it, and I would be grateful if she would clarify the matter. According to normal valuation principles, the two would be valued together, and one would usually expect payment on that basis. It may not apply under loss payments—that may be a different matter—but that is how a basic valuation would work.

The Minister did not explain how the limits are to be amended. I am absolutely certain that they will have to be amended. She helpfully said that she thought that they would be amended in relation to property values. That is the correct way, of course, but it takes time for such things to go through the bureaucratic mechanisms that are involved. I can well envisage three or four years elapsing before the Government take the appropriate procedures through clause 77 to amend the limits. I am concerned about that.

Finally, it should be a general principle with compulsory purchase that a person is put in the same position after the purchase that they were in before. In other words, they should be able to purchase an equivalent property with the money that they have been given for their property. I have provided some examples to do with farming, in which farmers and tenants suffered losses for which they were not compensated. If that becomes an increasing trend and the Government realise that it is happening, I hope that they will review the maximum values for farming and increase the loss payments to cover some of the items for which there has not been compensation.

However, having said that, we have had a long debate on these relatively straightforward amendments. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, we welcome the loss payments. They are a useful addition to measures that already are in place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 419, in

clause 74, page 48, line 8, leave out from second 'a' to 'case)' in line 9 and insert—

'(a) a freehold interest, or

(b) an interest as tenant from year to year, or

(c) an interest as tenant for more than a year

and in cases (a) and (c) above'.

This is a very simple, straightforward technical amendment that would deal with a legal point. We believe that it is the Government's intention to make agricultural tenants eligible for basic loss payments. However, as they are tenants from year to year, they could fall through the qualifying interest definition in proposed new section 33A(4). The amendment would rectify that risk, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether she agrees with it.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I shall try to be brief, as the hon. Member for Cotswold was commendably so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Just say yes.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

You know what it is like, Mr. Amess; lawyers are never brief. My apologies; I shall earn myself the unpopularity of not only Opposition Members but my hon. Friends.

I must tell the hon. Member for Cotswold that there is a mistake in the drafting of the amendment. It mentions ''cases (i) to (iii) above'', but I assume that it should refer to cases (a) and (c). [Interruption.] I take it from the hon. Gentleman that that is so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am confused. The Minister says that there is a flaw in the amendment because it mentions cases (a), (b) and (c) instead of cases (a) and (c), when in fact, the amendment says:

''cases (a) and (c) above''.

Have I been confused by what the Minister said? Was I not listening carefully enough, or has the Minister made a mistake?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand from my colleagues that the amendment was certainly not that way originally. Anyway, perhaps we should move on. I think that the hon. Member for Cotswold changed it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. In the marshalled list of amendments before me, which is dated 28 January—that is today—the end of amendment No. 419 says:

''and in cases (a) and (c) above''.

Can you confirm that we are debating what is on that list, irrespective of what might have been tabled or printed elsewhere, or will we have to refer back to some other document, Mr. Amess?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman. The amendment is correct as on the amendment paper; originally, there was a printing error.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

That is a great help. I was about to say that I have taken instructions; that takes me back a few years. The amendment was originally printed wrongly, but it has clearly now been printed correctly. I accept completely that Opposition Members have before them the amendment in the correct form.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Just to clarify matters, I may have led the Minister down the path of temptation, because I, too, was reading from a previous version of the amendment paper. I am grateful that we have confirmed that there was a printing error, and that it has now been corrected.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Yes.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister accept that I am sorry if I implied that she had made a mistake? Clearly, she did not; someone else did. I hope that I did not imply that she was wrong.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Not at all. The hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Cotswold are generous, as always.

I take it that the intention behind the amendment is that in the case of a tenant from year to year, there would be no requirement for qualifying interest to subsist for a period of at least one year. Let me explain why I am not sure that I see the point of the amendment. If a claimant occupies property under a tenancy from year to year, he or she will have an interest that subsists for

''not less than one year'',

and therefore will qualify for a loss payment under the clause—provided, of course, that the claimant's interest is being acquired compulsorily, as that is one of the qualifying criteria set out in new section 33A(1) as inserted by clause 74. If, however, a claimant's interest is not being acquired compulsorily, they will not qualify for the loss payment. Given that a tenancy from year to year could simply be allowed to lapse once a relevant CPO had been confirmed, or that it could be terminated in another way, such as by notice to quit or surrender, it would be for the acquiring authority to decide whether to include such an interest in the CPO. It is worth noting that the value of a tenancy from year to year will in any case be minimal,

so the basic loss payment and the occupier's loss payment based on the value of the claimant's interest would also be minimal. If the interest is acquired compulsorily, the tenant could benefit from an occupier's loss payment calculated on the land amount or the buildings amount.

Where a tenancy is terminated or surrendered instead of the interest being compulsorily acquired, compensation may still be payable to the tenants. For example, they may be entitled to compensation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954—I spent some of the more boring months of my life working on that—the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

However—this is the pertinent point, and I apologise to the Committee for taking so long to reach it—it would not be appropriate for us to extend the loss payment regime to cover people whose property is not being acquired under compulsory purchase powers. That would open up a wide field on which it would be difficult to impose boundaries.

I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold that I understand the spirit in which the amendment was tabled. However, although it looks simple on the surface, it opens up a complex issue. I hope that he will accept my explanation and withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister mentioned section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Fortunately, it just so happens that that has come into my possession. Reading it very quickly, I think that it says that the notice to treat has to be served only on the landlord, not the tenant, although I may have got that wrong. I accept the Minister's explanation. If she makes it crystal clear that there is no danger that tenants can fall through the loss payments regime because of the wording of the clause, I will have no problem and will immediately withdraw the amendment.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I referred to section 20, not section 11. I said that people might be entitled to compensation under that where a tenancy was terminated or surrendered instead of being compulsorily acquired, so we feel that those interests are covered. If it is compulsorily acquired, that is a different matter, but compensation may be available through other avenues.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is a technical matter, and I should like to look carefully in Hansard at what the Minister has said. I am sure that if we still have doubts, we can return to them on Report or in another place. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

May I make it clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has, that I support the principle of the new loss payment scheme? It should perhaps have been introduced some while ago. [Hon. Members: ''Ah!''] One reason why I spent so

long on the Back Benches was that I used to say things that were critical of the previous Government, but I shall let that be. No one is perfect. My party is slightly less imperfect than this Government, but that is a different issue.

What concerns me about the principle of a loss payment scheme is that, whereas we need such a scheme, I am afraid that the Government are not going about it correctly. Under various amendments, we have heard about the introduction in a sense of the attitude that applies to rate support grant settlements, which involves the use of a formula. In this case the formula is the percentage: we consider that x per cent. is okay or that y per cent. is okay, and we will apply that across the board. When somebody qualifies for a payment, a formula is used to calculate the amount rather than use common sense and judge individual circumstances. My experience of a formula in any situation, whether for rate support grants, council tax or for the payment of compensation, is that sooner or later it will come a cropper. There is always an instance when it is blindingly obvious that more is due than the x per cent. that the formula allows.

There is no provision in the clause that the above formula is no substitute for common sense, and that is to be regretted. Somewhere along the line, the Government of the day, whatever their political colour, will find themselves embarrassed if they stick to that arrangement. I do not see what is wrong with using market value. I know that some in Parliament do not like the market, but it is possible to establish the value of losses. Many people specialise in working out a realistic figure for losses in all sorts of circumstances. One need only consider the insurance industry, which constantly deals with complicated claims. It is possible to assess the cost of rebuilding, for example, although, of course, it is very difficult to put a value on pain and suffering or on the loss of profits. However, the private sector is not subjected to a formula; it is subjected to negotiation. Therefore one arrives at a realistic figure in each case that is acceptable to the insurer and to the claimant. It should not be beyond the wit of man, and certainly not beyond the wit of the Government and the civil service, to come up with a formula of words rather than a formula of figures to deal with the issues that arise after a valuation of a property has been made.

I am against formulas in principle; the market value has something to offer. I am also concerned that the clause contains no reference to replacement values. It is all very well to ask, ''What are you losing? You are suffering some inconvenience and interruption and we realise that you would rather not go, so we will pay you something for it.'' However, there is no real understanding that because you are being forced to move on you will have to replace the value of what you have. It may appear to be like for like, but because of the circumstances it is not.

Because we are so close to finishing, Government Members may have thought that they have avoided hearing about Heathrow airport for a whole morning—[Hon. Members: ''Oh no!'']—but I am sorry to have to disillusion them. The planning of

terminal 5 provides a wonderful example of a replacement issue.

When terminal 5 was being planned, the value of some cottages beside the sewage works, where terminal 5 is being built, had to be decided. You can imagine that a group of cottages between two runways next to a sewage works had a value that was much lower than that of nice cottages with a garden not next to a sewage works between two runways at the world's busiest international airport. Bit by bit, the owners were winkled out, often against their wishes, until one family remained. It had reached the stage when compulsory purchase powers were being contemplated against the remaining family. The family merely wanted to move to a little house with the same square footage and the same amount of garden near their families. They lived at the western end of the airport and the rest of the family was living to the south of it in Ashford in my constituency. The difference in value between being bought out next to the sewage works and moving to the same thing in highly desirable Ashford was astronomic.

If a formula had been applied, even if it involved a topping up because of the inconvenience, the difference in value would have been such that it would still have been impossible for that family, whom I represented, to move into a maisonette or bedsit. Because the public sector was luckily not involved in compulsory purchase, BAA was persuaded to say to those people, ''We get the message. Go and find yourselves a like-for-like, same square footage, same-size garden house and we will buy it for you if you give us what you own at the moment.'' That is what I mean by replacement.

That situation will occur time and again with compulsory purchase. I am amazed that the Government have decided to refer to the fact that under certain circumstances the replacement costs are the costs that shall be followed when it comes to compensation.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

My hon. Friend was not on the Bill for the channel tunnel rail link, but the Minister's attitude is completely opposed to that taken by the Labour party when it was in opposition. At that stage, there was an open purse, so perhaps there will be some relief on the Heathrow issue.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have mentioned Heathrow, but I do not wish what I say to be too taxing for Government Members.

The concept of generosity should be included in the Bill. All too often, the reason for compulsory purchase is the need to speed something up. There are two ways to speed things up. When the French built the channel tunnel rail link, the French Transport Minister said, ''When you're going to drain the swamps, don't consult the frogs.'' One can go down the route of not consulting, taking jackboot powers and building railway lines, or one can use compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase requires loss arrangements with which the concept of generosity helps. When dealing with the amendments, the Minister argued that it was up to the Government not to squander taxpayers' money, a point with which I agree, as I am sure that

she expected me to. As a general point, however, paying over the apparent odds does not necessarily mean a bad deal. I therefore thought that the clause would refer to that point.

I have another example of what I have in mind from my constituency. One of the busiest bits of the M25 runs through my constituency, and every so often the Government of the day decide that it would be a good idea to widen it again, which does not seem to solve the problems but nevertheless we go through the experience on a routine basis. Not too many people live near the M25, which is a relief, but the last time they discussed acquiring the necessary land compulsorily the proposal would have affected a dog kennels. Time and money were saved when someone had the good sense on this occasion to say, ''We will buy the kennels at a realistic price.'' Compulsory purchase was not necessary because a sensible price was negotiated. The owner of the land was pleased to sell it, and he made it his business to go to neighbouring properties to ask them not to complain because he wanted to get his cheque as quickly as possible. The process therefore served to keep people quiet.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As it seems that my hon. Friend will be talking when the Committee adjourns, will he press the Minister for an answer when she comes back on the number of houses that she expects to be affected by the clause and the public expenditure implications, about which we have heard nothing. Will she come armed with that information for this afternoon?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has obviously given the Minister notice. When he rises to speak in the clause stand part debate she will know what he is going to say. With the lunch break coming, she will have plenty of time to go away and, rather than having lunch, work out the figures to inform my hon. Friend.

The notion of generosity needs to be included in the clause. The Minister might want to portray it as my arguing for using more taxpayers' money than is necessary. To screw people down to the lowest possible price will often result in delay, attempts to provoke a dispute and the need for a public inquiry. The net result will be such disputes going on and on and on. It would be harmful if a development were frustrated. If the public inquiry and the dispute go on long enough, given the inflation that the Government are in the process of stoking up, in the end even the base figure that has to be paid will be higher than it would have been had they been generous in the first instance.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. This is not the moment for the usual exchange of courtesies, but I shall not be with the Committee this afternoon. Besides congratulating the hon. Member for Wansdyke on his birthday and again congratulating the hon. Member for Ludlow and his wife on the birth of their baby daughter, I should congratulate all the members of the Committee on the way in which they have conducted themselves. I want to thank all members of the Committee for the courtesy that they have shown me. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I should like to thank the Clerk and her

team for keeping us in good order. I shall now adjourn the Committee.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I know that this is not really the right time for such comments, but as you will not be in the Chair for our afternoon sitting, before you adjourn the Committee this morning I would like to put on the record my thanks to you for your chairmanship, and your unfailing courtesy and good humour. I shall convey my thanks to others, including your co-Chairman Mr. Pike, later today.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. May I associate myself with the Minister's words of appreciation to you, as we shall not see you this afternoon?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I join the Minister and the hon. Member for Cotswold in thanking you for your chairmanship, and your assistance to us in the weeks for which we have considered the Bill in Committee.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I start the proceedings, I should say that this is the Committee's final sitting. I do not know what hon. Members believe are the most important items on the long list before us for debate, and I am completely in the hands of the Clerk for much of our proceedings. Obviously, however, if there are items that hon. Members want to reach, they should bear that in mind and use their common sense during the debate.Clause 74 Basic loss payment

Clause 74 - Basic loss payment

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. As this is the last sitting, and as our proceedings have been tightly timetabled all the way through, may I ask whether you have any power to change whether the knife comes down at 5 pm, or must we finish then, irrespective of how far we have got?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I am sure that you know the answer—I have no power to change that. The only body that could do so is the Programming Sub-Committee, and it has given me no indication that it will vary what has been agreed. I am therefore bound by the decisions that it has taken.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does that not show what nonsense timetabling in Committees is?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I cannot comment on that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

May I refer to the wise advice that you have given the Committee, Mr. Pike? Some of the remaining clauses raise important issues. Indeed, all our previous sittings have raised a range of serious issues; some we have discussed, others we have not. However, you will understand why I believe—I hazard a guess that my colleagues will agree—that we should not pass over an issue just because it is not as important as the next one. It may be important in itself.

One problem with the route down which the Government have taken us is that we have legislation by printing machine, rather than sensible discussion and deliberation. We had some useful exchanges this morning. The Minister was thoughtful and helpful, and explained things at length. It was a useful morning, but we managed to get through only a clause and a bit.

I am not prepared to play the Government's game, and to be stampeded by them into ignoring issues that need discussing, just so that we can get to the end of the Bill.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. May I give guidance? I understand your point Mr. Wilshire, but you and I are long-time Members of the House, and we have seen what both the Labour and Conservative parties have done in government. Everyone understands your point, but I must see to it that we make progress. It is certainly not for me to consider the relative merits of a procedure. I hope that you will now resume the clause stand part debate.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am most grateful. Of course, you and I have been here a long time, Mr. Pike. We have seen Governments come and go, and I look forward to this one going sooner rather than later. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to say as much as I did, and I shall move on without trying your patience.

Before lunch, I made several points about the clause, and I will not go back over them. As you were not in the Chair this morning, however, I will say that the Committee was slightly demob happy, although it did not quite get round to singing happy birthday to the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). It did cheer, however, when I finally mentioned Heathrow.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It was 11.18.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Well, demob happy was the mood, but I do not know whether it will continue this afternoon.

Several things are wrong with clause 75.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. We are discussing clause 74. We have not yet reached clause 75, and I am sorry to keep interrupting, because I know that you are anxious to reach it—so am I.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I managed to make that mistake without even having a decent lunch. What would have happened had I done so, I shudder to think.

I wanted to say, although I did it in a ham-fisted way, that many of the issues that arise in the clause 74 stand part debate could almost be said to belong to clause 75 too; they are part and parcel of the same thing. I wonder, Mr. Pike, whether you have taken a view yet as to whether to allow a clause stand part debate on clause 75.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

As clause 75 will not otherwise be debated, it would be very remiss of me as Chairman not to allow any debate at all on it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful for that. My reason for asking was that many of the amendments that we discussed this morning are amendments to clause 75. There is some overlap.

What is wrong with clause 74—and at this point I really am getting my mind round clause 74—is that it is driven by a formula which, as I was explaining, will sooner or later come a cropper and do somebody a grave injustice. The clause makes no reference—and nothing that the Minister has said has reassured me on this point—to the need, on occasion, to consider the replacement cost of something rather than the loss of what is being confiscated. In fact, it does the opposite, if one follows the Minister's guidance about the

taxpayer's expectation that not a penny more should be spent than the minimum that one can get away with. Sometimes that is right, sometimes not.

The clause makes no reference to speeding up. Occasionally, paying slightly over the odds means that the land is obtained more quickly, a public inquiry is avoided, and things are done before inflation drives up the cost of the whole project. Some public inquiries, even into compulsory purchase orders, can take a long time and cost a huge amount of money, so there are occasions when generosity is in the taxpayer's interest. Such issues are what concern me—the basic use of a formula, the lack of a reference to replacement cost, when it is needed, and the lack of any provision to speed up the process through voluntary negotiations. It is for those reasons that I have the greatest doubts about whether clause 74 is right, and whether it would be better to approach the matter differently.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It is good to serve in this Committee under your Chairmanship, Mr. Pike; I have not had that privilege before and I welcome you.

I should mention to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that I was dismayed when the cheer went up at 11.18. I had not, of course, had the benefit of hearing the reference to Heathrow before.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Do not encourage him.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I found it very interesting. What can I say other than to register my dismay?

We have debated clause 74 in some detail. The aim of these four clauses is to provide payments to make some allowances for the upset, discomfort and inconvenience of being required to leave a property or give up an interest in it at a time that is not of the owner or occupier's choosing. The new loss payments are in addition to compensation, at open market value, and disturbance costs. In setting the parameters for assessing the loss payment we have attempted to reflect the element of upset and inconvenience. The provision is not designed to provide a straight top-up to the open market value of the asset; nor is it a substitute for compensation at open market value, which is, and will continue to be, paid to those whose property is compulsorily acquired.

It was not always clear to me during the debate this morning that all hon. Members had fully understood the underlying basis of the proposed loss payments. To help the Committee, I emphasise that we do not propose any change to the current arrangements by which the owner of the land that is being acquired receives its open market value, including its value after account is taken of any buildings on it, as negotiated between the owner's professional advisers and the acquiring authority. The new loss payment will be additional to the compensation to which the owner or occupier is already entitled as recompense for any actual costs or losses incurred as a result of the acquisition, including relocation costs. Indeed, the

hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) recognised the importance of that.

In addition, to take the type of case referred to by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, an acquiring authority with compulsory purchase powers would be able to negotiate the acquisition of a person's interest on whatever terms the two parties could agree, and to pay the proposed loss payment in addition. So, to answer the point about cost inquiries raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold, the legislation is flexible enough to allow the local authority and the landowner to do just that.

There was also some discussion this morning about details of costs. Those will depend on the extent to which the introduction of the new loss payment regime encourages authorities to acquire more properties. Where the 10 per cent. additional loss payment becomes payable, there will be a 10 per cent. increase in the unit cost of acquiring the property. However, as set out in the regulatory impact assessment, the average overall increase in scheme costs is likely to be about 1 per cent. We would anticipate that being offset by the speeding-up of the acquisition process.

There has also been discussion about the formula. The hon. Member for Cotswold has accepted that we have provided regulation-making powers to enable us to change the percentages on which the loss payments are to be assessed, the maximum and minimum limits, and the rates per area for the land-and-buildings methods of assessing the occupiers' loss payment. Those can then be adjusted to reflect changes in property values. However, we also need to consider whether the levels set in the Bill provide the required incentive.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister helpfully responded to the intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne before lunch by providing a quote from the regulatory impact assessment. She said that she anticipated the overall costs of acquisition under the new arrangements to rise by 1 per cent. Can she explain the Government's underlying calculations? For instance, how many houses would she expect to be acquired in one year? The Government must have made some estimate in order to come up with 1 per cent. What was their thinking?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

We are not discussing the full cost of compulsory purchase in the round. This is a loss payment that is made on top of that for disturbance and the open market price for the land. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks the question, but it is difficult to disaggregate the figure. However, we can try to estimate what it would do to the overall cost of the scheme. It will be right to keep it under review. That is why we have included the power for Parliament, if it so wishes, to revisit the matter. The debate has been helpful and constructive, and I urge the Committee to support the clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I must ask the Minister—with the greatest good will, because she has been very courteous in her responses—for a little more financial information. Will she write to each Committee member and put a note in the Library about the direction of the trend for compulsory purchase? She

did not tell us that when we discussed clause 73, and she has now mentioned the loss payments under clauses 74 and 75—I assume that she meant both, as she did not make that clear. In doing the arithmetic, she must have estimated the number of properties to be acquired. It would be useful to hear what the trend has been in the past five years and where the Government think it will go under these new, simplified and accelerated procedures. Will it increase, as one would expect? I would be grateful if the Minister would respond, perhaps in writing.

The Minister mentioned clause 77 and the updating powers. It is in the nature of such matters for there to be a lag in updating them. I am not concerned about the percentages, because those will increase as the value of the property increases, but the maximum figures should be updated, particularly for those in low-value properties who will benefit most from the owners' loss payments and basic loss payments. Will the Minister clarify that matter, if not now, in writing?

I shall not urge my colleagues to vote against the clause. As the Minister says, the payment is in addition to the existing compulsory purchase payment for the value and disturbance. We therefore welcome it. It becomes less generous as one approaches clause 75, but we shall debate that when we come to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Occupier's loss payment

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Although I am prepared to allow a free stand part debate, the amendments that were listed against this clause were debated in the last group, because there was a close relationship between the two clauses.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We do need a little clarification. Whereas, under the previous clause, we were dealing with the basic loss payment, which was 7.5 per cent. of the value or a maximum of £75,000, in this clause we are dealing with the occupier's loss payment, which is 2.5 per cent. of the value of his interest, capped at £25,000. The same arguments apply, so I would press the Minister again about updating the maximum amount. We are to debate amendments on the matter later, but it would be helpful if the Minister would tell the Committee whether she anticipates updating the figure annually or in some other way.

I slightly pre-empted the clause stand part debate on this clause by saying that whereas the basis loss payments given in clause 74 are reasonably generous, particularly to those in low-value properties, those in clause 75 are not. In layman's terms, the proposal in subsection (8) of new section 33B of the Land Compensation Act 1973 of £100 per hectare not exceeding 100 hectares amounts to £10,000 for 250 acres, or £15,000 for 750 acres. That is £40 per acre and £20 per acre respectively. Considering that the

current value of land is probably in excess of £2,000 per acre, it is minimal.

The Minister spoke earlier about compensating for the costs of removal. Some of the unreimbursed costs that I mentioned this morning, in terms of having to acquire a new farm and to build new buildings, will be far greater than £10,000 or £15,000. The payment is not very generous, and I do not think that it will encourage property owners to agree compulsory purchase arrangements quickly—nor does the National Farmers Union. However, we shall see whether the Government's judgment is correct.

The further that we move into the clauses, the less generous they become. The buildings amount given in subsection (9) of £25 per sq m or part of a sq m of the gross floor space of any buildings on the land is probably what a relatively low-cost building would achieve in rent in the city, where rents are—even in today's depressed market—currently between £20 and £60 per sq ft. That puts the capital value at between £2,400 and £7,200 per sq m. The building loss payments would amount to between 1 per cent. and 0.3 per cent. Considering that the acquisition costs of a compulsory purchase project are typically less than 25 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme, those payments are less than generous. It would be helpful of the Minister to show how she arrived at the figures and what she thinks that they will compensate for.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Clearly we will want to keep this point under review and will update provision when necessary. The hon. Gentleman questioned the figure of 2.5 per cent. for the occupier's loss payment. That derives from the current home loss payment, under which owner-occupiers can claim 10 per cent. of the value of the interest that is being acquired. It complements the 7.5 per cent. payable as a basic loss payment on a ratio of 1:3 to give owner-occupiers a freehold interest in non-residential property, and makes a total loss payment of 10 per cent. of the value of their interest. It is based on the current home loss payment regime, which most people agree should stay as it is. It also seems right on the basis of fairness and equity.

Subsection (8) of new section 33B specifies that the basis for calculating the land amount is to be £100 per hectare for the first 100 hectares taken, and £50 per hectare for the next 300 hectares or part of a hectare, bringing the maximum payable to £25,000. As the occupier's loss payment is intended to compensate occupiers for the compulsory nature of the acquisition and the inconvenience of having to move at a time not of their choosing, the land amount is intended to provide a fair balance in the amount payable between freeholders and protected and other tenancies, which are of value, and farm business tenancies, which are not. It ignores differences in the values of different types of agricultural land, because the additional payment is intended to relate to the distress and inconvenience of being obliged to relocate farming operations rather than the intrinsic productive value of the land.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I must press the Minister about how she arrived at the figures. Under clause 74, the maximum payment might be £100,000. There does not

seem to be much equity between that—it would relate to a property worth £1 million—and the maximum of only £25,000 for the disturbance to somebody obliged to sell a farm.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we cannot use the extra loss payment as a basis for capitalising on the value of the land. He referred to subsection (9) of new section 33B and city prices, but it deals with agricultural land. The sum of £25,000 to which he referred is additional to the £75,000 that is available for owner-occupiers in a special position. I hope that I have assisted the Committee.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The hon. Lady may have assisted some members of the Committee, but she has not helped me very much. I am old-fashioned; I still think in acres. I have difficulty with hectares, so I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I talk in a language other than that used in the Bill. My arithmetic is probably not much good, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said that we were talking about an extra 1 per cent. of the value of the property that had been confiscated. That maximum figure does not strike me as generous or fair, but parsimonious in the extreme.

An example comes to mind. It has nothing to do with Heathrow, except that it could be close to it. When talking about the price of agricultural land, those who come from the city are tempted to think that the rolling countryside is about £1,000 or less per acre and say how wonderful that is. I come from the edge of a great city, where the price of agricultural land is astronomic. A lot of the land outside cities can be small areas and used for market gardening and specialist production. It tends not to have agricultural holdings, huge farms and so on.

At one time, I had six acres of land, which had been a smallholding, used for agricultural purposes. It had attracted EU money—before I owned it, I hasten to add. If two acres from the six had been wanted for road widening, for example, the sheep that had been kept on the land could not have been moved a long way from the smallholding. If such an owner loses a couple of acres, he will be in serious difficulty. He could put a value on the two acres that had been compulsory purchased and confiscated, but he would still have to put the animals somewhere else because a certain number of them per acre would be unsustainable.

The land that had been confiscated might have been medium-grade agricultural land that was worth £2,000 an acre, given that it was the edge of the city, but to keep the sheep close to the owner's home so that he could deal with them at lambing time, he might have to buy land immediately next door to make up for the two lost acres. It could be that top-grade agricultural land was the only land available. The person had been compensated at £2,000 an acre, but the only other land that he could buy was at £3,000 per acre. The figure of 1 per cent. added to the value of the land that had been confiscated will not help him. He will end up with a

holding that is not viable, because no cheap land is available.

The maximum additional compensation of 1 per cent. is not fair. The Minister has not dealt with such matters. She said that she was referring only to agricultural land and that some of the values used were city values. Let us consider buildings. A clapped-out barn in the middle of Northumberland might be worth only a small amount, but I assure the Committee that any sort of structure on agricultural land in places such as Surrey has an enormous value. Some of the prices paid are ridiculous. If compulsory purchase powers had been used on parts of my six acres, my barn would have gone. I would have been given the value of the barn, but the chances of finding another—certainly the chances of being given planning permission to put something up—would be virtually zilch. I would have lost my barn and have been paid 1 per cent. more as an attempt to solve a problem that I could not solve.

A 1 per cent. uplift is not much use, and if the figure of 1 per cent. in relation to buildings is correct, it is not much use either. The Minister has failed to convince me that the provision is sensible. I do not know whether she can add anything further, but I am full of reservations. I think that the provision is mean to the point of being utterly unreasonable.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

While my hon. Friend was talking, I was reading the Government's Green Paper ''Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: delivering a fundamental change''. I thought that I had read that the Government were going to clarify the fact that, under compulsory purchase, when only part of a property is acquired, the owner has the right to require the acquiring authority to purchase the entire property. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to tell us the Government's intention on that?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Of course I shall press the Minister. If she comes back and her defence to my objections is to say, ''If you're going to lose part of your property, you have a right to say that they take the whole lot'', that makes things worse. Just because two acres of six are taken away, to use my example, why should a person's only realistic option be to leave his home, go somewhere else and start over again? It is crazy if that is the Government's so-called way of solving the problem. A better way to solve this real problem would be to say that the value paid—whether uplift or the actual value of the land—will be the replacement cost.

I realise that I am in danger of repeating myself from our previous sitting, but if two acres are taken away from somebody, which makes the six-acre unit unviable, and if the only alternative is for that person to buy better grade land so that he can continue to live and to earn a living, the obvious solution is not to use artificial figures such as 1 per cent. or to use ceilings. If two acres have been confiscated and a person can demonstrate that land is necessary to continue what he was doing, the Government should say, ''All right, we will replace that two acres and if it costs us more, so be

it. We will respect the rights of the individual rather than trampling all over his rights with jackboots.''

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I shall operate one more time my self-imposed rule of responding only once to those points. First, in response to the hon. Member for Cotswold, the power already exists. It is in section 8 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that, although I was aware of it. There is confusion about the operation of the section. I understood that the Government were going to clarify the matter by bringing forward new proposals on compulsory purchase. Are there still any proposals to clarify the matter?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I have already said to the Committee—we also made it clear on Second Reading—that we shall have to consider other issues surrounding compulsory purchase. I will examine whether there is confusion, and that will be considered when we address other measures.

There is confusion about the point raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The additional payment is 10 per cent. The 1 per cent. figure about which he talked is the estimated increase of the total scheme cost to the acquiring authority. I have already said that the figure of 1 per cent. was estimated in the regulatory impact assessment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister said that people would be entitled to claim the basic loss payment and the agricultural loss payment. However, will they also be able to claim the occupier's loss payment? If they claim the agricultural loss payment, are they precluded from claiming the occupier's loss payment?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It is either/or.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Loss payments: exclusions

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 439, in

clause 76, page 51, line 7 after 'any', insert 'reasonable'.

On the face of it, the amendment is innocuous—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

And very reasonable.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend says that it is reasonable, but it is more than that; it is of great importance. Without the word ''reasonable'', paragraph (d) is pretty draconian. The Government are trying to speed up compulsory purchase, but citizens will feel aggrieved if they think that they have not been treated fairly. After all, if they do not comply with the notices, they will be excluded from receiving the loss payments.

Under article 1 of the European convention on human rights, a person is entitled to free enjoyment of their property. If people feel aggrieved at not getting the loss payments because an act beyond their control has taken place, they may have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. Article 1 says:

''Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.''

We, of course, are making national law. However, if the national law is unreasonable, people might have recourse to the European Court under article 1.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sorry to use my hon. Friend as my research assistant, but can he give us some examples of what the notices might contain, so that we can hear what sort of human rights might be abused under them?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That is fairly clearly set out. The notice will make certain requirements, and those who fail to comply with them will not be entitled to the loss payments. There may be circumstances in which they could not meet the requirements of the notice because of the actions of a third party. For example, a financial institution might issue a legal charge in relation to an unencumbered freehold required by the notice, or the granting of planning permission might be needed for the demolition of a dangerous or unfit building required by the notice. There should be some discretion, because there will be cases in which it is impossible to meet the requirements of the notice in the time scale given.

New section 33D(1)(d) simply says:

''he has failed to comply with any requirement of the notice.''

If any requirement were not met, regardless of whether that was the person's fault, paragraph (d) would give the acquiring authority the excuse to make them no longer entitled to loss payments. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope that she will think about the matter, and decide that perhaps the wording in subsection (1)(d) is too draconian.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing my homework for me. I should like to raise a subject on which we need clarification from the Minister. As far as those notices are concerned, the issue of what is a reasonable requirement is relevant. However, if that matter will be discussed in a clause stand part debate, I would be happy to be told to leave it until later. Subsection (4)(d) contains a good example of an unreasonable requirement. I can see how the relevant body might say, ''Well, if you do not repair this building, we might have to compulsorily purchase it so that we can do something about it.'' I went round that course in my local government days, and I understand the arguments well.

The wording of new section 33D(4)(d) states:

''notice under section 48 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (repairs notice prior to compulsory notice of acquisition''.

Does that mean that it would be possible to serve a notice on someone that said, ''You must do this so that we can compulsorily acquire it''? In the context of new subsections (a), (b) and (c), I understand (d) to say, ''If you do not do this, we might have to acquire it in the greater public interest because that is, perhaps, the right way to go about it. This notice says that you must do this, and we could compulsorily purchase this listed building.'' That is extraordinary. It would seem

that if a local authority or the Government wanted a listed building that was in a clapped-out state, they would tell someone to renovate it and then take it from them, rather than acquire it and renovate it themselves. If that is what the new section means, it is outrageous and it raises all kinds of other questions. I hope that the Minister will put me out of my misery, so that I do not have to pursue the point.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand that hon. Members are concerned that no claimant should be deprived of the loss payment as a result of failing to comply with any unreasonable requirement contained in the notice that was served on them. However, each of the notices that is specified in new section 33D(4) has an appeal procedure attached to it and the time within which the reasonableness of the requirements may be disputed will be in accordance with those provisions. For example, section 191 of the Housing Act 1985 provides that a person who is aggrieved by a repair notice may appeal to the county court within 21 days after the notice's having been served. Any failure to appeal against the order within the statutory time lime set for that purpose would indicate acceptance of its terms. Furthermore, if a claimant considered that the appeal procedure had not been handled properly, or that the outcome had been unreasonable, he or she could have further recourse to the courts.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The problem is that if a claimant had not complied with any requirement of the notice, any finding of an appeal would have to decide in favour of the authority. If the provision said ''reasonable'', there would be grounds for an appeal if they had not totally complied with the notice.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

No, the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the 1985 Act to see how the appeal process attaches to the notice.

If a claimant had not appealed against a notice but considered its terms unreasonable, he could, on those grounds, object to being served with a compulsory purchase order. It would then be for the inspector and the Secretary of State to consider the justification for the compulsory purchase order in the light of the claimant's objections. The issue of the amount of compensation to be paid would arise only once a compulsory purchase order had been confirmed and the reasonableness of the claimant's failure to comply with the requirements of the notice had been taken into account. It would, therefore, be superfluous to apply a further test of reasonableness at that stage.

I reassure the hon. Member for Spelthorne that my reading of the clause is that compulsory purchase will be considered in such a case only if repairs will not be done. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Just by chance, I happen to have before me section 191 of the 1985 Act—''Appeals against repairs notice''—which states:

''(1) A person aggrieved by a repair notice may within 21 days after the date of service of the notice, appeal to the county court.''

Other sections state that there could be grounds for appeal in the case of a repair notice, without prejudice to the generalities in subsection (1); they refer to issues

surrounding the making of a closing order, and they state that where an appeal is brought under subsection (1), the court should, on hearing it, have regard to guidance given to the local housing authority. I do not have time to find the relevant passage, but that section does not say, ''If you have not complied with the notice, you will be able to appeal.'' Instead, it simply says that the person must have complied with the notice. Therefore, the subsection gives no discretion whatsoever; a judge or a court would have to find in favour of the authority.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

New section 33(D)(1)(c) says that the notice has to be effective. If the notice has been successfully challenged on appeal, it will not be effective. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I assure him that his fears are unfounded.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I do not accept the Minister's contention. We will consider this matter in the cold light of day by referring to Hansard, and then we will decide whether we need to pursue it. However, we cannot pursue it any further now, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move Amendment No. 191, in

clause 76, page 51, line 7, at end insert—

'(1A) This section also applies to a person if—

(a) he is a person to whom sections 33A, 33B or 33C applies, and

(b) his qualifying interest in land for the purposes of section 33A is acquired compulsorily under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 (Acquisition of land for housing purposes).'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 192, in

clause 76, page 51, line 7, at end insert—

'(1A) This section also applies to a person if—

(a) he is a person to whom sections 33A, 33B or 33C applies,

(b) his qualifying interest in land for the purposes of section 33A is acquired compulsorily under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 (Acquisition of land for housing purposes),

(c) a notice falling within subsection (4A) has been served on him in relation to the land mentioned in that section, and

(d) the confirming authority has certified that it is satisfied that the acquiring authority sought to acquire the land compulsorily for the reason specified in the notice.'.

Amendment No. 440, in

clause 76, page 51, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 193, in

clause 76, page 51, line 15, after 'notices', insert

'referred to in subsection (1)'.

Amendment No. 194, in

clause 76, page 51, line 24, at end insert—

'(4A) The notice referred to in subsection (1A) is a notice in the prescribed form and served in the prescribed manner stating that the acquiring authority intends to acquire the land for the reason that the land or any part of it should be brought into residential use.'.

Amendment No. 441, in

clause 76, page 51, line 25, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 195, in

clause 76, page 51, line 37, at end insert—

'(8) In this section—

''confirming authority'' has the same meaning as in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981,

''prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This group of amendments addresses a complicated and contentious matter. The ill that we seek to put right was pointed out to us by Westminster city council. It is concerned about the number of empty houses in its borough that fall into disrepair. Even when local authorities serve a repairs notice and go through the entire tortuous procedure that I have just read from section 191 and the following sections of the 1985 Act, they still cannot get such properties repaired because ownership may change hands, and the matter may go to a higher court for appeal. This is a long and difficult process.

These amendments would deal with the problem of an empty property that falls into disrepair, the owner is served a repairs notice but does not comply with it, and the property causes a blight on the neighbours or the area in general. Westminster city council tells us that the Bill would continue to leave in considerable doubt whether local authorities could use compulsory purchase powers under such circumstances.

The Empty Homes Agency says that there are 753,000 empty houses in this country. According to the Government's figures, only 115,000 people are officially homeless. The difference between the number of empty homes and the number of homeless people highlights the fact that there is a big problem.

If Shelter's figure of 400,000 hidden homeless people is correct, we have the largest number of homeless people in this country that we have ever had. That is an indictment of the Government. Therefore, this is an important matter, and Westminster city council thinks that there should be powers to do something about the problems that arise from it.

With regard to the acquisition of houses, section 17(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1985 refers to authorities that

''acquire houses or buildings which may be made suitable as houses, together with any land occupied with the houses or buildings''.

There is some doubt as to whether they could use compulsory powers to acquire houses that were empty and had fallen into disrepair.

When I looked up the relevant section, I found that there has been a specific case on this matter. ''Halsbury's Statutes of England and Wales'' usefully tells us that the power under subsection (1)(b) is not limited to houses that are intended to be altered to provide more housing units. It cites the case of Moore v. Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1966 at the Queen's bench, which is printed at page 602 of the All England Law Report 367. The case relates to acquisition of houses left empty for long periods.

The case involved a builder who built four houses and kept them for letting to provide an income for his old age. In 1960, the local authority became aware that several of the houses had been vacant for a

considerable period, and it wished to acquire them owing to the great need for housing accommodation in the area. The authority sent two letters to the applicant to negotiate the purchase of the unoccupied houses, but they were not answered—one can imagine such a situation arising in any borough. The local authority warned the applicant on three occasions that it would consider making a compulsory purchase order, but took no action after being satisfied that the applicant had executed leases on all four houses for three-year periods, although there was considerable argument about whether the leases were for full value or not.

After a few months, the houses again became unoccupied and the local authority renewed its proposal for purchase. It was informed by the applicant that litigation was pending between him and the tenants, and that he could not negotiate new agreements while the existing agreements were in force.

The case eventually reached an inspector who ruled in favour of the builder. It then went to the Government Minister who ruled that the local authority could acquire the houses. The case went to the Queen's bench under Lord Justice Lawton for adjudication. The case was decided in favour of the local authority. Lord Justice Lawton said:

''In choosing to acquire houses which had stood unoccupied for some time and which were likely to remain unoccupied the local authority were keeping in mind their statutory duties in respect of the provision of housing accommodation.

It is manifest from the inspector's report that the local authority did not overlook the legal rights which the applicant had under the leases with his tenants, but they were entitled to weigh those rights against, first, the local demand for housing accommodation, secondly, the fact that the houses were vacant and likely to remain so, and thirdly, the statutory provisions contained in section 98 of the Housing Act, 1957, about acquiring property in which there were leasehold interests.''

That case appears to confirm that a local authority can acquire empty houses that have fallen into disrepair. However, Westminster city council tells us that about half a dozen times a year it has considerable problems getting owners to repair their properties. It would like the legal position to be clarified in the Bill—hence, amendment Nos. 191 to 195.

Amendment No. 191 would remove the right of owners to receive additional loss payments in respect of all compulsory purchase orders made for housing purposes under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985. Westminster city council accepts that the amendment would be inappropriate for cases in which compulsory purchase was brought about through no fault of the owner, and that the Government may therefore oppose it. However, the amendment serves as a useful starting point in the debate about the use of CPOs in such circumstances.

My hon. Friends might become alarmed at the possible power that the amendment would give. I assure them that it relates only to loss payments. It would not relate to the value because owners would still be entitled to receive full value for the property, although presumably that would have reduced because the house was in disrepair. Nevertheless, the amendments are worthy of consideration.

Amendment No. 192 would include categories of people to whom the repairs notice falling under subsection (4)(a) of proposed section 33D would apply. The amendment states that

''the confirming authority has certified that it is satisfied that the acquiring authority sought to acquire the land compulsorily for the reason specified in the notice.''

Clearly, the notice would have to specify when the powers would be used.

Amendment No. 195 refers to the insertion of a new category of exemptions under clause 76 in respect of long-term empty properties. The exemption would apply to a local authority that served a notice on all persons with an interest in the dwelling stating that, as far as may be reasonably ascertained, the dwelling had been unoccupied for the past 12 months. Such a notice would be subject to a right of appeal. There is a balance to be struck. People are fully entitled to leave their properties empty. That is only fair and reasonable in a property-owning democracy. The amendments and the wrong that they would put right would apply only when properties were left empty and when they became a nuisance, either to the neighbours or the neighbourhood in general. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's response to that proposal.

Amendments Nos. 440 and 441 would leave out subsections (2) and (5). They are intended to probe what the Minister has in mind. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wants to remove the two provisions under subsection 5: an order under section 264 of the Housing Act 1985 on the closure of a dwelling that is unfit for human habitation and an order under section 265 of the Act, which refers to the demolition of a dwelling that is unfit for human habitation. In those two circumstances, the dwelling must have gone a long way down the line of being unfit and in disrepair. However, no doubt my hon. Friend will explain what he had in mind.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Eagle-eyed members of the Committee will notice that my name has been added in support of the amendments suggested by Westminster city council. That was not because I colluded with Conservative members, but because I tabled identical amendments slightly after theirs had been tabled, as a result of which my name was added. The proposals of Westminster city council are entirely reasonable. I would not usually say that about the council, but it seems to be right in this instance.

The hon. Member for Cotswold failed to say that the whole point of the amendments is that they do not apply only to houses that are unfit for human habitation. They would cover empty properties that have not reached a real state of disrepair, but the owners have done nothing about them for a long time. At present, while the building is still in a reasonable state of repair, the owners can be safe in the knowledge that no further action can be taken. The amendments would bring in a compulsory purchase policy that would strengthen the empty property strategy and stop it being seen to be falling into disrepute. At present, the Bill will not deal effectively with the worst abuses.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

When the amendments were suggested, I had a philosophical debate with myself about whether someone was entitled to leave his property empty in a property-owning democracy. I think that people are entitled to leave their property empty for an indefinite period, but when it starts falling into disrepair, the local authority has an interest in ensuring that it is repaired. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my distinction?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

No. I support the amendments. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the amendments suggested by Westminster city council. Perhaps I may read to the Committee some of Westminster city council's reasons for thinking that the relevant passage of clause 76 is defective. It states:

''There is no exclusion in respect of long term empty properties where the local authority has spent many months or years attempting to encourage and persuade an owner to bring the property into residential use.''

There is no mention of condition. The reasons continue:

''The exclusions are restrictive. The notices prescribed in clause 76 are not the only measure of whether an empty or occupied property is in poor condition.

There is no power to apply for a warrant to allow a survey to be undertaken to enable a notice to be served under Section 189 or 190 or the Housing Act 1985. Lawful access cannot therefore be gained where an owner is unco-operative or untraceable.

Some long term empty properties or occupied properties may not have deteriorated to the point where they are unfit and thus necessitate service of the notices prescribed in clause 76.

Section 190 notices may only be served in respect of dwellings in substantial disrepair and which are tenanted or in a renewal area. There are few renewal areas in existence and the vast majority of long term empty properties lie outside these areas.''

The whole point of the amendments prompted by Westminster city council is to restrict the loss payments to the use of compulsory purchase for properties that are not in a substantial state of disrepair. The hon. Member for Cotswold may have spoken for an amendment that he does not really support, but I am glad that he has—the amendments are worth supporting.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I honestly think that the hon. Member for Ludlow has not read the underlying statutes relating to the amendment. New subsection (1A)(c), which amendment No. 192 would insert into the Bill, clearly states that the section applies to a person if

''a notice falling within subsection (4A) has been served on him in relation to the land mentioned in that section''.

The section in question relates to a repairs notice under sections 190 to 193 of the Housing Act 1985.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am going by the notes of the experts at Westminster city council, who make it clear that the reason for the amendments is that the

''exemption will be to the effect that a local authority would have a power to serve a notice on all persons with an interest in the dwelling stating that, so far as may be reasonably ascertained, the dwelling has been unoccupied for a period of 12 months. Such a notice will be subject to a right of appeal with the burden of proof on the appellant to disprove, on the balance of probabilities, the assertion of the notice.''

That would allow them not to make payments to people who deliberately keep homes empty, whether or not they are in a state of disrepair.

Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the Committee a little longer; the Westminster city council document states:

''The requirement to serve repair notices on empty properties (or pay loss payment) is unnecessary and wasteful of human resources.

It delays the acquisition process. A repair notice must provide a reasonable amount of time for compliance. In the case of major works to a dilapidated building this would be many months and often more than a year.

It is illogical. The requirement to enforce the carrying out of works to a dwelling where an owner has shown no motivation to bring that dwelling into residential use is perverse.

No notice can require an owner to bring an empty property into residential use which, of course, is the main purpose of any empty property strategy.

The prospect of receiving an additional loss payment will provide a positive encouragement to some owners to allow properties to stand empty and dilapidated.

Additional loss payments are not warranted and cannot be justified when compulsory purchase is brought about by an owner's negligence or inaction.''

The amendments are sensible. In conjunction with additional work that the Government may need to do, they could be a strong component of the empty homes strategy.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The import of what the hon. Gentleman says is that if, for example, a rich film star visited his or her house only once every five years, the city council would want to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire that empty home, despite the fact that the person concerned might bring huge amounts of money into this country. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is exactly what the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman's name is attached states. The paragraphs that I have been reading are in the briefing note from Westminster city council that accompanied the amendments. I leave members of the Committee to decide whether Westminster city council did not know what it was talking about when it suggested amendments to us.

These are sensible amendments that, taken with other powers that the Government might introduce, could be effective as part of the empty homes strategy. We are not suggesting a rule that the council must take over an empty property after 12 months. There are clearly circumstances in which a property might reasonably be empty, and our amendments would ensure that there would be an appeal to deal with such cases.

The number of empty homes in this country is a scandal. Bringing those empty houses into residential use would solve the homelessness problem completely, as there are enough of them. It is a scandal that not enough is being done. The amendments would help to ensure that, if those homes were brought into residential use through compulsory purchase, the owners would not receive additional loss payments because they had left their house empty for many years.

I strongly support the amendments, but I am becoming worried that the Conservatives might withdraw them in the light of my remarks, which would be a shame.

I do not, however, support amendments Nos. 440 and 441, as they would mean that people would receive loss payments if their property had been bought under compulsory purchase because it was unfit for human habitation or was in a state of disrepair. I do not quite understand what the hon. Member for Spelthorne intended when he tabled them—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Heathrow.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am sure that it has something to do with Heathrow.

I do not support amendments Nos. 440 and 441, but strongly support the group of amendments led by amendment No. 191, even if they would achieve something of which the hon. Member for Cotswold is unaware.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Well, well, well, Mr. Pike, I have heard it all now. I had foolishly assumed that all the left-wing socialists were on the Government Back Benches, but we have just heard from one on Opposition Benches.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

And Ted Heath.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

We will discuss him later.

I thought that I had heard it all in the 15 years that I have been a Member, but now I have heard a Liberal Democrat arguing for the confiscation of people's homes irrespective of the use to which they are being put and the condition they are in. That is extraordinary. If that is what the amendments would do, he shames me by pointing out that I put my name to them.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us which political party runs Westminster city council?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. This is an interesting debate. Unfortunately, my constituency has more empty houses than any other in the country. More than 10 per cent. of the housing stock is lying empty, but for very different reasons.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As I was saying, in my 15 years in the House, there were occasions when I voted as I was told to and signed things that I was told to sign. However, I cannot recall an occasion when I spoke in favour of something that I did not believe in. I am therefore in a dilemma. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold winds up his, or rather Westminster city council's, argument—I should have read the document that it sent me, but I thought that I was here to do my own thinking rather than listening to Westminster city council, although I have a teach-in from Wandsworth council behind me, for which I am grateful—I should say that there is an alternative way of dealing with this, which members of the Committee may hear about in a moment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I shall try to clarify the matter for my hon. Friend. Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Ludlow misquotes what I said and the intention behind amendment No. 192. I clearly said that paragraph (c) concerns

''a notice falling within subsection (4A)'',

which comes under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which states:

''If it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of a part of their area, or of an adjoining area, is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area, they may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice under this section.''

Clearly, the amendments are intended to apply when a property is in disrepair and is causing a nuisance to the neighbours or the amenity of the area.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting that section. I had not read that, but it certainly throws some light on the subject.

Many things happen, some of which surprise me, and some do not. That particular contribution from the hon. Member for Ludlow surprised me a great deal. It means that there is only one party left in the Committee that believes in democracy: my own party. It is becoming clear as the debate winds on that we are the free-thinking party. We encourage individual members to have their own views and discuss the best way forward, even in public.

It is common cause between my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and me that we do something about homelessness. There are far more empty houses than there are homeless people. That offers one solution, and I do not dissent from that principle. We could find ways through the Bill of helping and encouraging people who own empty houses to make them available to help the homeless—if they want to. I have no difficulty with that, or anyone who wants to come forward and suggest a way of doing that. I gather that Wandsworth council has done exactly that in order to solve that problem.

The amendments would make compulsory purchase easier. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, they would make it possible for the local council, if it spies a nice little group of empty houses that it likes, to confiscate them. That seems crazy and totally unacceptable. The amendments would widen categories and create new exceptions. I would not find it easy to vote for them if my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold invited me to. He has got his revenge in first by neatly distancing himself from amendments Nos. 440 and 441. He was responsible for tabling the other amendments, and I was responsible for those two. That is a demonstration of our democracy. We discuss among ourselves what we think is a good idea.

I can put the Committee out of its misery concerning amendments Nos. 440 and 441. I had a good reason for drafting them. I could have done it the other way round, but it struck me that the clause was bad enough. It creates powers that will not allow applicants money unless they do certain things, and extends the reasons why property can be confiscated. Subsection (2) begins:

''This section also applies to a person if—''.

The clause will be made even worse if, after allowing the confiscation of property and the removal of payment for certain reasons, it specifies another

group from whom we can confiscate property and on whom we can impose financial penalties. It struck me that the clause was bad enough without subsection (2) and subsection (5). Given that it is such an awful clause, it might be slightly better if it did not have two targets in it. If we were to pass amendments Nos. 440 and 441, the clause would be marginally less awful. That was the thinking behind the amendments. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, just as he helped me enormously with the other amendments.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

This has been an extremely—

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

Excruciating.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I was going to say ''entertaining''. Who said that compulsory purchase was not a fascinating subject?

The amendments concern serious issues related to empty homes. I understand perfectly why Westminster city council raised these issues, and why Opposition Members have done so as well. The council clearly has in its sights people who have wilfully or neglectfully left their properties vacant. The council's policy, like that of other local authorities who face the problem, is to acquire such properties in order to bring them into use and so ease the housing shortage in popular areas. The Government agree with the principles underlying that approach, so it is interesting to see the confusion that that has caused among Opposition Members.

Denying the basic loss payment to all those who have their property purchased by compulsory purchase order made under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985, as suggested in amendment No. 191, would catch many more people than those at whom it is aimed. It is a blunderbuss approach.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Member for Cotswold read out the part of the note from Westminster city council that said that it realised that that amendment was not perfect. It is a probing amendment, to discover how the Government intend to deal with the issue.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand that, and I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment.

Section 17 of the Housing Act is not restricted to the purchase of single properties. Local authorities may also use it as the acquisition power for larger housing redevelopment schemes that would include purchasing tenanted as well as vacant houses. The vacant houses might be temporarily vacant, or the owner might be unable to attract tenants though no fault of his own. Landlords who leave their properties vacant are not necessarily culpable.

Westminster city council also seems to have overlooked the fact that land other than that currently used for housing could feature in a section 17 CPO; commercial premises or open land could be included. The amendment would not do what the council seeks; it is clearly unacceptable.

Amendment No. 192 introduces the procedure, and amendment No. 194 describes the notice. Amendment No. 193 makes consequential changes, and

amendment No. 195 provides for interpretation. I assume that the intention behind the amendments was to provide, in a fairer way than the scheme outlined in amendment No. 191, a way of determining whether a person whose land was being compulsorily acquired for housing purposes should be entitled to receive a loss payment. However, the amendments are flawed.

We support the principle of bringing empty properties into use to help solve housing shortages in popular areas. However, the Government also have a duty to ensure that any attempt to differentiate between those who are entitled to full compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their property and those who are not is fair and will not have unforeseen or undesirable consequences.

Clauses 74 to 77 provide that all those with an interest in land that is being compulsorily acquired should receive an extra loss payment in acknowledgement of the fact that it is in the public interest to deprive them of the ownership of that property at a time not of their choosing. The aim is also to encourage them to make an early settlement, which can also help in the process; and there is a fair measure of agreement about that among members of the Committee.

In finalising our proposals for loss payments, we agreed with the representations made by Westminster city council and others that it would be inappropriate for that additional compensation to be paid to those whose failure to keep the premises in good conditions had contributed to the need for the acquisition. Clause 76 therefore provides for owners to be denied additional compensation if property is being acquired compulsorily as a result of their failure to comply with a specified order or notice requiring them to take action to bring their property up to a particular standard. That is why we have used failure to comply with specified notices and orders as the basis for denying owners the loss payment if their property as to be compulsorily acquired.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister says that clause 76 will deny owners the additional loss payment if the need for the compulsory purchase is caused by their neglect of the property. Would she be so helpful as to point to the part of the clause that does that?

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

May I go on towards that? We have listed the notices in the clause. On the amendments tabled by the Opposition, the problem with serving a notice on the grounds that a property should be brought into residential use is that, however frustrating it may be to those of us who are anxious to provide decent homes for everyone, the law does not forbid people to own property that they choose to keep vacant. There are several perfectly legitimate reasons why they may choose to do that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow would agree. I shall give a few examples. Owners may plan to use the property themselves some time in future, the property may be entailed in some way, or there may be other problems such as probate or attempting to obtain planning permission for a change of use.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I accept that there are plenty of reasons why someone might keep a property that is in

a perfectly good state of repair empty for longer than 12 months, and why it would be inappropriate to use it. However, the amendments would not give the council a draconian right that it had to enforce; they would give the council a power that it could enforce if it was clear that there were abuses. The amendments are intended to deal with the problem of properties that have been left empty but have not reached the point of disrepair at which the council can apply one of the notices mentioned in clause 33D(4), to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred. Some properties are not yet that bad, and could take five or 10 years to reach the proper state of disrepair. In the meantime, they are deliberately left empty. It is in such cases that the councils could use the power.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and it brings me back to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold. We argue that neglect is implied in the wording of new section 33D(1) and (2). We have also set out the notice orders in full in section 33D(4) and (5). We all know about owners who allow their property to fall into a state of disrepair. We have clearly set out in the Bill the circumstances in which loss payments will be denied. The amendments take a blunderbuss approach to that serious issue.

Amendments Nos. 440 and 441 are interesting because Opposition members take a totally different point of view in them to that which they took in amendments. Amendments Nos. 440 and 441 are pulling in the opposite direction. They would entitle those who have been served with orders as a result of their property being unfit for human habitation to claim the loss payment. That seems illogical and runs counter to earlier arguments that the owners of empty properties who are served with a notice should not receive loss payments, even if their properties are in good condition.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

In my defence, I would say that the grouping of amendments is not a matter for me. We could perhaps have had two arguments in two different debates, but that does not matter now. It has been said that we are the democratic party, and I now tell the Minister that we are the party that believes in choice—we have given her a choice, and she can pick whichever option she prefers.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Given such a magnificent example of inconsistency from the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman has sought to explain his way out of it in a marvellous and ingenious way. I congratulate him, but he will forgive me if I do not find it convincing.

It is not clear why Opposition Members want people whose property is compulsorily purchased following a closing or demolition order to be entitled to benefit from the new scheme. We have had an extensive discussion, and I understand the serious issues that lie behind it. The Government will continue to work on those issues, but we feel that we have got the balance right in the clause. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We have had an interesting debate, particularly on the Opposition Benches. We have found that the Liberals do not do their homework or understand the amendments to which

they attach their names, but a more fundamental message has emerged. Not only will the Liberals tax more if they get anywhere near power, but people had better watch out if they keep their house empty because they will seize it. The Liberals need to consider carefully what they are saying. Having criticised the hon. Member for Ludlow, I will give way to him.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Virtually everything that I said was from a briefing note from Westminster city council, so the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in criticising a Conservative-led council, its amendments and its principle of trying to get empty homes that are left for a long time back into use before they fall into a state of considerable disrepair. In this instance, I agree with Westminster city council rather than the hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I think that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in bringing confusion into a situation that needs to be debated. We are talking about the time when an empty home is falling into disrepair, and the amendments are not intended to deal with the wider situation. A serious problem needs to be addressed, and I do not think that the Minister has done that. By his continual persistence on widening the debate into empty homes in general, the hon. Member for Ludlow has blunted the point. I do not think that the problem has been addressed in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman has done Westminster city council no favours, because the Committee has not been able to deal with the problem that it wanted debated.

Nevertheless, we have given the amendments a fair run. The point has been well made about the real problem, so I do not think that there is any point in pressing the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I will allow a stand part debate, but it must be brief because every amendment to the clause that was tabled was called. I expect the debate to be fairly tight.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I will respect your advice, Mr. Pike, and I want only to raise a point about subsection (7) that was not touched on by any of the amendments. I hope that talking about it for a brief moment will be relevant to the clause stand part debate.

Subsection (7) says:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsections (4) and (5).''

What concerns me is not the content of those subsections—that has been debated—but the fact that, yet again, the Secretary of State is being given powers to change primary legislation by diktat. This does not involve merely adjusting figures in line with inflation; it is a substantial matter. The notices and orders are profoundly important. They raise matters of high principle, of politics and of practicality. They are not trivial little things, but notices and orders that

the Government wish to bring within the scope of the Bill. They are at the heart of the clause and fundamental to it.

However, having discussed and debated them, we come to a subsection that says that despite all that is in the clause, and regardless of what the Government have said about the intentions of the measure, they will change them if they feel like it—they will take these orders out and put others in, although we do not know what they might be—and will do so by regulation. If my gambling instincts are any good, which they usually are not, we shall be told that we might just, by negative resolution, have the possibility of being involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee why such jackboot, draconian powers are necessary, when we have had a thorough debate about what the Government think should be in the Bill. Why is it necessary to say that they will change their mind if they feel like it?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Subsection (7) is one of the 23 order-making powers in the Bill, and we have not had sight of the draft regulations proposed. Will the Minister tell us what might be in those regulations?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The clause covers much of what the hon. Member for Cotswold believed his amendment would do. Subsections (4) and (5) list all the reasons for exemption, such as a property being unfit for human habitation, proper maintenance of land, requirement to repair dwelling in state of disrepair, repairs notice prior to compulsory notice of acquisition of listed building, and demolition of building unfit for human habitation. All the hon. Gentleman's reasons are already covered in the clause and are widely supported as reasons for not giving a loss payment on top of the normal compensation for the compulsory purchase of a dwelling. The remaining set of circumstances not covered by the Bill includes those properties that have not fallen into a state of disrepair and so not covered by these notices or orders, but have been empty for a considerable time and the owner is clearly not intending to bring them into use.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

The hon. Gentleman is basing his thoughts on the interpretation of Westminster city council. If he is correct, I shall be very surprised. In Westminster, there is a substantial property called 140 Park lane. It is on the corner of Park lane and Oxford street. Over the past 10 to 12 years, it has progressively been emptied and has not been repaired. It has residential units on the top floors and offices below. The intention was that the building should be gutted by new owners and turned into a new hotel. Under the hon. Gentleman's approach, that would have to be stopped.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Under Westminster city council's approach, I do not know whether it would be stopped, as the clause includes a power that it can choose to use. I do not want to discuss the amendments at length—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The Chair does not want you to either.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

My point is that there is no provision in clause 76 to cover such properties. The Government and the Minister will have to address that at some point. There is a get-out clause for many

owners of empty properties, although I do not mean those for which there is a legitimate reason for being empty, and there are many such reasons. However, there are abuses of the system. People leave properties that are not in a considerable state of disrepair or do not fall under any of the notices or orders listed in subsections (4) and (5), but would need to be under compulsory purchase. It would be entirely wrong for those people to receive a loss payment, because that would create an incentive for such owners to leave their properties empty. People would know that such a property could be compulsorily purchased and that they would get the loss payment on top of their compensation, which would be completely undeserved.

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Subsection (7) provides a power for the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations to amend the list of notices and orders specified in the Bill, in cases in which that is needed. There might be legislation in future that will need to be included in the list of orders or notices. For those who like less legislation, existing orders or notices may be repealed and replaced with others. Subsection (7) is perfectly reasonable and understandable, and should not worry the Committee.

I completely understand the points that the hon. Member for Ludlow makes. We have listened to Westminster city council, which is why we have tried to frame the clause as we have. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about the loss payments, but that is only one element. The agency concerned will encourage people to bring properties into use, and there are Government programmes to deal with homelessness. We hope that the clause in part addresses the concerns that have been brought to our attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Loss payments: supplementary

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 442, in

clause 77, page 53, line 38, at end insert—

'(5A) Any repayment or additional payment arising from the provisions of subsection (5) above must be made within 21 days of the repayment or additional payment becoming confirmed.'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

Amendment No. 443, in

clause 77, page 53, line 43, at end insert—

'(7A) Interest must be paid at the end of every month.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is the first time in the Committee that I have been pleased to move off a clause, and it is certainly the last time I shall table amendments, even for friends on a friendly council, about which I have reservations. I shall be having words with them. Had I realised that the amendments would provoke such a debate, I would not have tabled them.

The claimant will have gone through the whole of the compulsory purchase procedure, as detailed in new section 33A(4)(d) and (e). Compensation will have been agreed. The whole process will have been gone through and may have gone to the Lands Tribunal. Anybody who has been involved with such a case knows that that can take a considerable time. The amendment deals with new section 33I. Under subsection (2)(b), another three months would be added to the considerable time, and that happens when there is a shortfall in the advance payment. The matter may have gone through the long procedure of notices, counter-notices and objections, the Secretary of State may have confirmed the compulsory purchase order and the case may have gone to the Lands Tribunal. Under the amendment, once the shortfall in the advance payment has been established it should be paid within 21 days. That is entirely reasonable. Under amendment No. 443, interest should be paid at the end of the month. These are two straightforward amendments, so I hope that the Minister will accept them.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I rise for two reasons. First, I have some important issues to raise and, secondly, I want to show that on this side of the Committee we sometimes sing from the same hymn sheet. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend, who entirely agrees with me, so we are back on track. The amendments are straightforward and I live in hope that the Minister will accept them. It is the last occasion on which the Government can put me out of my misery and frustration and give me something before the Bill finishes its Committee stage.

It is tempting, in debating compensation and compulsory purchase, to see major landowners and big projects at the heart of the whole process. However, as the Minister knows, it is possible for small amounts of land and individuals of no great wealth to be involved in road improvements, for example. For such people, the process can be worrying and financially stressful, especially when it goes on for a long time. Advance payments are right when it is clear that real value is at stake. I hope that the Minister will confirm that one of the criteria for deciding whether to make advance payments is that the person whose land is being confiscated is unlikely to be able to sustain the losses. It is all about the individual with a capital ''I'', someone whose land is being confiscated by a big bureaucracy, which can be threatening.

Additional payment should be made at the end of the process. It may be relatively small—perhaps a few hundred pounds—but that is not the point. The smaller the amount left over, the more likely it is to be important to an individual, as opposed to a big consortium or big company, for which even a few tens of thousands of pounds may not be necessary for a few days. We know what bureaucracy is like, and many of us have been deeply frustrated trying to extract from officialdom moneys to which we are entitled.

The amendment is eminently reasonable when there is no dispute that, after long discussions, perhaps going into appeal, additional amounts are owed. I see no reason why any sensible person would oppose the

notion that, having reached the point where it is finally established that some money is owed, it should be paid within 21 days. Interest while one waits is not the point. The provisions will affect many people who need the extra money, and it is important for them to know that they will receive it within 21 days. I shall be amazed if the Government argue against that.

Amendment No. 443 deals with interest payments. Again, it is understandable why most people think in terms of businesses, farmers and property owners being owed money on which interest is payable. It may be accepted that we will not get round to paying it for 12 or six months, and it really will not matter because it is a relatively small amount of interest on a modest sum. However, it is again possible that many people caught in this process are of more modest means and need an income of some sort, particularly if the compulsory purchase powers are depriving them of a source of income. That can easily happen if land or property from which an income is derived is taken away. If money is owed, it is not unreasonable to say that that interest will be paid monthly. No one is disputing that that money is owed; it is not an attempt to get money to which someone is not entitled out of the Government or a local authority. In my dealings with various organisations, I have come across many examples of people using any excuse not to pay today. It would therefore be helpful to make it clear that when interest is payable, we mean that it is payable monthly, rather than annually or when it suits someone's purpose.

I believe that both amendments are reasonable. They do not undermine anything that the Government seek to do, but give reassurance to the individual who is caught up in the process. I look forward to the Minister saying that she believes the amendments to be sensible, and that she agrees with them.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The amendments are reasonable and make a great deal of sense. I support them.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.