Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 October 2003.

Standing Committee A

New clause 18 - Procedure for authorisation of compulsory purchase by authority other than a Minister

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 19—Procedure for authorisation of compulsory purchase by a Minister.

Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58 to 72.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

May I set out the purposes of new clauses 18 and 19? New clause 18 recasts the existing procedure for the making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders for non-ministerial acquiring authorities. Such authorities include local authorities, regional development agencies and English Partnerships. The decision whether to confirm such orders is currently made by the relevant Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, and they are known as the confirming authorities.

New clause 19 deals with orders for the acquisition of land by Ministers, such as by the Secretary of State for Transport on behalf of the Highways Agency, or the National Assembly for Wales. The procedures for both are similar, but the terminology is different, so parallel clauses are required to achieve our intention.

New clauses 18 and 19 introduce three major changes. First, they will extend the groups of people who have a right to have their objections heard; secondly, they will introduce a written procedure; and thirdly, they will enable compulsory purchase orders to be determined in stages. I shall take each point in turn.

The extension of the category of persons who have a right have their objections heard to confirmation of a compulsory purchase order will create a fairer system. The right to appear at a public local inquiry or hearing to argue a case in front of an inspector is currently limited to owners, lessees or occupiers other than tenants who are contracted for a month or less. At present, tenants for a month or less have no such right, despite the fact that such tenants may have been in occupation for many years. They are typically tenants on short-hold tenancies that have continued after their

fixed term. It seems entirely fair that such persons should have a right to argue their case if they wish to object to a compulsory purchase order.

Another example would be a person who has a right of access across the land to be acquired—a right that is either to be interfered with or acquired under the acquiring authority's proposals. That right of access may be critical to the person's enjoyment of his land. It is only fair that he should have a right to make representations against confirmation of the order.

The new clauses will extend the category of persons with an interest in or over the land to be acquired who will have a right to object. Essentially, they cover anyone who might be able to claim compensation as a result of the implementation of the order and the scheme for which the order is made. However, given the practical difficulties that acquiring authorities might have in identifying all those with an interest in land, the new clauses do not place an absolute obligation on acquiring authorities to identify them all. For instance, it may be impractical for acquiring authorities to identify those claiming prescriptive rights across land. A person might claim a private right of way across land on the basis of use over many years. Such claims may not be written down or registered, and it may not be obvious to the acquiring authority that such a right exists.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister for the clear way in which she is setting out such a highly complex subject.

I was going to raise this point later, but it seems logical to raise it now. A number of properties up and down the country are empty, or have been abandoned for a period of time, and it may not be easy to ascertain who owns them. What proposals do the Government have to try to identify those who might have an interest in such properties?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

That is picked up in new clause 20, which we will come to shortly. Obviously, the acquiring authorities must do everything they can to identify all who may have a stake or interest in the matter. However, the purpose of this new clause, and the issue here, is that in cases where there are people whom it would simply not be reasonable to expect the acquiring authority to identify or reach beforehand, we must ensure that the acquiring authority is obliged to fix an appropriate notice on the site, thereby publishing the order on or near the land.

That provision attempts to deal with people who have disputed right of access or who claim to have private right of way across the land, but whose claims may not be obviously apparent to the acquiring authority in the first instant. The acquiring authority will be required to display an appropriate notice at the time of confirmation. The new requirement for site notices is in addition to the current requirements to serve notices on all those whom the acquiring authority has been able to identify as having appropriate interest in the land included in the order and to place statutory notices in local newspapers.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It is worth pursuing the point one more time: if it is clear that the land has been abandoned, would the acquiring authority be expected

to make inquiries at the Land Registry, where some clue as to who owned the land might well be had?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Yes, it would. We are certainly not attempting to reduce the acquiring authority's responsibility to do all it can to identify those with an interest in the land subject to the compulsory purchase order; we think that that responsibility is right and proper. The provisions simply recognise that we are extending the category of potential objectors to cover those who may be much more difficult to identify. For that reason we think it right that the authority should have the additional obligation to place a notice on the site, in order to reach those that the acquiring authority might not think it obvious should be included. That is a result of widening the category of people who have a statutory right to object, and that is the purpose of the new clause. We will come to the issue of information in a later new clause.

The people on whom the acquiring authority must serve notice of the making of the order are referred to in proposed new section 12(2)(a) in new clause 18(5) as

''an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of the land, or''

someone who ''falls within subsection (2A).'' Subsection 2A covers two categories. The first is anyone whose interest the purchasing authority will have to acquire as part of the CPO, and the second is anyone whom the acquiring authority thinks likely to make a claim for compensation for injurious affection under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. That would include, for example, interference with an adjoining owner's property rights, or someone whose right of way over the land was to be interfered with.

Another subject dealt with by this group of amendments is written representations. The introduction of a written representation procedure for the consideration of objections should help to speed up the statutory process. The aim is to make things fairer by making the submission of representations more accessible to unrepresented objectors. At the moment, it is possible in principle for objections to be considered by means of written representations. However, in practice, the use of entirely written representations does not occur. In the absence of a statutory power to prescribe a standard procedure, it has not proved practical to get agreement among all the parties involved on what procedure should be adopted on a case-by-case basis, yet there may be a number of instances where using a written procedure could speed up decision making, and might be less daunting for objectors, and there might be cases in which all parties in the process would prefer a written procedure, if only the details could be agreed.

The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a procedure by which objections can be considered in writing. We have issued a short paper describing the way in which, subject to consultation, we envisage the written representations process working. That paper is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

website, and I believe that it has also been sent to Members.

The written representations procedure will be available only when all those with remaining objections agree to it rather than a public inquiry. It will not apply if an objector insists on a public inquiry or if there are complex circumstances and we think that the need for a public inquiry remains—for example, when special parliamentary procedure applies, such as with common land or National Trust land, or with operational land involving the acquirement of utilities.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Perhaps it is easier to deal with matters by intervening, rather than by making points in my opening remarks.

Before we get to the written procedure, I will deal with a point about objections. Objectors may make objections and the confirming authority may confirm the order if certain conditions are satisfied. Under new section 13(2):

''The conditions are—

(a) no relevant objection is made,''

but, perhaps more significantly,

''(b) every relevant objection made is either withdrawn or disregarded.''

I want to press the Minister a little more on that ''disregarded.'' It seems to me that there is a danger that objections could be disregarded unless an objector has made a full statutory statement of his or her case, with proofs of evidence—in other words, unless they have presented their full case at that point. I am not sure that that is the intention, but I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

No, it is certainly not the intention to have a back-door way out by using the word ''disregarded''. I would like to come back to the hon. Gentleman on that in my summing up. He has made some important points and I do not want to mislead him or the Committee by trying to respond now. That issue needs to be clarified.

New clause 18 also inserts proposed new section 13B in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. That gives the confirming authority the power to make orders about the costs of the parties making written representations, including the power to specify which parties must pay the costs. That is analogous to the current provisions relating to public local inquiries into compulsory purchase orders.

As I set out earlier, the third area of change is confirmation in stages. That extends to all types of order the power to confirm orders in stages. It should make it possible for work to start on part of an acquiring authority's scheme where part of an order can be confirmed in advance of the rest.

At present, compulsory purchase orders made under certain specific powers can be confirmed in stages. For example, orders made under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can be confirmed in two stages, and orders under section 259 of the Highways Act 1980 can be

brought into force in an unlimited number of stages, but such staged confirmation is not available for all types of order. Such inconsistency could result in unnecessary delay where there are problems with part of the area covered by a single order, while progress could be made on acquiring the rest of the land and implementing the scheme for which it is needed.

The new clause proposes a general power for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed in any number of stages if the confirming authority is satisfied that that is the most appropriate course of action.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I confess to having far less knowledge on the matter than my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Will the Minister please tell me where it is stated who a confirming authority is?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Again, rather than spend the next five minutes trying to find the exact place, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me.

When the confirming Minister decides that it would be appropriate to confirm the order in part, he must give a direction postponing consideration of the remaining part of the order until a fixed date and stating that the remaining part of the order must be treated as a separate order. The fixed date will be specified in the direction or following it.

New clause 19 sets out very similar structuring of and amendments to the procedure for the preparation in draft, and the making of, compulsory orders for land that a Minister seeks to acquire.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The confirming in stages procedure is of course a new one. If an order for the taking of a property in stages is confirmed it is presumably for the convenience of the acquiring authority, which for some reason does not want to take the whole property at once. In the light of that, can the Minister confirm that if the person whose interest is being acquired incurs extra costs because of the procedure, they will be able to claim those costs, whether as a result of severance, injurious affection or any other way?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Clearly, all issues of compensation have to be dealt with fairly. I cannot specify what the circumstances would be, but all the responses in the process of determining compensation have to go through the proper procedures. If they do not, those people who lose out or are entitled to compensation will have a case.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I will give the Minister a practical example that might help both her and the Committee. Let us suppose that somebody owns a farm, and it is decided that motorway will be put through the middle of that farm. The acquiring authority would hitherto have had to take the whole farm. Now it may acquire land on only one side of the motorway. The farmer will have considerable extra costs as he will have less land on which to operate. For example, if he has a dairy farm he will have far less land and may have to sell cows because he does not have the land to put them on. Therefore he will be involved in considerable cost and disturbance, and I

want the Minister to undertake that such a farmer will be able to claim the costs.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I point out to the hon. Gentleman the fact that the arrangements already exist for certain types of order. It is already possible to carry out safe confirmation for different kinds of order. There must be good reasons involved; it is not simply a matter for the discretion of the acquiring authority. It has to be a matter for the confirming authority to decide, and it must have good reasons. The same approach would apply as does in those areas where it is already possible to confirm in stages. We are simply extending the approach to a wider category of orders, because we think that there will be cases when that makes sense and is appropriate.

Amendments Nos. 56 to 72 are consequential. Amendment No. 60 makes consequential amendments to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The latter extends to Scotland and it is necessary to extend the Bill to cover Scotland for the purposes of that one provision. That is the effect of amendments Nos. 56 and 57, which amend clause 89 on the territorial extent of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 61 to 64 are consequential to the Highways Act 1980. Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 are consequential to various other enactments as a result of the provisions of new clause 18. Amendments Nos. 69 to 72 are the repeals of existing legislation.

I want to clarify which body will be the confirming authority. The confirming authority will be different for different orders and acquiring authorities, depending on the case. The confirming authority is set out in whichever Act gives the acquiring authority the power to acquire land for those particular purposes in the first place. Later, we will discuss amendments that involve the confirming authority transferring its power to confirm in particular circumstances.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Part 7, relating to compulsory purchase, is complex. Nevertheless it is very important. I would like to probe the Minister as to what is in the new clause and what is not, and why certain issues are not.

Government Library note SNSC 1149 says:

''The Government will take this opportunity to consider whether the proposal to recommit the bill provides an opportunity to bring forward some of the further provisions set out in the daughter document to the 18 July statement covering compulsory purchase, which will help to speed up and simplify the process and which are not dependent on the outcome of the Law Commission's work report.''

As long ago as 2001 the Government set out their thoughts in the document ''Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: delivering a fundamental change'', so they have had almost two years to consider the subject. There is still confusion among practitioners about where the Government have got to, and about timing. The ODPM website cheerfully admits that it has not had time to consult the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the issue of advanced payments of compensation to mortgagees. It adds that it hopes to have a new clause ready in time for Report. However, I see nothing

about that in new clause 18. Before we dispose of this new clause or the next one, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether we can expect more amendments or new clauses on compensation at any stage of the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament. Are these the final amendments on compensation?

As it is clearly presaged that there are to be further proposals from the Government as a result of the Law Commission's recommendation on compulsory purchase, can the Minister clarify as far as possible, without prejudging what may be in the Queen's Speech, how these matters are to be dealt with? Some of them are included in the new clause.

I shall remind the Committee what was set out in the introduction to the Government's proposals:

''In order to simplify the system we''—

that is the Government—will

''provide . . . guidance in the short term on the justification required for the exercise of compulsory purchase powers for planning purposes''.

I do not see that in this new clause or in any other amendment so far. The second point was to

''provide for unopposed orders to be confirmed by the acquiring authority''.

That has been covered by the previous amendments. The third point was to

''enable objections to be considered by means of written representations where that is agreed by objectors'',

That is covered by new clause 18. The fourth point was to

''define statements of principle as the basis for compensation decisions, to replace the current plethora of, sometimes conflicting, case law''.

We dealt with that issue during an earlier sitting. The fifth point was to

''provide for the dates from which various compensation entitlements arise to be defined unambiguously in statute''.

We dealt with that in the previous new clause. The final point was to

''introduce unified Inquiry Rules, with clear deadlines for preparatory procedures.''

I certainly do not see that anywhere, and it is a big subject that needs to be dealt with at some stage.

The document goes on to say that to ensure that

''compensation is based on the principle of ensuring that no claimant is worse off as a result of compulsory purchase'',

there will be

''a clear statement of the principles for assessment of disturbance claims''.

We have not had any discussion of that. There will also be

''consistent compensation for the effect of the replacement scheme on retained land, whether or not land actually taken from an owner''.

We have seen that already. The list goes on:

''compensation payable for actual losses even if scheme not proceeded with''.

That is the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made last time. If the acquiring authority issues a notice to acquire a

property from a farmer—I am using the excellent example given by my hon. Friend—but subsequently, for whatever reason, does not proceed to acquire the property, the farmer might have suffered considerable loss. Although powers exist in the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, which I pointed out to my hon. Friend last time, the matter needs updating and clarifying.

The list continues:

''all reasonable fees and unavoidable . . . taxes to be reimbursed in full''—

we have not heard anything about that—

''compensation for betterment offset only against severance/injurious affection''—

I raised that with the Minister for Housing and Planning on Tuesday, and he undertook to give us a note on the subject. The list also says that there will be

''improved provision for buying the whole site even if only part required'',

and that is covered by the new clause. Finally, there was to be

''improved advance payment arrangements, including for mortgaged land''.

That was partly dealt with under the previous new clause.

A number of those matters are included in the clauses that we are discussing, but some are not. For the sake of the practitioners out there, this whole subject needs to be clarified. I appreciate that the Minister cannot do that this morning, and that she would probably be out of order if she did, but if she could find a way of doing so—in a written statement, for example—that would be very helpful.

Most practitioners have not had a chance to look at these new clauses, but I burnt the midnight oil reading them last night, and I think that the Opposition can give them a cautious welcome. They speed up and simplify the compulsory purchase process. The Government are to be congratulated on this aspect of the Bill. It is obvious that they have listened. This is a complex subject and I applaud both of the Ministers for having addressed it well.

I raised the issue of what happens to a property owner who is not known, or abroad, and the Minister undertook to come back to me on that. There are 753,000 empty homes in this country, and that is only the tip of the problem. There are a number of abandoned and disregarded properties. Compulsory purchase is an important matter: if it is to become more widely used by a variety of acquiring authorities, the problem of identification might grow. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will my hon. Friend assist me to understand his interpretation of the legislation? If a property was compulsorily purchased and a former owner subsequently appeared, what measures are in place to compensate such people, and, perhaps, to enable them to enjoy appropriate interest on that compensation?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I decided not to quote from the comments on the four matters that the Government invited further views on because I was worried that I might be ruled out of order. However, they are another reason why I want the Minister to clarify how the compulsory purchase issue should be moved forward. The first matter is

''whether there should be a time limit for submitting compensation claims and, if so, what it should be.''

My hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point that is not included in this new clause, and which the Government will need to address.

I welcome the Government's clarification of the categories of people who are entitled to claim, and to be notified that an acquiring authority wishes to purchase their interest. In particular, it is right to include tenants in that category: in some cases—especially in residential property, with regard to which this matter is most sensitive—they have been in occupation for a considerable while, sometimes for decades.

I also welcome the written representation procedure, although we need some guidance on how that will work. I have already raised with the Minister the persons who may be disregarded. We need to know at what stage a full statement of case needs to be made, and what form it will take. I accept that that will probably be done by regulations, and this clause provides for that. I would be grateful if the Minister would offer at least an outline of what she proposes to include in those regulations, if not now, then as a note to the Committee or placed in the Library.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he has said?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As I understand this matter, there are two stages. An objector has to make written objections, and then the confirming authority decides whether to confirm the order. It is important that we establish what sort of written representations that person has to make at that stage and whether there must be a full statement of case. I can envisage that professional advisers would, perhaps, make a summary written representation at that stage and that the confirming authority might override the objection and confirm the order. The professional adviser would be in considerable difficulty if it were felt that he should have made a full statement of case, with proofs of evidence and everything else, at that stage. We would not want to prescribe too cumbersome a procedure. If it is not necessary to provide a full statement of case at that stage, we need to know that. The Minister must tell us when the particular detail of written representation needs to be made.

The order in stages is a good idea that will simplify things and make them clearer for those whose property is being acquired. It will show exactly which part of their property is to be taken, and on what date. We welcome that. I understand from what the Minister said that where that type of procedure is adopted, the same system of compensation will apply as applied previously. Under the 1965 Act a person should be no worse or better off as a result of the

compulsory acquisition. That is the fundamental principle of compulsory purchase. If I understand it correctly, the order in stages is a thoroughly good thing.

These detailed new clauses would simplify and speed up the compulsory purchase procedure. The Opposition give them a cautious welcome. However, as it is such a complicated subject, perhaps the Minister could provide some clarification by whatever means he can. Because of the timing of the Bill I have not been able to obtain any guidance from practitioners or outside bodies of what they think of these new clauses. The Government are rushing the Bill through. I understand why they are doing that, but it is regrettable. Perhaps by the time the Bill reaches other stages—perhaps in the other place—practitioners will have had the chance to consider the new clauses and will come up with ideas about how they may or may not work. We give the provisions a cautious welcome.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We, too, welcome the proposals, which mostly clarify parts of the compulsory procedures that have probably needed clarifying for some time. I do not want to go over the ground already covered by the hon. Member for Cotswold, but I am concerned that new clause 18 may unintentionally create an objector's charter.

I welcome the fact that monthly and weekly tenants—the sort of people who have an interest in the land—and others with private rights of access will now have a right of objection. However, I foresee a potential problem. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that sometimes, when people believe that compulsory purchase might happen, pieces of land are parcelled up among lots of small owners to make it difficult for the purchasing authority, which has to deal with lots of small bits of land. I foresee something similar happening. Objectors wishing to prevent a compulsory purchase could subdivide a field into one-inch squares and rent each one for a nominal sum to a large number of objectors, who would all have a statutory right of objection and, if it were not all to be done in writing, would presumably have a right to be heard. I think that that would be regarded as an unacceptable way of delaying a procedure.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is an imaginative way to delay a procedure. Had that occurred during the Twyford Down inquiry, for example, there might now be a tunnel under it instead of the ghastly cutting through it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) might still represent a Southampton constituency.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that such practices may seem all very well when one is on the side of wanting to stop something, rather than wanting something to go through, but clearly they are completely unacceptable.

I am trying to make the point that the intention should be to create a system that is fair to both sides. There is the potential in all this for determined and well organised objectors to create an unforeseen difficulty. I do not want the Government to go back

on what they have done to give those other people a statutory right to object, but I want to be reassured that there may be some way of dealing with broadly similar objections en bloc, rather than one by one. The Minister may be able to clarify that.

I especially welcome the changes to the confirmation of unopposed orders by acquiring authorities. The process of acquiring parcels of land when there appears to be no owner is slower than it needs to be. I am increasingly aware of the amount of land in my constituency that no one appears to own. There are pieces of land with access to many other properties, which people have driven across for years. When a dispute arises, however, they suddenly discover that none of the parties involved actually owns the land.

I have dealt with such cases a few times, one of which was at Craven Arms. A 6 ft stretch of the road leading up to the railway station at Craven Arms was crumbling away. Naturally, we told the county council to repair it. It refused, telling us that it was Railtrack's property so it was Railtrack's responsibility to carry out the work. Railtrack, however, said that its deeds said that its land finished 6 ft out. After some considerable time, it emerged that everyone believed for a very long time that it was railway property, and that British Rail probably maintained it. When British Rail transferred the railway to Railtrack, however, the transfer of deeds made it clear that it did not own that piece of land. It then took some time to acquire it. Indeed, the county council may still not have acquired it. The piece of road is used fairly regularly and continues to deteriorate; there are now large potholes in it. I welcome the proposed new clause. It makes a great deal of sense in such cases, and will not cause problems.

I hope that the new clauses and amendments will help the compulsory purchase system. However, will the Minister clarify whether that new clause will create an objectors' charter? We want people to have the right to object, but we do not want that right to be misused.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I admire the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold on these difficult, complicated and technical matters. I was going to raise one or two points, but he has broadly raised those, so I need not detain the Committee with them.

In summary, I must say that new clauses 18 and 19 are good clauses, as far as I understand them. I say that with the obvious caveat that I am no expert in these matters. However, I suggest to the Minister, whom I now welcome to the Committee—I had no need to intervene on the group of clauses to which she spoke on Tuesday and so did not welcome her then—that I echo my hon. Friend's request for information in answer to the queries that were understandably made. I perfectly understand that the Minister may not necessarily be able to give immediate and comprehensive answers to those questions, but answers would help not only us, but all the outside organisations that advise Members on both sides of the Committee on these very complex matters.

I shall comment briefly on what the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said about ownership of land. There are little pockets of land that everyone seeks to own if there is the possibility of compensation. However, if there are any costs involved, such as in mending fences or clearing up debris, it is always someone else's problem. I have had similar experiences in my constituency, and I am sure that other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have too.

I want to echo a point that I put to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill)—I have to keep remembering not to say ''St. Reatham''—in relation to a different group of clauses to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. New clauses 18 and 19 are very long. New clause 18 would amend virtually all sections from 6 to 13 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, whereas new clause 19 would amend and introduce considerable addenda to schedule 1 to the 1981 Act. When the Bill goes through, it would be sensible to introduce not only a consolidated town and country planning Act, but a consolidated version of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981—I do not expect an answer to that suggestion, but some thoughts would be encouraging. That would be helpful to all those who will have to operate under the new legislation, whatever form it takes.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning advises me that he thinks that that is a great idea—long as he does not have to take the legislation through.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I raise the issue again because I am referring to a different Act: the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Also, if a consolidated Bill that just brings together all the strands of law that relate to that legislation is put before the House, we shall not even need a debate.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman is right that consolidated legislation makes life considerably easier for practitioners and those who need to use the relevant Acts, and we seek to make progress on that as far as possible. However, the obvious constraint on doing so is that although it does not require a huge amount of parliamentary time, it requires an awful lot of legal time and work to put together, and we often ask the same experts and the same counsel whom we ask to work on Bills and new legislation to do that work too. I shall certainly take back the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but he will realise that there are constraints on how rapidly we can do such things.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked whether the amendments before us were final or whether we intended to take the matter further. It would be wrong to say that these are the final amendments, because the Bill is being considered in Committee and we shall need to examine further points that are raised. As Bills pass through Parliament, things need to be changed, tidied up and resolved in response to issues that are raised. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that at this stage we are not planning to introduce any new issues on the compulsory purchase front. The Law

Commission is currently considering many of the extremely important points that he has raised on compulsory purchase, and its final report is due at the turn of the year. Until then we cannot assess the need for new legislation or any consultation.

We have decided to take forward the aspects that we think most important and on which the necessary improvements are most straightforward. The Law Commission is considering the complex interrelated issues to do with compensation, and we shall respond to its recommendations in due course and decide how to take them forward. That was set out in the July 2002 policy statement, following agreement with the Law Commission.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has clarified the position just as I understood it. Therefore I am slightly surprised that the Government have tabled the new clauses, welcome as they are, without having thought through the whole subject of compulsory purchase. The new clauses may well constrain the Law Commission in what it can recommend. I do not want to be churlish, but the new clauses seem to offer a procedure that has been only partially thought out.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We do not expect the approach that we have taken, and matters that arise from the new clauses, to be a constraint on the Law Commission or any response that we might make to it. It has become clear from the debate in Committee that hon. Members of all parties recognise that the changes are sensible and will make life simpler, speeding up the process and making it fairer for particular groups. As we are dealing with a planning Bill, it seems right to move on with the items on which there is broad agreement and which will make things better in the short term. It is always possible for the best to be the enemy of the good and, in parliamentary terms, for the whole to be the enemy of the parts. We could delay doing sensible things until we had resolved every detail of the future of the universe. I do not think that we should do that now; it is right to introduce the measures in question.

The hon. Member for Cotswold raised a point about abandoned properties and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked what would happen if an owner reappeared. If owners do not come forward, so long as reasonable attempts have been made to identify them, compulsory purchase orders can proceed. There are sometimes different procedures for dealing with the matter through the general vesting declaration. Compensation would be paid into court and could be claimed if an owner subsequently reappeared.

The written procedure would not disadvantage someone whose objection was disregarded. If the objection were disregarded because it was purely about compensation it would go to the Lands Tribunal, just as it currently does. The person concerned would be in exactly the same position as they would under the current arrangements. With luck, the process might be resolved considerably faster, because of the written procedure.

Secondary legislation, following consultations, would be needed to set out the detail and workings of the written procedures, and the method for making

objections. However, we have attempted to inform the Committee's deliberations in a paper setting out our broad intentions, which I believe hon. Members have now been sent, and which I have already mentioned. However, further consultation will clearly be needed before we can specify exact details.

To respond to what seemed to be the concern behind this question, the point is the need for clarity for all concerned. That has been the problem so far, and it is the reason why there has never been agreement on a written procedure, even though it was possible in theory. No one can agree on a case-by-case basis about what would constitute nice, clear, fair procedures that would enable everyone to know the deal and understand at what point representations would be considered or a full representation needed to be made. Statutory force is needed to provide that clarity.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Practitioners need to know about timing. When does the Minister expect to introduce the new procedure? When does she expect to be able to produce at least a draft of the secondary legislation?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Our rough timetable is to do so around the time of commencement. That will not take us far into the future, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that those who are to work on the detail of the consultation process and the written procedures have first to complete work on the passage of the Bill. I shall be happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further details.

The hon. Member for Ludlow was concerned that this might prove to be an objectors' charter. That is not the intention. Although a wide range of groups should, rightly, be able to have their objections heard, the fact that we shall have written procedures will speed the process up. As for whether somebody could subdivide land to increase the number of objectors, that could happen under the current arrangements; however many owners there are, and however small the area owned, they have the right to have their objections heard. There will be time restrictions under the new procedures, just as there are now.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It would be easier for somebody to sub-let on short lets than to subdivide and sell off, because the original owner would not then own the land. I foresee a landowner who does not want his land to be compulsorily purchased rushing round finding lots of people to sub-let it to on six-month leases, thus entitling them to object. That will be a more attractive route for objectors than the former one, the sale of subdivisions of the land, which has happened in some cases.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I guess that if the landowner were sufficiently ingenious and determined to sub-let all kinds of corners of land, that would mean more people had the right to object; it could happen. However, there will be a limit to the time in which they might submit objections and—assuming that those will not be the cases that go to written procedures, as the intention will be to spin things out—there will be a public inquiry timetable, just as there is at the moment.

There is a limit to the additional problems that can be caused by the procedure, and they are counter-balanced by its increased fairness and the fact that it gives more people who are entitled the chance to have their objections heard. For those reasons, I believe that the new clauses are sensible and I welcome the broad support of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Brought up, read the Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 19 - Procedure for authorisation of compulsory purchase by a Minister

New clause 20 - Power to require information

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment thereto: (a), in proposed new section 5B(3)(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, after 'secretary', insert 'councillor'.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We now come to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold: how information about interest should be acquired. An authority seeking to acquire land needs to know the names and addresses of those occupying and having an interest in that land in order to be able to enter into negotiations to purchase by agreement. It is also necessary to have that information if the authority seeks to acquire the land compulsorily, because it is required to serve notice of the making of the compulsory purchase order on such persons. Correctly ascertaining those interests in the land at an early stage must be fairer for the persons affected. The authority can inform them of its intentions and try to negotiate a purchase by agreement. It saves time if the authority can have confidence in the information that it has gathered, and helps to ensure that the compulsory purchase order is prepared correctly, including serving the appropriate notices on all the right people.

Some acquiring authorities already have powers to require such information. Such powers usually do not extend to requiring information about all interests in land. In view of the extended categories of persons to be served with notice of the making of the CPO under new clause 18, which we have already discussed and included in the Bill, such powers may be inadequate. Other acquiring authorities, including the regional development agencies, the urban regeneration agency—English Partnerships—and urban development corporations, have no such power. Despite the fact that much of the land that they may need to assemble will be on brownfield sites, where ownership and occupation details are likely to be complex, there is no obvious reason for that inconsistency, which can impede the compulsory purchase process.

For completeness, I ought to add that for land in unknown ownership all is not lost. There is a statutory procedure for the service of notices at the making of a CPO under section 6(4) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, referred to by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). However, before resorting to that procedure, the acquiring authority must first be satisfied that reasonable inquiry has been made and that it is not practicable to ascertain the name and address of an owner, lessee or occupier. Without a statutory power to requisition for information, such an inquiry can cause considerable delay. The amendment therefore introduces a new section into the 1981 Act to enable all acquiring authorities to require information for the purposes of acquiring land or new rights over land in cases where the provisions of that Act apply. That does not mean that land necessarily has to be compulsorily acquired or even acquired by agreement. However, the power to obtain the names and addresses may be exercised only for the purpose of enabling the authority to acquire the land in question.

The acquiring authorities' notice has to be in writing and must set a deadline for a response, which must also be in writing. The range of people on whom such a notice can be served is limited to the occupiers of that land, any freeholders, mortgagees or lessees, the recipient of rent for the land and anyone who manages the land under an agreement with someone else who has an interest in it. The notice requires details to be provided of anyone whom the recipient believes to be an owner, lessee or occupier of the land, or to have another interest in it. Failure to comply with such a notice without reasonable excuse is to be an offence. It will also be an offence for a person responding to the notice served on him to give information that is false in a material particular that he either knows is false or ought reasonably to know is false.

If either offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of certain officers, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of officers of the body corporate, that officer will also be guilty of the offence. Such an officer may be a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer. Both offences are to be summary, with a level 5 fine on the standard scale: currently a maximum of £5,000.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. May I inquire at what point I should move amendment (a)?

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

You should speak during the debate on the second reading of the new clause, but if you wish to move the amendment you should do so between the second reading of the clause and its being added to the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Opposition broadly welcome new clause 20. It is essential to acquire accurate and correct information. I note, however, that interestingly, in our previous discussions, the Crown was by and large exempted from providing such information. It is a slight paradox that individuals should be required to provide such information, yet the Crown should not necessarily be so required. I mention that in passing.

The Minister mentioned the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The provisions of section 6(4) are worded in an interesting way, which the House must have approved, but it is quite ambiguous. It talks about the document being served by addressing it to the

'' 'owner', 'lessee' or 'occupier' of the land (describing it) to which it relates, by delivering to some person on the premises or, if there is no person on the premises to whom it may be delivered''—

this is the interesting bit—

''by affixing it or a copy of it''

on or near the land. Under that provision, someone could drop a copy somewhere on a field, and it might be blown away. The Minister is absolutely right to clarify the position. The document should be well and truly attached in a prominent place. We therefore welcome the clarification proposed in the new clause.

I turn to proposed new section 5B and the matter of corporate offences—a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight addresses in amendment (a).

It seems to me that the whole of subsection (3) could have been amazingly simplified if it had been worded thus: ''Offences under this section by corporations shall be construed to have the same meaning as in section 331 in the principal Act.'' That would have obviated the need for the whole of subsection (3), which largely repeats what is in the principal Act. I am making a minor and gentle criticism of the drafting. I sometimes think that parliamentary draftsmen like to put the maximum number of words on a page; I think that they should be paid for using the fewest words needed to achieve the desired result.

I must say to my hon. Friend that having looked at the subsection I see no need for amendment (a), because the subsection deals with corporate offences. I do not think that elected authorities come into that category, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend's amendment is relevant. However, he will make his own case for it.

The Opposition welcome the new clause. It forms part of the compensation package, which we welcome.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful for the pointer offered by my hon. Friend on how I might explain my amendment. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I assume in amendment (a) that a local authority is a body corporate. If so, certain people are clearly responsible for running it, and responsible for the information that may be provided by that body corporate in response to such an invitation. Many of the executive responsibilities of local authorities now rest with members, not with directors, managers, secretaries or other similar officers. An executive member of a local authority may respond—and certainly may consent to or connive in—a response to an invitation to provide information.

The amendment is intended to elicit whether the Government are confident that those in a local authority who use their executive power to consent or connive in an offence under the clause would be caught. The amendment would ensure that a councillor doing so would be caught—at least, that it is the intention.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I welcome the new clause. However, I want to discuss the amendment. It is a shame that the Minister has not yet clarified whether ''body corporate'' includes local authorities; the two Conservative Members who have spoken disagree about that. I shall speak on the assumption that it might include local authorities.

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. However, I would have even more sympathy if councillors were not constrained in other ways. At the moment, because of the behaviour of the Standards Board for England and the effect of the code of conduct, in many cases councillors are tried twice for the same offence. I am concerned about the possibility that another context may now arise in which that happens. I do not want to go into detail, because I hope that Mr. Speaker will allow me an Adjournment debate on the subject at some point. However, I can foresee a situation in which a councillor might be found guilty under the clause,

and then be reported to the Standards Board and perhaps suspended from the council; a second penalty would be imposed.

My concern is not that the clause is not the right approach. It probably is. We probably need to remove the consequential effects with reference to the Standards Board. If the provision applies to local authorities I shall be interested to hear the Minister explain whether councillors should be tried twice for the same offence, as happens now in other contexts.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I want to make a different point about new clause 20. However, first I must say that I share, very emotionally, the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that Bills should be kept to the minimum necessary length. The more complex the Bill, the truer that is. Shortness is a good thing—although of course Back-Bench speeches in Committee are an exception from that rule.

Keeping in mind what I see as the central principle of the Bill—to speed up the planning and compulsory purchase process without sacrificing the rights of individuals or the fairness of the system—I draw the Minister's attention to subsection (5) of the new section 5A that new clause 20 would insert into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981:

''The notice must specify the period within which the information must be given to the acquiring authority (being a period of not less than 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served).''

I am all for speeding up the compulsory purchase process, but I wonder whether 14 days is an unfairly short time. I know that the phrase used is

''not less than 14 days'',

but I am long enough in the tooth, at least in relation to town and country planning laws, to know that the minimum becomes the maximum for the authority serving the notice or deciding the issues.

I do not know whether other members of the Committee have encountered the same complaints as I have, particularly around August, when people write bitterly to their MP to say that the local planning authority served notice of a planning proposal when it knew that everyone would be away on their fortnight's holiday.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman has hit on a good point. One of the relevant categories is the occupier of the land, which could mean a tenant, who might well be away on holiday for more than 14 days. That would be very unfortunate. The period of 14 days is probably fair for a former utility, for example, but allowance should be made for the circumstances of individuals.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. In fairness, a period longer than 14 days should be specified, for the reason that I gave. Furthermore, it is a good thing to simplify procedure as far as possible. I do not claim to know about compulsory acquisitions or compensation, but my experience of the town and country planning legislation is that often, if an appeal is made to the Secretary of State and an inspector is called after a local planning authority has turned down an

application, one is usually asked to make a representation within 28 days or, in some cases, six weeks.

For the sake of simplicity, I ask the Minister seriously to consider the possibility of changing the minimum requirement of 14 days to, say, 28. I hope that he acts constructively on that suggestion, which is entirely meant to be helpful.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to members of the Committee for the spirit in which they have addressed this matter and for their broad support for these very reasonable proposals. The point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold shows there is agreement across the water on the need for conciseness in drafting legislation. On his critique of proposed new section 5B(3), however, I must say to him that it is needed, as it refers to section 331 of the 1990 Act, not to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I may have skirted very quickly over proposed new section 5B(3), but I hope that Hansard will show, if I read out my notes correctly, that I said that it has the same meaning as section 331 of the principal Act. I anticipated that the Minister would not like my solution—Governments do not often like new solutions—but I believe that if he examines it he will see that it might work.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall reconsider the hon. Gentleman's solution, but I stick to the line that I adopted a couple of years ago that the principal Act in question is the 1990 Act.

I am perfectly happy for the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to refer to me as the hon. Member for St. Reatham—we are trying to be up-market. He made a reasonable point about the period of 14 days' notice, within which information must be given. I shall attempt to reassure him by pointing out that this time is allowed for providing factual information, not for further action. It identifies the minimum period, which in most circumstances is quite likely to be longer. There is a precedent for this in section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which contains a similar power. Allowing 14 days is therefore well established.

On the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred, both hon. Gentlemen asked whether a local authority is a body corporate. The answer is yes. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight also asked whether a councillor might be caught by the provisions. The answer is no, or not directly, for reasons that I shall attempt to explain. Generally speaking, councillors cannot discharge local authority functions individually. Where a councillor is responsible, it should be for the courts to decide whether he or she can be said to be a person who falls into any of the categories in section 5B(3)—that is, a person purporting to act in the capacity of a director, manager, secretary or similar officer.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the section, but does that line of argument apply across the board to the different executive functions allowed for by the Local Government Act 2000, which, coincidentally, I

happen to have in front of me, and specifically to an elected mayor, who has an executive function and authority over and above other councillors?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The most obvious answer is that an elected mayor is not a councillor and so would not be caught by the amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think the Minister has confirmed the fact that without the amendment a court could in certain circumstances regard a councillor as having come within the meaning of the relevant provisions. Will he therefore confirm that we are considering another situation in which a councillor could be tried twice for the same offence? I am sure that a court's decision that a councillor had committed such an offence would automatically have to be reported to the standards board, which would undertake a second investigation of that councillor. Can he confirm that I am correct?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I regret to say that I am not willing to pursue the hon. Gentleman down that path and ex cathedra make a commitment on whether a councillor would be subject to double jeopardy in that situation. We are on speculative terrain—this is a classic case of whatifery from him—and I am content to rest on my observation that the matter is essentially for the courts to decide.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

May I summarise my understanding of what the Minister said? He said that the new clause will not generally catch a councillor, but that the courts may interpret it if they think that a councillor is acting as a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer. I am not sure whether that means exercising an executive function, which is what I understand councillors to be capable of under the modernised council procedures.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We all need to be a little careful when discussing such matters as to what commitments we make vis-à-vis the courts. My judgment would be that a councillor in an executive capacity nevertheless continues to act on behalf of the collective entity that is the local authority, and is to that extent deemed in any normal circumstances to be acting as part of a collective entity, not individually. To that extent, the councillor is not discharging an individual function and is not ''purporting to act'' in the capacity of a director, manager, secretary or similar officer.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I am sorry to pursue the matter in this way, but although an elected mayor is not a councillor, an elected mayor nevertheless has a different executive capacity from that of an officer of the council as implied by the proposed provisions. We should bear in mind the principle of Occam's razor, which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet enunciated, so would it not be a good idea to use in the proposal words such as ''neglect on the part of any person purporting to act in the capacity of officer or director of a body corporate''? We could cut out proposed new section 5B(3)(a) and (b), and have just one line that the courts would then judge.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is constructive as ever. He raises an interesting new

subject—the precise position of an elected mayor. We will look at the matter, and I will let the Committee have a note containing our views. It is always possible to raise the issue at a later stage.

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for raising an interesting and important subject, but I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am happy to do so, given those assurances.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. Strictly, the position is that the amendment has not been moved so it cannot be withdrawn, although I think that we understand the hon. Gentleman's intention.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 21 - Confirmation by acquiring authority

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 21 inserts new section 14A into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 to enable a confirming authority to transfer to the acquiring authority the power to decide whether to confirm an unopposed compulsory purchase order. Subsections (2) and (3) of new section 14A limit the circumstances in which that transfer can be made.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I dare to intervene at this point because what I have to say is directly related to subsection (2). Paragraph (b) says:

''forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment''.

What is meant by ''or fuel''? I do not understand.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I asked exactly the same question when I saw the provisions. I understand that the reference is to a

''fuel or field garden allotment''

rather than to ''fuel'' and then to a ''field garden allotment''. I am advised that field garden allotments are a specific kind of allotment, and have a long history. I do not think that the provisions will apply in many circumstances. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman has further details on the subject. They are a specific group of cases for which different procedures apply. Whenever anyone wants to go through the compulsory purchase order process in relation to fuel or field garden allotments, there are different procedures to be gone through—just as with common land or open spaces. That is why they are grouped together with the fuel or field garden allotments.

I should like to say a little more about subsection (2) in general, which might explain the reasons for the provisions. The approach is to exclude compulsory purchase orders in the case of land for which additional procedures may apply involving, for example, the Minister responsible for the policy or special parliamentary procedures. Because those cases will be dependent on people's decisions in other places or because other processes may need to be gone through, it does not make sense simply to be able to transfer those confirmations back to the acquiring authority.

Subsection (2) also excludes compulsory purchase orders involving statutory undertakers—in other words, the utilities—in cases when they argue that the land is needed for operational purposes. Again, those may well involve ministerial decisions and other procedures that need to be gone through.

Subsection (3) limits the scope for giving an acquiring authority the power to confirm its own compulsory purchase order to cases where there are no outstanding objections and where the order can be confirmed without modification. It also requires the confirming order to be satisfied that all the necessary statutory requirements as to the service and

publication of notices have been complied with before contemplating the transfer. The confirming authority will retain confirmation in a series of cases, where, for example, notices have not been complied with, there are objections, or modifications are needed. In all those cases, a judgment may need to be made about whether things have been handled fairly and about what is the balance. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the acquiring authority to make that judgment, because it could be argued that it is not an unbiased judge. Therefore, the confirmation power must lie elsewhere.

The new provision will, even with those restrictions, help to speed up the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders by enabling the confirming authority to give the power of confirmation to the acquiring authority. We also hope that it will provide an incentive that encourages acquiring authorities to prepare compulsory purchase orders carefully, so that they may confirm those themselves. In doing that, they must take care, and ensure that no technical modifications become necessary as a result of errors. We also hope that the provision will encourage acquiring authorities to consult those who are affected by their scheme and discuss with them from an early stage the proposals and any concerns. That will minimise the risk of formal objections once the order is made. Those steps will help to speed up the confirmation process and make it less stressful for those whose land is required.

Subsections (7) and (8) allow the confirming authority to revoke the transfer at any time until the acquiring authority sends the notification. That might become necessary, for example, if the confirming authority received a late objection raising important issues, or if the acquiring authority failed to take any action towards confirmation after a reasonable period of time had elapsed and those affected by the order made representations to the confirming authority about the delay and consequent uncertainty. The procedure is sensible. We hope that it will help to speed up the process in the most straightforward cases that could be handled in such a way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. On reading the paragraph that deals with ''fuel'', I, too, thought that it was a mistake. That paragraph arises from section 19 of the principal Act, which deals with commons and open spaces. Under subsection (4) a

''fuel or field garden allotment''

means any allotment set out as a fuel allotment, or a field garden allotment, under the Inclosure Acts 1845 and 1842. [Interruption.] I was not intending to get at my hon. Friend—I am merely trying to help him. That subsection was intended to apply to such things as opencast coal mines, electricity apparatus and underground storage, including gas storage, and so forth, as was made clear.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that fuel allotments have not yet reached Chipping Barnet. I am sure that they will set the place alight when they do.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend may not be aware of them—they may be so secret that they do not exist. We have, of course, discussed that already.

Seriously, though, we welcome new clause 21, but I should like to ask the Minister one question. The new clause is, in a sense, making it easier for an acquiring authority to operate a compulsory purchase order. We must be careful where people's interests are being compulsorily acquired. Although that is a serious matter, we have not touched on the principles of compulsory purchase this morning. Where we are making it easier, we should build appropriate safeguards into the legislation that we are making. I am concerned that subsection (4) says:

''An objection is made by any person (whether or not a person mentioned in section 12(2)), including an objection which is disregarded.''

I accepted the explanation when we discussed it in a different context under 12(2), but where we are making it easier for an acquiring authority to operate, and if there is any objection, the acquiring authority should not have the power—it should go to a confirming authority. Perhaps the Minister will consider that carefully. I am a little bit concerned about that subsection.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Let me clarify what I understand to be the position with regard to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I will be happy to look further into the matter if that is necessary.

First, where objections are disregarded because they are to do with compensation rather than the nature of the compulsory purchase order, the consultation process takes place in exactly the same way, so people's interests are not harmed at all by the decision for the confirming authority to pass it back to the acquiring authority. Secondly, we have structured this clause differently, so that there is a fresh approach from that which was previously taken. We are not simply referring to there being remaining objections from those who have a statutory authority. One cannot transfer the confirming power back to the acquiring authority even if there is an objection—including one that has been disregarded. Subsection (4) states:

''An objection is an objection made by any person (whether or not a person mentioned in section 12(2)), including an objection which is disregarded.''

The new clause does what the hon. Gentleman wants it to do. When people's interests are being balanced, it is important that a proper independent judgment is taken. We would not want concerns to be raised that a judgment was being made about people's interests by someone who was effectively a party to that judgment or had an interest. That was the reason for making it more difficult to transfer confirming power back to the acquiring authority in these circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 37 - Enforcement in relation to Crown land:

New clause 38 - Urgent Crown development: Scotland

New clause 39 - Urgent works relating to Crown land:

New clause 40 - Special provision for certain circumstances where disclosure of information as to national security may occur: Scotland

New clause 41 - Crown application of Scottish planning Acts

New clause 42 - Tree preservation orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioners interested: Scotland

New clause 43 - Trees in conservation areas in Scotland:

New clause 44 - Old mining permissions: Scotland

New clause 45 - Subordinate legislation: Scotland

New schedule 1 - Crown application

New Schedule 2 - Transitional provisions: Crown applications

New Schedule 3 - Crown application: Scotland

New clause 1 - Planning permission for high hedges

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a matter of great regret that the title that I have come up with for this new clause does not share the resonance of some of the titles that the Government have given to their new clauses. Some of those titles—such as ''Old mining permissions: Scotland''—remind me almost of a barrel of real ale from the Ventnor brewery.

My new clause is an attempt to deal with a serious issue of which many of us are aware. It adopts two principles. The first, which has been enunciated by the Minister, is that the whole is the enemy of the parts. The second principle is one of conscientious plagiarism taken from Bills introduced by noble Friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes in another place and by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in this place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend, but I would like to put on the record that the noble Baroness Gardner of Parkes's Bill was almost identical in every respect to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I would not like his contribution not to be recognised.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend is kind to remind me about that. Looking further down in my notes, I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull did introduce such a Bill, which nearly got through the whole parliamentary process.

The Government carried out a detailed consultation in 1999 on the impact of high hedges. More than 3,000 people and organisations responded, which for a Government consultation must be approaching a record—it is certainly more than responded to some consultations on regional referendums. The result showed that 94 per cent. of respondents believed that new laws were needed to control high hedges. Some 70 per cent. of local authorities that responded supported that belief. The proposal was made that local authorities should be able to determine complaints. I have not gone along that road because it has failed twice at least, for various reasons. Therefore, I have adopted a slightly different route.

Unfortunately, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull fell in April 2001 because of an imminent general election, although the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions reminded us that it is

''the Government's commitment to introduce new laws to solve hedge problems in England and Wales.''

He added that

''we could not find room for such a Bill in this Session''—

that is, the Session that ended in 2001. He also said:

''We are therefore pleased that the hon. Member for Solihull is pursuing the matter and that the Bill would apply to England and Wales.''—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 575.]

The 2001 Queen's Speech also failed to mention a high hedges Bill. Government officials said that they were committed to bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time became available and the then Secretary of State told Hedgeline in a letter on 26 July 2001 that the Government remained committed to introducing new laws as soon as there was space in the parliamentary timetable. I will not go through the frequently reiterated Government commitments on the matter, but this is the opportunity for the Minister to give us half a loaf, if not a whole loaf, and to respond to that need.

Two Bills were introduced in the current Session—one in the Lords and one by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. When the Commons Bill failed, the hon. Member for Ealing, North asked the Prime Minister, no less, on 17 September 2003, what he was going to do about it. The Prime Minister repeated that

''the Government have had a long-standing commitment since August 2000 to bring forward new laws to give local authorities in England and Wales powers to determine complaints about high garden hedges and will make every effort to get them on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity. I cannot say better than that.''—[Official Report, 17 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 859–60.]

Now is the opportunity for the Minister to score lots of brownie points, but she is not the only one who is trying to do so. My noble Friend continues to persist, and tabled amendment No. 194 to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill as recently as 7 October. The Front-Bench spokesman, Lord Bassam, expressed great sympathy for her case:

''I understand why inserting suitable provisions in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is on the face of it a very attractive proposition. This is a thoroughly anti-social problem. I believe that the noble Baroness described people who are victims of it as hedge victims. She is absolutely right about that. We recognise that some people are victims of such anti-social behaviour on the part of their neighbours. I certainly admire the vigour with which she has attempted to argue the new clause into the scope of the Bill.''

He went on to say that he was not prepared to accept the amendment, adding:

''As Members of the Committee have said, we do not get too many legislative opportunities, and I could not give a commitment as to when the Government could find a legislative slot in the future.

We as a government want to see such legislation ultimately on the statute book. We recognise the matter for the problem that it is.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 October 2003; Vol. 653, c. 251–52.]

To be fair, he did say that he would look at it again, but ''ultimately'' is a long way away.

The new clause will deliver only half of what people want—it will prevent such problems from arising in future—but it does not pretend to deal with the difficult question of what happens to those who already suffer from such problems. I have had many letters, as I am sure other Members have, asking me to support various legislation, but I have also had letters asking me not to support the proposal in the Bill because of its retrospective nature. It allows people to ask those who believe that they have grown nice tall hedges for good reasons to have them cut down. My proposal would not do that. Let me give an example from Bembridge in my constituency that shows why it is appropriate.

Somebody sold a plot of land adjacent to his home for housing purposes and planted a hedge that was designed to rise to about 6 ft, or 2 m. That was many years ago and the hedge has now grown that high. Now, the people who have bought the houses—some of them the second or third owners—are complaining about the hedge, but it was there before they were. Many feel that it is unfair that they should be able to do nothing about the hedges, while others feel that it would be unfair were they able to do something. I solve the problem by doing nothing about it, although I am proposing a mechanism that will ensure that it does not arise in future. I shall now try to describe that mechanism, and I am indebted to the officials of the House who have helped me by drafting the proposal.

Planning permission would be required for high hedges, and the new clause describes what would be considered to be a ''high hedge''. The first requirement is that it would be

''a barrier to light for, or access to, residential property.''

Therefore, one would not have to get planning permission unless the hedge, or part of it, were such a barrier. The second requirement is that it

''is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens'',

and the third is that it

''rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.''

I would much have preferred to specify 6 ft, but I am told that this is what we have to say nowadays. The new clause goes on to define an evergreen—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, as a former president of the Institute of Arboriculturalists, could do so too—and says:

''The provisions of this section shall not apply to any high hedge existing on the date on which it comes into force.''

In other words, if one's hedge had grown beyond 2 m on the date on which the requirement came into force, the new clause would not apply to it. I leave Ministers with half a loaf and this Minister with the opportunity to satisfy at least half the Prime Minister's pledge, as well as the problem of satisfying the rest of it. I believe that the new clause would ensure that people no longer risked finding themselves in the circumstances that are able to claim them as victims at the moment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having suggested the new clause. I was one of the named supporters of the Bill championed by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The only problem with the most recent of the failed Bills—in his potted history, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned three, but I think that there have been five in recent years—was that the hon. Member for Christchurch talked it out. Fortunately, he is not on this Committee, which is welcome if we are to debate the issue as that gives us an opportunity to legislate on it without having certain Members talking out a measure that has the overwhelming support of Members of all parties. It may be only half a loaf, but it is a good half loaf. However, I have been on too many Committees in the past few years to believe that the Minister will accept it as it stands. I suspect that she will say that she will consider the matter and possibly return to it, but that may not be enough. It is usually done to suggest that something should not happen.

The Minister may have been advised that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for this issue, but it is likely to be the most appropriate that we will have for a very long time. We have seen the problems with private Members' legislation, so unless the Minister knows something that she cannot tell us such as that an appropriate Bill might appear in the Queen's Speech—I suspect, however, that the Government may have more pressing priorities than a high hedges Bill—she will be doing the House a disservice if she does not take this opportunity, because I cannot foresee when the next one will arise for incorporating such a proposal in Government legislation.

I fully support the new clause. If the Minister picks me up on any technical drafting errors—the other reason that Ministers use to reject new clauses—I suggest that with all three parties working together, we can rapidly find ways of reintroducing it on Report. It would take very little time on the Floor of the House to do that. My only regret is that in this instance, it has been introduced by a Member whose name is not quite

as appropriate to the subject as is that of the noble Baroness Gardner of Parkes. For the sake of posterity, I wish that it had been her Bill, as that would have made it one of the most appropriate Bills that could ever have been invented.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on the way in which he introduced his new clause. I have heard three memorable speeches about the need to tackle the problem of high hedges; they were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Solihull, and by the hon. Member for Ealing, North—all of whose facility for style and wit I admire. I particularly admire the hon. Member for Ealing, North, whom I regard as the living personification of Mr. Punch—but in saying that, I hope that I am not thought to be the living personification of the Reverend Obadiah Slope.

My hon. Friend asked me to tell the Committee what a coniferous shrub or tree is. Before I attempt to do so, I should say that although I was the instigator of national tree year in 1973, and was president of the Arboricultural Association for many years before I became a Minister, I am not an expert on trees; I simply love them. I understand that, in layman's language, a coniferous tree does not shed its leaves, whereas a deciduous tree does. The point is that because an evergreen or coniferous tree does not shed its leaves, it forms a permanent barrier that light cannot get through.

As my hon. Friend said, the issue raises great emotions. There are some—certainly one or two in my party—who, if I judge their views rightly, think that we have enough pressing problems with town and country planning laws and regulations, and we do not need any more. They think that to try to extend the planning system to hedges is taking a step too far. There are others—I am in this category—who recognise that high hedges are a real menace, and involve the loss of rights for neighbouring properties.

We rightly always pay regard to the need to preserve rights of way for ordinary people, but we make rights to light a second-class issue, although they are equally important. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has recognised the qualification someone should be required to take action to reduce the height of a hedge only when there is loss of light for a neighbour. That usually happens because a property owner puts high hedges on his or her northern boundary—which is, of course, the southern side of the property behind, and materially affects the light to that property. I applaud my hon. Friend for making that distinction.

It is right that the new clause specifies

''a line of two or more evergreens''.

One could perhaps live with one evergreen, because evergreens, or coniferous trees, tend to grow high but are relatively narrow. The definition of a hedge is, I suppose, two or more shrubs or trees—although I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I will be picked up on that definition.

The new clause also defines a high hedge as one that is 2 m in height. I come from an age where imperial

preference had two good meanings, and I resist using the metric system, although of course it is now part of our law and we have to live with it. Suffice it to say that 2 m is about 6¼ inches higher than 6 ft. That is, however, by the way. My point is that if one wishes to put up a fence on the side boundaries or at the back of a property, it must be less than 2 m high. One has to get planning permission if one wants to put up a fence higher than 2 m, so the choice of the 2 m height limit is very apposite.

I can understand, although I will be very sorry, if the Minister feels that the new clause should be resisted. In the light of what my hon. Friend said about the commitments and semi-commitments of Ministers, not least the Prime Minister, I hope that if the Minister asks us to resist the new clause he will feel able to give a commitment that legislation will be mentioned in the Queen's Speech on 26 November. If not, I hope that the Government will make a specific commitment to support a private Member's Bill, and to help draft it if necessary, in the new Session.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I did not speak earlier, because I wanted to hear what hon. Members had to say about the new clause first. I unhesitatingly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on bringing it before the Committee. It gives the opportunity for an important subject to be debated.

I know that some members of our party take a different view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, but the Conservative Opposition's view is that the matter is a significant problem. Some 10,000 cases are outstanding, and we believe that the Government should honour their promises to legislate on the matter. Without exception, all Members of Parliament will have had correspondence about difficult cases in which people have been severely inconvenienced by high hedges. I know of a case of one London resident who has a 30 ft hedge within a yard on both sides of their small property, and nothing can be done about that. We need some legislation.

To that end, I considered tabling the Bill that was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull in its entirety as a new clause. I do not want to be churlish about the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, as it provides an excellent opportunity to debate the subject, but it has several shortcomings. I am sure that the Minister will pick up on them, but it might be helpful if I pick up on them first.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, I have spent many hours, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, on this problem. I sat through the debates on the Bills introduced by both my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The Government should take the earliest opportunity to remedy the problem with legislation. We want there to be some flexibility, because if two neighbours living side by side are happy with a high hedge, the Government should not intervene. Intervention should occur only when one of the parties has a problem with the hedge. We are wary about blanket legislation, and I would want to see some arbitration procedure built in, so a local

authority could be invited to resolve a dispute if either party has a problem.

New clause 1 would be prospective, not retrospective, and the Government already have 10,000 problems to deal with, which would be a massive work load for planning authorities throughout the country. On top of the heavy work load provided by the Bill, that would be a real problem, so the Government should perhaps introduce some phasing to deal first with prospective problems and then with retrospective problems.

My hon. Friend's new clause has some specific problems. I emphasise again that in identifying them, I am trying to be helpful rather than churlish. As Committee members know, evergreen hedges can grow by at least 3 ft a year, especially if they are leylandii. What was not a problem at the beginning of the year can become a significant problem by the end of it, and we need to find a mechanism to deal with it. A hedge can, and should, be trimmed to a height of 2 m—or 6 ft 6 in—but if one party is obstinate and does not trim it, and an order is made against them, who will be entitled to do the work? The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull provided that the local authority could do the work and charge the occupier who was causing the problem, and there should be some such safeguard in the Bill.

I had a problem with the Bills introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, because they both refused to contemplate amendments on this matter. We would not want to make any legislation too all-encompassing, but the problem of high hedges occurs only with leylandii, Lawson cypress and laurel. Any legislation would need a tight definition of those species, because otherwise rare and more special species could be caught up. We would have to be very careful before cutting down hedges of unusual species, because the more special the species, the more likely it is that trimming it too hard can kill it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the problem is confined to those three species of tree, I will happily tell him about a problem in my constituency. Indeed, the problem is not always a hedge directly against someone's boundary. My constituency case concerns a house in a green lane. The hedge on the other side of the lane is a mixture of species. It has grown to about 30 or 40 ft, and completely blocks the light because of the angle of the land. I have visited the couple involved, who would not find redress if the restrictions proposed by the hon. Gentleman were accepted.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful for that intervention. I shall come to the issue of light being blocked in a moment. The hon. Gentleman said that the hedge was a mixture of species; the most common species in most hedges is thorn, which is not evergreen. Bearing in mind the enormity of the problem, I would want the three species in question to be dealt with first; it may then be possible, by order, to extend the proposal to other species.

I tend to follow the line taken by some of my hon. Friends that the measure should not be all-encompassing. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight what would happen when a hedge that had been planted properly and had not caused a nuisance was deemed to be a barrier to light in a development built after it was planted. Would retrospective legislation be required? I had such a case in Northleach in my constituency: someone innocently planted a hedge next to an agricultural field. It was not a problem to anyone at the time, but new houses were built and a constituent has written to me saying that the hedge now is a problem. That possibility should be addressed; perhaps an amendment with a retrospective element is needed.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is likely that such a hedge would require permission subsequent to the construction of the houses concerned? Does he accept, too, that it is also likely that if the person were growing the hedge for the purpose of providing a barrier he would seek planning permission when he sold the land? I accept that there is a lacuna in the measure, which Ministers could plug at a later stage, in respect of houses built after the growth of a hedge on a site that had not been in the ownership of the person growing the hedge.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not want to get too bound up in the argument. I am not being churlish about the new clause; I am merely pointing out what needs to be considered when the Government draft legislation.

On the issue of light, the amendment does not define a barrier to light, and a definition is needed. The Building Research Establishment has issued some excellent guidelines on the subject, which deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow. As he said, a house 1 m away from a hedge is in a very different situation from one that is 40 or 50 m away; the same hedge can cause different problems, depending on the angle of the light and the height of the hedge. There are different problems in the winter and the summer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, whether the hedge is on the north or the south side of a house is also important. The matter has been considered in some detail in the BRE guidelines, which should, at the very least, be incorporated into any proposed measure.

Hedge roots, too, create difficulties. As every surveyor knows, hedge roots can cause problems of subsidence, and get into the drains of neighbouring houses. Hedge roots like drains, which provide them with the nutrients that they need to grow even faster, so hedges whose roots find their way into someone's drains are likely to become an even greater problem.

There are lots of matters that need to be dealt with, such as who is to hear appeals, what sanctions are available when the legislation is not complied with, and so on. I have identified some of them, but there will be others. I join my hon. Friend in urging the Government to act on the matter. About 10,000 people are already affected, and if there is to be a reasonable level of house building, which we need, that

number will grow rapidly. Indeed, if the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's guidelines are to allow the density of housing to increase, I suspect that the problem will become even greater. This is a pressing matter and I hope that the Government will deal with it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of sitting on the fence—or should I say the hedge? Will he make clear whether he supports me in my belief that the Bill is appropriate legislation for the Government to use to introduce suitable clauses on Report to deal with this question?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That is a matter for the Government; it is their Bill. The Opposition merely say that the Government should find the first legislative opportunity. The matter would clearly be within the scope of the Bill, or the Clerk would not have selected the new clause. I simply say that it is an urgent problem, which needs to be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. If the Government can prepare an appropriate new clause in time for Report, and get it through the other place, they should use this opportunity. However, this is a complex subject and I suspect that it will be difficult to deal with in the Bill, so it will probably need separate legislation.

The thrust of the speeches from the Opposition Benches is that the Government need to do something, and I hope that something will be included in the Queen's Speech. I cannot be any clearer than that.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I see that have only a few minutes to respond to the debate. I shall answer as many points as I can, but we may need to return to the debate this afternoon. I strongly support the intention behind new clause 1. We were extremely disappointed by the failure of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. Only a small minority of Opposition Members opposed it; otherwise, the issue has cross-party support.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I wish to correct the Minister. It was not only Opposition Members who opposed that Bill. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) tabled a large number of amendments, which delayed our discussion of the Bill on the Floor of the House.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon supported the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of exactly what was going on when the Bill was discussed on those Fridays. I was about to give his party credit for the fact that the majority of Conservative Members supported the Bill, so it was a little churlish of him to try to cast aspersions on the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon.

In the short time since I took responsibility for this matter, it has been my experience that one requires considerable persistence and ingenuity to make progress. Many Members in the House and in the other place have shown that persistence and that ingenuity by continuing to raise the subject, and they do so because constituents continue to raise it with us. The problem makes people's lives a misery, especially those who live next to a house with huge high hedge, classically a leylandii hedge, as it can leer over the garden wall—some are double the height of the house—and can block light, and the view. As a result, and given the failure of the private Member's Bill, we have given much consideration to what we could to.

The hon. Member for Cotswold said that he had considered tabling my hon. Friend's entire Bill as an amendment to this Bill. We, too, considered that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I suggested that idea to the Government, who said that they would consider the idea carefully.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done. However, using my hon. Friend's Bill would raise problems of scope. We also considered whether other ways might be found to include such provisions, in order to address the many problems that hon. Members have raised, but they too would have created all sorts of difficulties—

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 A

New clause 1 - Planning permission for high hedges

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As I was saying this morning, we have considered whether it is possible to address the issue of high hedges in a different way through the Bill. However, a series of difficulties—many of them similar—arise in the new clause, and they are worth talking through.

The new clause would treat the problem of high hedges and disputes between neighbours as a planning issue, whereas it is, in fact, a dispute between neighbours that is not being resolved. The first problem with new clause 1 is that it is not retrospective and so, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) honestly recognised, cannot resolve the problem for the many people who have horrible high hedges blocking out their light and suffocating their houses. That means that the genuine problems of huge numbers of people across the country would not be resolved by the new clause. Moreover, it would be difficult for them to resolve their problems through a planning approach, given that it is the nature of planning permission that it is applied for in advance.

There is also a slight difficulty in subsection (4). There is the question of how one would prove at what point a growing tree or hedge passed the 2 m point, and the issue of whether one could argue that a tree that was 1 m 90 cm before the Bill came into force would need planning permission, but that one that was 2 m 10 cm would not, because of the way that the

clause was drafted. The new clause would be slightly difficult to enforce and interpret.

Another aspect that would be difficult was alluded to by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). There are many cases in which a hedge more than 2 m high is not a problem. It may not lie along the boundary between two neighbours; it may be a long way from a house; two neighbours may strongly want a high barrier between them; or the hedge may block out an unsightly view at the end of the garden. There may be no need for anyone to intervene in the growth of a high hedge. Putting additional burdens on the planning process when many cases would not need to be covered seems an inappropriate way of trying to solve a genuine problem.

We are not dealing with a planning problem. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that some would argue that it is right that the measures should not be retrospective. The planting of the leylandii or hedge may be seen as a retrospective act, but the dispute is what remains. The problem is that there is an incredibly high hedge between two neighbours that is making a misery of one party's life, while the other is not responding to resolve the issue. They have an ongoing dispute. The issue is not one of passing legislation to cover acts that took place in the past, which is what it would be if the matter was regarded as a planning issue. The issue is about how we resolve the dispute between two neighbours, and that is a current and ongoing problem. We should have legislation that allows us to respond to that fact.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister will recall that I intervened on the hon. Member for Cotswold earlier to mention that, in my constituency, there is a green lane between a high hedge and a property whose owners no longer get light through their windows. We need to be careful; the problem is not always the neighbours, but we keep talking as if it is a matter of dispute between neighbours. In fact, it is a dispute between two parties who may or may not be neighbours.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although obviously the most passionate stories are often those where the hedges are growing close to people's kitchens, and where that is having an immediate impact on people's lives and their enjoyment. He is right that the approach taken in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) was to ensure that his legislation could deal with a range of circumstances.

We have examined the issue addressed in new clause 1 in considerable detail, and we were keen to do something about it in this Bill, if an appropriate way could be found. However, it has proved too difficult. New clause 1 is the wrong approach, but we shall continue to consider the matter.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to the remarks of my noble Friend Lord Bassam on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. We are considering this issue very seriously. The term ''antisocial behaviour'' is an appropriate way to describe the problem that we are talking about. This is about neighbours being a nuisance to one another, and it can be far more

destructive and more of a harassment to people's lives than a neighbour playing loud music or a teenager who puts graffiti on the fence opposite a house. Antisocial behaviour is not just about young people on low-income estates, but about the middle-aged middle Englander who will not lop the leylandii and leaves his poor neighbour to suffer as a result.

We are sympathetic to the points that have been raised about the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, and we are examining the issue closely. As we have maintained throughout, we are keen to get legislation on to the statute book. We will respond to the House of Lords on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill very shortly—within the next few days. There will be further opportunity during the planning Bill, perhaps on Report after the Queen's Speech, for hon. Members to have further discussions if they are not happy with the way in which the Government have responded to the House of Lords. However, given the difficulties of approaching this issue from a planning point of view and our strong interest in considering further the antisocial behaviour element and other possibilities for taking action as rapidly as possible, I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw his new clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

First, I am grateful to all hon. Members on this side of the Committee for the support that they have given to the principle of my new clause. Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister for her thoughtful and reasonable response to it. We have more promises on record than we had before about the timing of the Government's response to the issue of this serious nuisance. The Minister has said that she is keen to get legislation, and that she will respond to the House of Lords on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill shortly. She expects that, if we are not satisfied, we will have the opportunity to reconsider the matter on Report. I am grateful for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) was helpful in describing how evergreens grow. His comparison of rights of way and rights to light was singularly appropriate. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that all three parties appear to have the same objective—I am sure that that is true also of Cross Benchers in the other place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold came up with so many criticisms that he was almost drafting a new Bill rather than responding to the new clause. That is his prerogative. It is clear that he is preparing himself to be on the Government Front Bench, responding to new clauses from the Opposition Members, and I am sure that he will fulfil that role very well when he gets the chance to do so after the next general election.

My hon. Friend raised some issues that I would have regarded as carping if they had been raised by a less generous Minister—so to speak. However, my hon. Friend is not less generous than the Minister, so I will not describe his comments as carping. He came up with the sorts of criticisms that Ministers sometimes come up with about how the new clause fails on a

number of technicalities, but in my view it is the Opposition's job to table new clauses and it is the Minister's job to tidy them up if we do not get them absolutely right. I offer that bit of career development advice to my hon. Friend, should he find himself on the Front Bench in the future.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I offer a piece of advice to my hon. Friend, by telling a little anecdote that I am sure the Committee will enjoy? I was talking to a strong supporter of our leader yesterday, when a Labour Member of Parliament came up to us and said, ''I see that you two are plotting.'' I said, ''There is a big plot: it is to get rid of the Labour party. The problem is that some of our people have lost the plot.''

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I do not want to go too far down that road, not least because I have to speak again in a few moments and I hope to get as generous a reception as I have received so far. I am grateful to the Minister for her promises: we will examine the fruits of them on Report.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend has done the Committee—and everyone involved in the 10,000 problems outstanding—a huge service. It was necessary to debate this matter this afternoon. I congratulate him on the ingenuity of his new clause: it is short and simple—it fulfils all the criteria that I have been talking about in this Committee.

This problem must be addressed—the Government need to deal with it as soon as possible. I hear what the Minister has said, but I wish to press her a little further. The short title of the Bill states that its aim is to

''Make provision relating to spatial development and town and country planning''.

Therefore, there is no doubt that the Government could include this issue if they wished to do so. There was a slight lacuna in the Minister's reply, when she said that if hon. Members are not satisfied with her reply they can raise the matter at a subsequent stage. I am sure that my party and the Liberal Democrats will closely examine how it can subsequently be raised.

I wish to press the Minister on this matter, because either the Government are determined to do something about it or they are not. The Minister says that it is not a planning issue. However, at the end of the day, local authorities will have to be involved: I chose my words carefully, in my criticism of my hon. Friend's amendment. There are 10,000 disputes, and there must be some mechanism of resolving them. It may not be to do with planning, but I am sure that it is to do with local authorities, so they must be given the necessary power.

The Minister says that the matter is not within the scope of this Bill: that might indicate that the Government are considering other possible routes, and that she is being a bit coy about them this afternoon. I have no doubt that this issue will not go away: I hope that the Minister can give a slightly stronger hint that the Government are determined to legislate in this area in one way or another, because the situation is unsatisfactory at the moment. As things stand, the Opposition are determined to press the

Government, because we believe that there needs to be legislation in this area.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am happy to respond to the further remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold. He seems to have changed his position a little since lunch-time.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

A good lunch.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Clearly, he has had a good lunch.

The hon. Member for Cotswold has switched from carping to congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—I use that word cautiously, because it came from his hon. Friend, not from me.

The hon. Gentleman spent some time this morning speaking about the difficulties of treating this as a planning issue, and the consequences for planning departments of having to deal with many cases that do not need planning permission. However, this afternoon he seems to be saying that this is a planning matter and could be dealt with.

I should like to repeat the points that I made as clearly as possible, given parliamentary procedures. We have considered in detail whether we could do certain things through the planning Bill. We have concluded that that is not possible, without trying to do things differently. To treat this as a planning matter, rather than one of disputes resolution or antisocial behaviour, would cause considerable problems and would not be the ideal solution.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I press the Under-Secretary a little further? We are getting to some common ground. A serious conciliation issue needs to be addressed. Can we take it from what the Under-Secretary says that she believes that there is a need for legislation on this issue as soon as possible? Whatever route we take, can she assure us that the Government are intending to legislate as soon as possible?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I have said many times that the Government strongly support legislation on that issue. As I said at the beginning, we regret that the private Member's Bill did not get through. We have been seeking different ways to get the legislation on the statute book at the earliest opportunity.

As I spent some time saying earlier, we are considering very, very seriously whether it is possible to deal with this issue in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, as my noble Friend Lord Bassam said. We have given as many hints as possible about the routes we are exploring and we have mentioned the timetable within which we have to respond formally and publicly to the House of Lords on that Bill. As I have said, the House will have plenty of opportunity to return to the matter on Report—if the Committee chooses—after we have responded to the House of Lords on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and after the Queen's Speech.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I understand the logic of what the Under-Secretary is saying. She is coming to the conclusion that the correct place for measures to deal with the problem is probably not a planning Bill. There is a possibility that such a provision might be made in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

If that Bill is found not to be the route, for any reason, we would enter a new Session of Parliament, at which time the Under-Secretary could argue with perfect sincerity that the Government were hoping to bring forward legislation, but that it is not a priority in that Parliament. Perhaps she could respond to my earlier point. Could she give a commitment that the Government would give every possible help to a private Member who chose to bring the measure before the House and who was fortunate in the private Members' ballot at the beginning of the Session?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We have already done that. We gave considerable help to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ealing, North and supported his Bill through the House. We have to recognise that, given the persistent opposition of a small number of hon. Members, for whatever reason, the private Member's Bill route is difficult. Nevertheless, I give the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet an undertaking that should it not be possible to resolve the matter through any timetable, or other vehicle, we would continue to support any private Member's Bill that came forward, just as we have done with the one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.

There will be further opportunity on Report for hon. Members to return to the matter if they wish to do so. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2 - Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purpose of sale

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is about the subdivision of agricultural holdings for the purpose of sale. In preparing my remarks, I discovered that this activity has taken place in a number of constituencies, not least your own, Mr. Hurst.

The matter came to my attention when the Isle of Wight County Press reported that the Isle of Wight county wants legislation to control companies buying parcels of land, subdividing it, then selling plots that have no hope of getting planning permission. The report referred to a particular company that I shall come to later. Councillor Barry Abraham, councillor for Wootton, told the County Press:

''What galls me is people buying land and selling off parcels.''

He is talking about a farmer. The councillor goes on:

''I don't know if there is anything we can do through the LGA about this practice of people buying land on its 'hope value'.''

I then met representatives of the Isle of Wight branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, including Ted Peach who is the treasurer. They drew my attention to a practice that was going on in Alverstone and Shorwell in my constituency. At Alverstone, 10 acres in the east Yar flood plain were split into 27 plots ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.73 acres and advertised on the internet as ''Sandown pasture/woods/streams''. The site is one of importance for nature conservation and is within an area of outstanding natural beauty; it borders a main river called Scotchells brook and Alverstone Mead local nature reserve. It is a natural relict fen wetland with peat-based soil and an expanding reed bed with typical fauna, including water voles.

I was told that a caravan is already installed on one plot without planning permission. It is positioned within 1 m of the brook bank despite there being no services such as sewage disposal points, mains water supply or rubbish disposal. A public water supply intake is situated in the main river Yar, about 200 m away. Wetlands are one of three priority habitats in the Isle of Wight biodiversity action plan for protection and enhancement. The potential of 27 plots being used for leisure in various ways is completely contrary to that plan, as well as to the unitary development plan.

The subdivision of agricultural holdings has been widespread, certainly since 1993 when the proprietor of the company was referred to in this place as undertaking such activity. I was supplied with a good deal of information about his company, which is called Gladwish Land Sales and which boasts that it is the official sponsors of the Herne Bay football club—I do not think that that is related to its land sales activities. It advertises on the internet some 74 different sites in different parts of the country, from Ashmansworthy and Ashwater in Devon to Winfrith in Dorset and Wittersham in Kent—and let us not forget Shorwell and Alverstone in my constituency. The company gives information to the purchasers of the land. For example, it quotes an article of 22 March 2001 from the Daily Mail, the headline of which is, ''Your house is illegal but it's your human right''. The article goes on:

''A £750,000 house condemned as 'the most flagrant breach of planning permission' has been saved from the bulldozers so as not to infringe the human rights of the owner.

It is the first time that the human rights legislation which came controversially into force in October has been used in a planning dispute and could have serious implications for development laws.''

That is quoted, I am sure, with the intention of increasing the value of the small plots of land that the company has set about selling. The company also tells people about caravans on land—I am indebted to my constituent, Miss V. A Gwynn of Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight for passing on this information. The company says:

''A Farmer is permitted to have a 'shelter for seasonal worker' on his/her land.

To be a Farmer you have to have at least an acre of land and be registered as a farmer with the MAFF. The Ministry can also sometimes give you help with buying raw produce to start your crop''—

that sounds unlikely, but still. It goes on:

''A shelter for a seasonal worker can be a caravan and it can be used day and night as long as you are working on the land, therefore you require products that grow all the year round. Being a shelter, it is never called your 'home' and you should have a home elsewhere.

As it is not your home you do not pay rates on it but likewise you cannot demand a refuse service or any other services that are supplied by local councils.''

It appears that this practice is widespread. In an Adjournment debate on 4 April 2003, you, Mr. Hurst, referred to parcels dividing land into 236 individual plots with an asking price of between £3,000 and £6,000 a plot, and you reported that Farmers Weekly had run an article in March on the problem in Norfolk in which a spokesman for Gladwish Land Sales was quoted as saying:

''It might be that one day some of these plots will get permission for development.''

The key thing is the hope value—or, at least, that value with regard to the potential for development. However, the hope value is not the only key thing. There is also the current-use value of the land when it is divided up into sites for holiday caravans and, perhaps, for camping—not for use as an organised caravan park, or anything of that kind. That is also causing difficulty. The land does not have to be physically divided. So long as individuals can recognise their plots, they can put caravans on them—moveable caravans rather than mobile homes, which in my experience are seldom mobile—and they can use them as and when they wish, which may be far from often.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to the same issue on 5 June 2003, when he mentioned a site of nature conservation interest that is also an area of outstanding natural beauty in his constituency. The then Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women replied that an article 4 direction had been issued: I understand that those directions can be used in these cases.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) took part in an Adjournment debate on 9 July in which he referred to similar divisions of land by families of travellers. That is difficult for planners to deal with, because it is hard to enforce the use of land in a wide variety of ownerships—some of them, perhaps, well known and others less well known. In my experience, most

planning committees do not regard enforcement as the highest priority: some of them do—particularly those in the metropolitan green belt—but others do not.

An official of the National Farmers Union wrote:

''We would agree that this nettle should be grasped, though we do have reservations about the approach adopted in your New Clause.''

I, too, have reservations about that approach, but it was the best that I could come up with. I hope that the Minister will respond in a manner that indicates how she feels that this nettle can be grasped.

I will not describe the architecture of the new clause because it is perfectly clear, but my key objective is that, whether or not the land is divided physically or merely in ownership, it should under certain conditions be subject to the requirement for planning permission.

I defined ''subdivision'' as

''one or more units of less than one hectare''.

It is clearly possible to sell off one area of less than one hectare from a field so that one does not need two or more units of less than one hectare. I have also defined an ''agricultural holding'', and I have suggested that planning permission should be required either when it is subdivided for the purpose of sale or when it is sold having been subdivided in the past 10 years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It is fortunate that three of the protagonists in the debate of 9 July, which has been referred to, are present: you, Mr. Hurst, who had a problem with Gladwish Land Sales; the Minister, who replied on that occasion; and me. It is useful to refer back to what happened on that occasion to remind the Committee of the problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight introduced his new clause excellently, and the Committee is indebted to him for bringing up the matter so that it can be debated. I think that there are problems with his new clause, but in essence he has tabled a measure to deal with a problem that definitely needs a remedy.

In the 9 July debate, citing an example that you had given, Mr. Hurst, I referred to the fact that

''Gladwish Land Sales Ltd. bought a 40-acre plot and subdivided it into plots of one fifth of an acre. The fear was that those who bought plots would start unauthorised development by putting up fences and putting in roads, hard-standing for caravans and so on, and that the whole area would become an eyesore.''

That mirrors the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and the reason why he has tabled his new clause.

The question is what to do with such problems; the issue spills over into unauthorised development by travellers. The two are connected, although not intimately. I also said:

''Planning permission is required for a change of use from agriculture to gardens and amenity land. There could be a minor change in the law, so that if plots were of an inadequate size to be viable for agricultural purposes—that would certainly be true in the Braintree case—planning permission would be required to subdivide the land. That is a germ of a solution.''

I went on to mention that previously

''the Minister said that

'if the problem is occurring on farm land, those affected could ask the local planning authority to consider whether anything has occurred to create a situation where agriculture realistically could no longer be carried out, and therefore whether an unlawful material change of use . . . has occurred . . . If no application for change of use has been submitted, the local authority may decide, subject to its own legal advice, that enforcement action would be feasible and appropriate.' ''

Although I have suggested that route to Ministers and we have had correspondence on the matter, from my own planning experience I think that it would be difficult to obtain such an application for a change of use. Therefore, a stronger sanction needs to be introduced in law.

In addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) has been working on the problem for a long time. He has suggested that we need to introduce to planning law the concept of a notice to remedy when significant harm has been caused and he has said that in cases of significant harm a notice could be served on a person whose identity was unknown to the local planning authority. That concept is not new; it exists in injunction law, whereby an injunction can be served on a person or persons unknown. My hon. Friend has also described criminal sanctions, although I have reservations about those.

I mentioned in the 9 July debate that my hon. Friend had suggested that

''if the person on whom the notice was served refused to reinstate the land, the local authority should be entitled to do that work itself and to charge the person who created the problem. The fine and any costs could be registered under the Local Land Charges Act 1975.''

I went on:

''We must seriously consider all those matters when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill returns to this House and is recommitted to a Standing Committee in September or October. I undertook in my letter to the previous Under-Secretary that the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in drafting and agreeing relevant amendments.''—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 259–60WH.]

I have had a conversation with the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is only too aware of the problem and who recognises that something needs to be done. I have skated around some of what could be done. I suspect that the Minister who replies—I am not sure whether it will be the Minister for Housing and Planning or the other Minister—will say that the Bill is not the right vehicle, but exactly the same argument as applies to high hedges is involved. A serious problem needs to be remedied.

An associated difficulty is that involving travellers buying up pieces of land and stationing caravans there, without planning permission, as a permanent encampment, using the exemption in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is a similar problem—unauthorised use of land—that the planning system seems incapable of dealing with. I would like some assurance that Ministers recognise the problems—which will not go away, but will get worse—and intend to deal with them. If the Minister says, as I suspect she will, that the Bill is not the right vehicle to deal with the problems, I would like some assurance that she intends to take the problems seriously and produce legislation in future. The

problem is that there is a planning Bill only once every 10 years, and I am not sure where the matter will be dealt with if not in the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on tabling the new clause. I think that the memory of the hon. Member for Cotswold fails him slightly because I, too, was present at the recent debate.

There is indeed a difficulty, and it has been outlined well. The issue becomes a problem because it goes beyond people putting caravans on land and using it that way. There is great danger that in most cases the plots of land are bought by people who are not local—in fact, they may even live abroad. Such plots are bought over the internet as a speculation and then just left. They grow wild and fall out of use, which can be of considerable detriment to the countryside, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

We have heard about a few areas that suffer from the problem. I understand that it affects Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Lancashire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Wiltshire, Dorset and Norfolk, and those are just the places affected so far. Shropshire is not yet on that list, but I have great fears that we could be one of the next to be hit. At least eight companies that I have information on are dealing in that business. I understand that one company suggested on its website, although the suggestion has since been removed, that it is unethical for prospective purchasers to approach the local planning department to discover the development potential of land before completing their purchase, so we see some of the techniques that may have been used to encourage people to buy plots.

Before the Minister tells us some ways that we might deal with the problem, I want to concentrate on possible routes that might be used and why they are not working. Clearly, the erection of unlinked demarcation posts does not constitute development as defined in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The erection of fencing does, but it is allowed under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. If there is fencing, the local planning authority can act to withdraw the GPDO article 4 directions, but it cannot take action retrospectively. To withdraw an article 4 direction, one has to predict that a problem will arise. Also, I understand that in some cases quite large fields are subdivided in a single weekend, so clearly the order will not deal with the problems that exist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Of course he was present on 9 July and he made a pertinent contribution.

I meant to deal with the article 4 procedure in my speech. The problem with the procedure, as clearly identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling in a dreadful case in his constituency, is that although it can be issued by the local authority it then has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. In the dreadful case I refer to, it

took six months for the article 4 direction to be effected but, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, such changes can take place over a weekend. The mechanisms in the planning system are simply not rapid enough to deal with such developments.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.

A local planning authority can make a discontinuance order by virtue of section 102 of the 1990 Act, which requires fencing to be removed prior to the article 4 direction. However, that provision carries a liability to pay compensation, so local authorities might even have to pay the people who are attempting to exploit the countryside—that is the simplest way of putting it.

There is a possibility of using an untidy land notice under section 215 of the 1990 Act, but that is applicable only when land has become seriously degraded. The recipients can appeal to the magistrates court. That consumes local planning authorities' resources and does not deal with the problem of the fencing, which is one of the visual impacts on the countryside.

The change of land use has already arisen as a possible means of enforcement, but it could be difficult to prove that a change has taken place and it might not result in the removal of the posts and fences. It would be almost impossible, particularly if the land were in the hands of different owners, to use that provision to get the fences removed.

The final course left open to local authorities is compulsorily to purchase the land. They could, at some considerable cost, do that under section 226 of the 1990 Act, if there is a purpose that is necessary to achieve the interests of proper planning of the area in which the land is situated. It would take the local authority a lot of time and could cost a lot of money. It appears that none of the possible routes to deal with that problem have the remedies at the moment.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has done the Committee a service in bringing the issue forward. I suspect that the proposals are not technically perfect, as is always the case with Opposition amendments, and will not be accepted as they stand. I would, however, like the Government to try to make it clear how they intend to deal with things. They might say, ''The Bill is not the vehicle. It is dealing with the system, rather than the detail of planning.'' We need a commitment to get the changes through in another way—for example, through changes to the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The Department consulted on that and, at the end of last year or early this, said that it had decided not to make any changes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I suggest that two simple things could be done. First, we could alter the presumption that the local planning authority may issue an article 4 direction stopping the development stone dead—that has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and cannot come into effect until the Secretary of State has confirmed it.

Secondly, there is the route that I have suggested to the Minister on change of land use. If one has to get

planning permission to convert agricultural land to a tennis court or a garden, there is no reason why one should not have to obtain such permission, under a change in the law, for converting it to paddocks. If that were the law, the owner could be required to reinstate the land to its former use and, if they did not do that, the local authority could come in, do the work and charge for it—however many owners there were.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

There may be merit in both those routes. If the Ministers will consider seriously how to deal with the problem, perhaps they might consider other similar problems around GPDOs that also need looking into.

I do not want to trouble the Committee by tabling another new clause to be debated some time next week, but I shall throw into the pot the difficulty of adjoining fields being leased or owned by a company that holds car boot sales on those fields. If that company held 13 such sales a year on each field and if there were five or six fields on the same road, the residents there would have to put up with one or two car boot sales every weekend of the year. That would be an abuse of the GPDO. The Ministers promote article 4 as a means of dealing with such a problem, but because it already happens there is an issue around the payment of compensation—it has to be removed before the article 4 direction can be issued.

I hope that the Ministers will consider that in the round and that they will not come up with a one-fix solution. Perhaps they could look at a range of problems that effectively come from the GPDO route and promise the Committee that there will be a solution presently. I believe that the solution could come through regulations. We do not need primary legislation to deal with the issues at hand.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I, too, join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on introducing what I believe is an important issue, the seriousness of which is gathering pace almost as we speak. I am indebted to the CPRE for sending me a briefing paper, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow has been drawing heavily on it. Indeed, he has saved me a little time, because I do not need to rehearse the points that he made. I will begin by addressing three separate but related points.

First, I mentioned earlier in our proceedings the profound effect that the Human Rights Act 1998 will have on town planning law. That Act embraces the legislation created by the European Court of Human Rights, and Committee members may recall—the Ministers certainly will—that somebody challenged our planning appeals system and public inquiry system under that Act, but the House of Lords accepted the Government's appeal. Our constituents are beginning to realise that—rightly or wrongly—they can challenge a great deal of our law through the Human Rights Act. I mention that as a friendly warning to the Government. I do not think that they have realised quite what they have undertaken by incorporating the ECHR legislation into British law.

Secondly, the issue under discussion is largely to do with the grossly different value between the cost of

agricultural land and the cost of that land if it has development permission. I am old enough to remember serving in 1986 on the Select Committee on the Environment—as it was then called. It conducted an inquiry into the metropolitan green belt, which was of keen interest to my constituents in north London. In 1986, the average value of agricultural land in the metropolitan green belt area was £2,500 per acre. If that land got permission for development, its value immediately went up to £250,000 per acre. Today, 17 years later, I do not think that I am far wrong in saying that the cost of such agricultural land has gone down from £2,500 per acre to perhaps as low as £1,500 per acre, but the value of metropolitan green belt land with planning permission has probably gone up to £5 million per acre. Therefore, there is a tremendous incentive to develop land, if that is at all possible.

Thirdly, I note that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight is termed in phrases relating to agricultural holdings, but this problem could extend beyond agricultural land to other forms of land. It is important to remember that, given the price difference, a lot of land in established green belts throughout the country can be not particularly attractive, yet have an inherent enhanced value.

Although I am persuaded by the two suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about making changes within the existing planning law, I am inclined to agree with the CPRE that the existing town planning legislation offers no satisfactory means of addressing the problem, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

Local planning authorities may serve an article 4 direction only when it is expedient to do so. That is another relevant factor—although, for technical reasons, I will not bore the Committee with that at this time. Whether or not we are dealing with what is euphemistically called an untidy land notice or a change of use, on balance I do not think that we could take any effective action to deal with this problem through those means.

In conclusion, it is possible compulsorily to acquire such land—I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold or the hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned that. I hold the old-fashioned view that compulsory purchase should be a last resort only. Also, if it is employed in this sort of case, it will be costly to the taxpayer, so I do not recommend such a route. The problem does not yet exist in my constituency, but it does next door in Hertsmere and the issue has been raised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mention the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, who is presumably a lawyer. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay thought that the right way to deal with the problem is by a notice to remedy or an injunction. I do not claim to be competent enough to say yes or no to

that, but I ask the Minister to treat seriously my hon. Friend's suggestion.

This is a serious problem, which is despoiling goodly and increasing parts of the countryside. In setting down their posts, people will move the boundaries a bit and perhaps strip the surface of the ground, which will make the place look even more unsightly. Then a few bricks or a caravan will appear. That must be tackled quickly and at its source. In the past 25 years, there has been only one case that I know of in my constituency where the green belt has been breached. It was breached by somebody with an agricultural holding, who happened to be on the windward side of a good chunk of my constituency. He introduced a pig farm, as he was perfectly entitled to do. The odour from that farm, rather than the unsightly buildings themselves that had been created, led public opinion to support in part the idea that the pig farm should go. People were prepared to have a small housing estate in its place.

People know how to abuse our planning system if they choose to do so. My conclusion from the debate so far is that this injunction law or notice to remedy route will probably be the most effective way of tackling the problem. I say that without any disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, to whom the Committee should be extremely grateful—I certainly am—for raising this serious emerging problem, which is scarring too many of the landscapes of our green and pleasant land.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

In my brief contribution I want to reinforce the thrust of the points that have already been put to the Minister, and to amplify the plea for action. As you will be aware, Mr. Hurst, this is certainly a problem in Essex. There are a number of instances of exactly this type of activity taking place. It is happening in your constituency, Mr. Hurst, and I am sad to report that it is now also happening in my constituency of Rayleigh.

I want to reinforce three points. First, the people who act in this way understand the law very well indeed. Activity is clearly co-ordinated in some cases. These people behave in a particular way and there are patterns to the behaviour. They have obviously taken specific legal advice about exactly how far they can push the boundaries of their activities. Such people are not acting at random; they know exactly what they are doing, and they know how to exploit weaknesses in the law.

Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold pointed out, these people are working on a completely different time cycle. Although the law acts at a relatively sedate pace, these people suddenly appear, practically overnight—during a weekend, in some cases. That is what has happened in my constituency. Suddenly, a group of people appeared and occupied some green belt land, with the support of the owner who, it transpired, had sold it to them. The law has to catch up and to be able to react with similar vigour to those who attempt to despoil our countryside in that way.

Rochford district council, one of my two local authorities, is involved in a complicated legal action in similar circumstances to those that I have described. The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned some of the current legal alternatives available, but also pointed out, in detail, some drawbacks to each of them. There was no one neat and fast solution. In Rochford, the council has been doing everything it can under law to address the case, but so far it has taken them almost a year and cost a fair amount of public money to keep coming back to court. The council tax payer has had to finance that, and the people involved are still there.

My third point is that it is patently evident to me from my constituency experience, that the law is not powerful enough. I am assured that officials will look into the matter in detail, and I will be interested to hear what the Ministers have to say. By one method or another, Ministers must act. There must be some deterrent to protect the countryside, and in particular the green belt, from these people who have learned to exploit the law so effectively for their own gain. We must not let that go on. We must have a firm promise of action, by one route or another, from the Ministers. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight for raising what I believe to be a genuinely important issue in an appropriate manner.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

New clause 2 would require planning permission to be obtained for the subdivision of an agricultural holding into units of less than 1 hectare for the purpose of sale. It would also require planning permission to be obtained for the sale of an agricultural holding that has been subdivided since 1 July 1993 for a purpose other than that of sale. I recognise the attempts that many hon. Members have made this afternoon to deal with the issue. Those points have been raised by you, Mr. Hurst, and other hon. Members, in Adjournment debates, in correspondence and in meetings. Sometimes they were raised as concerns about the impact on the local environment, with areas falling into misuse, and sometimes they were raised with regard to gypsies and travellers using sub-plots.

I would like to put aside the issue of gypsies and travellers, because that raises other issues related to the availability of authorised sites and similar matters. Those problems are important, but raise the further issues of preventing unauthorised encampments. We need to look at the provision of authorised sites for gypsies and travellers in those circumstances. However, there is clearly a broader issue about the dividing into sub-plots, which is often initiated by those who seek to make money from speculating on changes in land use in future and selling the land to others.

We need to be honest about the fact that we have a problem and no solution. Hon. Members have offered different ways of responding, all of which involve further difficulties. The new clause deals with the sale of land rather than the use to which the land will be put. That is quite a difficult stretch of the approach to planning law. It is not what the land use planning system is intended to cover, which is the use to which land is put. Subdivision of land for genuine agricultural purposes is perfectly acceptable and

should not require planning permission. Likewise, selling a plot of land that remains in use as agricultural land is perfectly acceptable. It is only when the intention is to put the land to a different use that the planning system comes into play, as it should. Planning permission is required for any material change of use.

The subdivision of agricultural land, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty, can have an adverse effect on the scenic nature of the environment. The subdivision itself can be unsightly and can even lead to longer-term effects. If a developer buys a plot of land and discovers that planning permission has not been granted for the use that he or she has in mind, there is a real danger that the plot could fall into a state of neglect and disrepair.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I want to clarify something. The Minister said that subdivision is a particular problem for areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the highest planning designation, but if one lives next door, it is equally a problem whether the subdivision takes place in an area of outstanding natural beauty, in a national park, on green belt land or even in a green field. We should not necessarily limit the discussion to areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not intend to limit the discussion. The issue with areas of outstanding natural beauty is that the effect is on the scenic nature of the land. If we are talking about a plot of land next door, it may not be the scenic nature of that land that is affected, but there may be other issues relating to convenience and the way in which the land is used.

The question is, what are the ways of approaching the different issues and what might we be able to do about them? The hon. Member for Ludlow raised the issue of fencing and posts, and talked about the way in which that problem arises. Certainly, individual plots will usually be marked off by some form of fencing or posts, which can be erected without the need for planning permission because they are covered by a permitted development right.

If the local authority wishes to remove that permitted development right, it can do so by the article 4 direction, to which several hon. Members have referred. The article 4 direction is supposed to be used only in exceptional circumstances, when a threat to the interests of the area, or proper planning, has been demonstrated, and the direction needs to be confirmed.

If the article 4 direction is to be any use when a threat exists, prompt action is required by local government and Central Government to ensure that the permitted development rights are removed before the uncontrolled and potentially harmful development takes place. We are in the process of contacting Government offices to emphasise the importance of prompt action when being requested to confirm an article 4 direction. Hon. Members have raised problems with us and cited cases in which that did not occur and delays prevented the action from being useful.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As I understand it, the problem is that the planning authority issues an article 4 direction, which then has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, after he has considered all the objections. As I already pointed out when citing the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, that can take up to six months. If the presumption were altered so that the local planning authority could issue an article 4 direction that would be effective immediately and would then have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, having considered all the objections, that would be a much more satisfactory route.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

That is one of the issues that we need to consider further. Officials are currently working with local authorities to explore what more can be done within existing legislation to address environmental adverse effects of the subdivision or sale of agricultural land; to ensure that local authorities are aware of their powers; and to work through what the obstacles are in more detail. Some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about the time confirmation takes and whether there are different ways of dealing with the matter are exactly the kinds of things that we want to explore in more detail with local authorities. We are also reviewing the permitted development rights and examining the enforcement regimes in the light of clear changes of use in some of these areas. The question then becomes one of enforcement in relation to breaches of a planning law where a change in use has clearly taken place and should not have done so.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

On many occasions, the local authority will have no idea that a change is about to occur. So the issuing of an article 4 direction, however quick and whatever the presumption, will fail to stop it happening. As I understand it, once it has happened, the local authority can issue a discontinuance order before it issues an article 4 direction, but it must pay compensation. This affects car boot sales in my constituency just as much as it affects the subdivision of land. The Minister has not yet said anything about this. Where the problem, or variety of problems, already exists, it seems highly unfair on the local taxpayer to bear the burden of paying for the problem to be sorted out. Will the Minister say something about compensation?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Not in detail at this stage. We are seeking to explore these sorts of issues with local authorities to try to work through them. There is no obvious and easy solution. If there were, we could all easily table amendments to the planning Bill and sort the whole thing out. We also need to examine the potentially perverse consequences of possible restrictions. So I would proceed with caution. As I said, we are keen to work through all this in some detail with local authorities, and we are also examining as part of our reviews parallel issues regarding the permitted development rights and enforcement regimes. What more can be done to help mitigate this problem? I can therefore tell the Committee that I will consider these matters further.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister for giving way again. She says that she will consider the issue. Will she

give us some sort of time scale? I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister announced a review of the general permitted development order two years ago. About a year ago, he came back to say that the Government had consulted and were not going to make any changes. I am receiving letters about car boot sales at the rate of about a dozen a week. At the moment, the local council is finding it difficult to deal with the issue, and I am sure that other hon. Members will receive letters about subdivision at some considerable rate.

I am concerned that the Minister is saying that the Government will examine the issue. I wonder if that means another two years before we hear that the Government will not make any more changes.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I certainly undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman much more rapidly than that about the problem of car boot sales, which he faces in his area. I should be grateful if he could give me further details.

I am happy to report to the Committee on progress made in relation to the broader issues, but I caution Members about believing there to be a simple answer. I undertake to consider the matter further with local authorities, as will the Department.

The permitted development rights consultation is expected later this year, which is a relatively rapid time horizon. However, it would be inappropriate to accept the new clause at this stage because it raises difficult issues about expecting planning permission to deal with the sale of land, rather than its use.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

As we have heard, this problem has already been discussed for two years. Several hon. Members from different parties have politely but plainly told the Minister that the problem is getting worse. It is spreading around the country because the people involved are fully cognisant of the detail of the law. The Under-Secretary has said that the Government are advising local authorities about their powers. We have heard all that rehearsed this afternoon. Local authorities know what powers they have and how weak they are. We are all trying to inform her that there is a genuine sense of urgency. To say that there will be a consultation exercise some time later in the year, when the Government have already had two years does not cut the mustard. We need action in the near term. Will the Under-Secretary take that away from the Committee and do something about this?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Hon. Members must recognise that to deal with the problem we need a solution that will work. Many of the solutions that have been offered, albeit in good faith, could lead to other problems or have difficulties attached—exactly as I have explained in relation to the problem with the new clause. I recognise the problem that the new clause is trying to solve, but the solution that is offered is not appropriate and would cause all sorts of other difficulties, including around the subdivision of land for genuine agricultural reasons.

We must recognise that some times there are not simple, easy solutions for certain issues and that we might need to look further at what can be done. If there were a simple solution, we would all agree on it and there would be consensus in the Committee, as there has been on other issues where we have recognised that specific things can be done to remedy existing problems, whether within or without the planning system.

The new clause does not solve the problem we are talking about in the way that it needs to and it creates further additional problems. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The urgency of the matter has been demonstrated, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I remind the Committee that the problem arose not in 2001, but in 1993 when the proprietor of one of the companies was criticised in the House for his activities. I am sure that it is not only this Government that bears responsibility for not doing anything about that. However, it is getting worse. As I said before, there are 74 locations on the list that I have before me, which is dated 16 May 2001. Only one of those is in Yorkshire—at Oakworth. I do not know where that is, but I know that it is not near Pontefract or Castleford, because it is in West Yorkshire. [Interruption.] I am sorry. My geography is clearly awry. We do not know very much when we get north of the Solent.

There are many sites in the south and south-east of England and there is no reason why such activity should not spread to some of the parts of England that are almost as attractive as the Isle of Wight, such as Ludlow, Pontefract and Castleford. I believe that we must take advantage of the existing legislation, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold says, there is only one planning Bill every 10 years—unless we are extremely unlucky. Although I accept that the new clause may not be the perfect remedy, I am clear that the legislation is the right vehicle. To change the metaphor, it would be a great pity if the Minister were to miss the bus.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

For a Bill to be recommitted to a Standing Committee is an unprecedented procedure and given that it is likely to be submitted to their lordships, where it will be given detailed scrutiny, it is unlikely that it will be on the statute book this year. That will probably happen next year, so gives the Government time to do something, if they are so minded. May I join my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to do something, if the Government have the time and are so minded. The problem is getting worse and it needs to be solved.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I agree. It is not unreasonable to say such things in the terms in which both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh have said them. I accept that the article 4 direction needs to be explored by Ministers and that it might turn out not to be the right route. However, I urge that, if possible, that should be done in time for amendments to be tabled—if not on Report, at least in another place, so that our noble Friends and other noble Lords can examine the Government's proposals and hold them to account before the Bill completes its progress.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he seeks to press the new clause or whether he wishes to withdraw it?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3 is about areas of high environmental value. I am pleased to say that the issue is slightly less technical than the matters that were discussed in relation to the previous two proposed new clauses. It is almost a matter of aesthetic judgment. However, the aesthetic judgment of planners, and of the population in general, is not shared as frequently as we should like by highway engineers. Highway engineers are not the only people whom I target here, but they are among the principal despoilers of the countryside—and of urban areas as well. I am indebted to the CPRE, now the Campaign to Protect Rural England, for its booklet on the cluttered countryside. It illustrates the kind of damage that can be done not only to the countryside but to villages and towns by ill-considered development that is not counted as development for the purposes of planning legislation. My purpose is to bring within the ambit of that legislation road signs and street furniture, including street lighting, in areas of high environmental value, as defined in subsection 2 of the proposed new clause.

As an example, Isle of Wight council is considering a number of applications for Tetra masts, some of which are approved under the general development order. Such masts are different from conventional telephone masts, and have different scientific properties. However, at the moment they are allowed under the general development order and can be put in

an area in which there is already a mast without any further permission.

I have here an illustration of the approach along the A303 road, west of Amesbury, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), to a world heritage site, Stonehenge. It is one of the few such sites in this country, yet some 30 road signs are visible to the motorist along the approach to Stonehenge on that route. I could name another example: the turning off the A303 from Andover for Salisbury. I am pleased to say that we do not have that many road signs in the Isle of Wight because there are not that many places to go, so this is not a complaint about my local highway engineers. Indeed, it is hard to get lost, because if one goes far enough one gets to the sea.

Another problem—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

I am sure that hon. Members will realise that Hansard does not carry illustrations at the present time, so if the hon. Gentleman refers to an illustration, a good narrative is required to go with it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am most grateful for that and shall try not to detain the Committee for too long by narrating the nature of what I have to show, but I shall give another example from a conservation area.

I am holding up a picture of an approach to a village on which hon. Members can again see a large number of road signs, but also a suburban footpath. Pavements are provided for good reasons, but they can be provided in an urban manner or in a rural manner. It is appropriate that on the approach to a village a pavement should be provided in a rural manner, not an urban manner.

I have discussed some of those issues with the planners and engineers in my constituency, because in Cowes, where I lived until quite recently, Union road and Church road have recently attracted a residents' parking scheme. Initially there were four posts, each 4 ft high—I imagine that Hansard does not convey hand signals either, but hon. Members can imagine what those posts looked like—with signs on them that were something like 1 ft by 9 in , along with other signs of a similar dimension, fixed to the wall. Those fittings have been replaced by 11 posts that are 7 ft high, with signs on them that are something like 18 in by 8 in, in a very small area indeed—certainly smaller than the width of the river outside the Windows here.

To be fair, that example is not in a conservation area, but on the border of one. However, anyone who walks through a town or city can see the damage done by ill-considered bus shelters, litter bins, bicycle racks and signs of all description, some of which the local highways authority have erected and others that the Highways Agency has no doubt erected. Many comply with all sorts of regulations that are provided in detail by Ministers from another Department.

Such features spoil the effect and look of areas of high environmental value, which we have a responsibility to protect. That is the purpose of the new clause, which is simple and will, I hope, benefit those areas where the highways authority is one council and the planning authority is another. I am

fortunate that we have a unitary council on the Isle of Wight, although I do not say that that is the solution for all areas, because it is probably wrong for shire counties. Despite that, I can see that we have some advantage in my constituency in that highways and planning are nearer together than they would be were they in two different authorities. However, although there is scope for them to work together, they do not always do so, even within a single authority.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He does the Committee a service in bringing the issue of road signs to our attention.

Again, the problem affects not only areas of high landscape value, important conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks; there is a general trend throughout the country for more and more signs to be erected on our highways. The problem is that with more and more legislation, highways authorities are trying to cover every eventuality. Not only that, they are advertising commercial interests by erecting so-called brown signs. There is a proliferation of brown signs, which are supposed to be guides for tourists—that is how authorities get round it—but in fact they are advertising commercial ventures.

Highways authorities and the Government used to have the philosophy that only those signs that were absolutely necessary in the interests of highway safety were to be erected and that every other sign was to be resisted. I represent a constituency that is about 80 per cent. covered by areas of outstanding beauty and yet I have a proliferation of such signs. Not only is there the argument advanced by my hon. Friend that they are unsightly, which they certainly are, but there is also an issue of safety. The more signs there are, the more likely it is that the motorist will ignore the sign that is really important because his mind will be so focused on other signs that he will not focus on the one that is really important.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I agree absolutely with that. Would my hon. Friend also accept that the bigger signs become, the faster motorists are able to drive while they read them, which in turn has consequences for road safety?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I agree with that, too, but they have to be big enough. There is nothing more annoying than small road signs that one cannot read in a car until one is right next to them. That is equally unsafe because one is concentrating so hard on trying to read that road sign with small writing on it, one is not paying 100 per cent. attention to what is going on elsewhere on the road. The answer is to minimise the number of signs. Size is important, so that people can be aware of signs that are of critical importance, such as stop signs. A stop sign means stop; it does not mean a temporary slowing down—the wheels have to stop turning. One so often sees that stop signs are honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

My hon. Friend has done the Committee a service. I am not sure that his new clause is the solution. I am not sure that this is a planning matter. It is perhaps one that should not be dealt with in legislation.

However, we are coming on to discuss a plethora of RPGs and PPGs—supposedly to be renamed PPSs—and the correct solution might be that the matter should be dealt with through guidance to planning authorities and highways. I am not sure that primary legislation is the right vehicle because it is impossible to cater for every circumstance in primary legislation.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I want to draw the Committee's attention to subsection 2(e) of new clause 3 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. Understandably, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold have referred to areas of outstanding natural beauty and the countryside. However, by and large conservation areas are mainly found in urban and suburban areas, and also in villages in what I regard as developed areas, although they are in the main extremely beautifully developed.

The question concerns the eyesores of road signs and how often they are unnecessarily duplicated. I would have thought that it was quite reasonable not to have gallons of white and yellow paint poured on our road surfaces, when a small notice, or a colour band on a street light might be just as effective an alternative. In urban areas, the street litter and street furniture in otherwise pleasant streets are a ghastly sight to behold.

The difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has in introducing his new clause is that beauty is a subjective judgment. I have no doubt that certain traffic engineers think that the signs on our motorways and streets are beautiful things to behold. That is a view I do not happen to share. I invite everyone going home tonight—if we finish before nightfall—to look at any street that they walk down and imagine the street furniture removed from that highway, and how much more pleasant it would look. I am not naive enough to suggest that we do not need road signs, but we ought to make a positive effort to see how we could visually improve urban areas and the countryside, particularly designated and other beautiful areas.

The problem is multiplied by garish shop fascias, which are all too prevalent on our high streets. It seems that every shopkeeper has to compete with the shop next door by making his property stand out, which makes it more garish. We could take a much more intelligent and communal approach. I would like to go back to the old-fashioned hanging signs, which could tell us equally well what sort of shop we were approaching. Instead, we see letters 5 ft high displayed on scarlet or yellow fascia boards.

The fact is that we are all competing for attention—I am referring not to our political careers, but to the general environmental standards in town and country. I do not know whether the Bill is the right vehicle for my hon. Friend's new clause. I suspect that, for the third time running, the Minister will say that it is not—she may be allowed to keep the cup as a result. Nevertheless, we ought to take a much more intelligent approach to our street furniture, and the awful litter. What is there is not always necessary.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to suggest that we went back to the 1940s, when there were no road signs, as they had been removed because of the threat of German invasion. I doubt if anyone in the Room remembers that, but it would be interesting to know how people managed to get around.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Unfortunately, I do remember it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was trying to do the hon. Gentleman a good turn.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has raised a significant issue. I hope the Minister will say that this can all be done through guidance—and that it will apply as much to the Highways Agency as to the highway authorities. The agency sometimes acts more unaccountably than local authorities, and I would like to see all those bodies brought into line. However, I issue a note of caution.

My constituency is the size of Greater London, and it is criss-crossed by many roads, not one of which is a motorway or dual carriageway. Only one trunk road, the A49, runs through it. Almost 40 per cent. of it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. If the new clause were enacted, the county council would forever be paying planning fees to erect new signs. There is quite a lot of pressure in Shropshire for 30 mph speed limits in all villages, all of which would require signage. There is huge public support for such speed limits, and the signage could be done sensitively, but if they required planning permission the county council would face an extra cost—one that I do not want it to have to bear.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that some years ago, one of his predecessors—not his immediate predecessor—told me with pride that he had only one set of traffic lights in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman might like to take this opportunity to put in a bid for the town of Ludlow, which is regarded by many as being one of the most beautiful towns in the country.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am always happy to talk about Ludlow and the surrounding countryside—and other towns such as Much Wenlock, and Bridgnorth, where I live. They are all outstanding. I would recommend that members of the Committee visit the area, and spend some of their holiday time there. We now have more than one set of traffic lights, but still not many. It is probably only in the past decade that we have gained roundabouts in my part of the world. I am still very proud that there is not a McDonald's in all of my constituency, which is a good reason to come and visit it; if a McDonald's were ever suggested, the Minister would be hearing from me and could expect a call-in.

This is a genuine issue, but new clause 3 is not the way to deal with it. For example, there are areas with little population and lots of roads. Signage is not a big problem in my constituency, but it would be a great expense for the county council to have to deal with those requirements out of its minuscule road safety budget.

There is also a lot of pressure to increase road safety. On a road in my constituency that runs through the Corvedale there have been six deaths and five separate accidents in the past six months. I have only just had a meeting with the police and the county highways department to discuss extra signage. If someone suggested that they had to go through the planning process to deal with a growing problem that needed to be reacted to quickly, I would be concerned. That is not the way forward, and I would be perturbed if the Minister suggested that it was.

There is clearly a significant problem in parts of the country. I hope that the Minister suggests a way through; the answer is probably guidance. Let us make sure that it is guidance that the Highways Agency, in particular, is keen to follow.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

New clause 3 would require planning permission to be obtained for road signs and street furniture, including street lighting, in areas of high environmental value. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the planning system has long recognised that certain types of development should be allowed to take place without an application for planning permission. That is designed to reduce the burden on the planning system of development types that are minor or non-controversial in nature, and also to ensure that such development is not unduly delayed.

Section 55(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes it clear that the carrying out of work required for the maintenance or improvement of a road is not treated as development and therefore does not require planning permission. That means that authorities that need to install or replace traffic signs or street lighting can do so without having to apply for planning permission every time. The provision does not apply if development that is not exclusively for the maintenance of the roads would have significant adverse effects on the environment. Likewise, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 allow the display of traffic signs without the need for planning permission provided they fall within the criteria set out in the regulations.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister said that works that are not exclusively for the maintenance of the roads require permission. Does that include works for safety?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As I said, the 1992 regulations also allow the display of traffic signs without the need for planning permission provided they fall within the criteria set out. My understanding is that that includes issues relating to safety. Therefore, signs that are needed for safety can be put in place without a delay that could cause risk to life or serious harm. That makes sense. The provisions enable a large number of facilities to be provided for essential public services, many of which can be required urgently. Removing those rights in areas of environmental value could create risk, and could lead to a significant additional burden for local planning authorities, and delays in providing such facilities.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Following on from the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight

made, if highway maintenance and safety signs only are available without getting planning permission, would brown signs, which are supposed to inform visitors but often are just a cover to advertise a commercial venture, require planning permission? I am sure that some such signs in my constituency—and there has been a proliferation of them—do not have planning permission.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Obviously, I cannot respond to comments on individual signs.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

But as a general point?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As a general point, many of the signs that we are discussing may well be included under provisions which mean that no planning permission is required, whether that is under what the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says about roads, or the control of advertisement regulations, or the further permitted development that is granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which applies to such things as street lighting. However, local authorities need to make judgments about each case and seek legal advice if there is any doubt.

The issue raised by the new clause is that development in areas of high environmental value needs to be carried out with sensitivity towards the streetscape or local environment. Inappropriate or inappropriately sited street furniture or signage can spoil an otherwise attractive area. A recently published research report on the functioning of the General Permitted Development Order recommended that local authority permitted development rights might be made dependent on avoiding adverse impact on the streetscape, which would be assessed through a street management code. That is an interesting idea, which we are considering. It raises the possibility of addressing those concerns through guidance or other means without the need for primary legislation, which would cause additional burdens and simply would not be appropriate in many of the situations that we are discussing.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

While the Minister was speaking, I recalled that about 18 months ago, South Shropshire district council dealt with the similar issue of masts by writing its own policy, which means that they are all called in. Most of South Shropshire is an AONB, and when BT put up a mast for the police, it suddenly discovered that it had to remove it very quickly. It had assumed that the area was like the rest of the country, but the council had adopted a policy that meant that someone could not just put up a mast.

In areas where planning is a sensitive issue, can councils or planning authorities write their own policies—in effect, article 4 variations of the GPDO—that would prevent such things from being erected without the council being able to intervene?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Clearly, there are areas in which local authorities have discretion. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's example would be more widely applicable. I will write to him, if I may.

The overall position is that this issue can cause problems in some areas. However, it must be balanced against other needs, particularly against safety issues, and against other needs such as sensible, urgently needed public facilities, which the community requires not to be unduly delayed. Therefore, this type of measure would not be appropriate in the Bill. The issue is better dealt with by considering ideas such as those raised in the research report to which I referred earlier. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister is right: it is not appropriate to deal with the matter in the Bill. I tabled the new clause to secure a debate that took account of some of the issues that have arisen. Indeed, I will add one that did not arise, which is that when I was a member of Oxford city council, we had a protocol that the highways authority always consulted the conservation officer about any street furniture or highway development in a conservation area. As most of the western part of the city of Oxford was a conservation area, that was a significant responsibility. We soon learned that it was possible to take sensitive decisions sensibly within those confines so that there was no need for a long dispute with the planning authority. I would be grateful if that could emerge from the guidance that the Minister is preparing.

I wish to underline a couple of points made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The first of them is to do with the highways authorities covering their backs by putting up more signs because they are concerned about safety. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Ludlow's experience of having to negotiate with a highways authority for more signs. I hope I do not speak out of turn when I say that the leader of Isle of Wight council—who is from the same political party as the hon. Gentleman—told me recently that she had been asked for more signs in a particular place, but had replied that more signs would not make any difference, because people simply drive too fast. Sometimes highways agencies cover their backs to no effect, which is even worse. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about the proliferation of brown signs.

This is clearly a planning matter, not least because it is the General Permitted Development Order and section 55 of the principal Act that excludes highway development from planning legislation; if it were not a planning matter, it would not be necessary to exclude it.

The key question is not whether this Bill is a suitable vehicle—I am confident that it is—but whether the clause is suitable. I understand why it may not be. I urge the Minister to consult the Department for Transport to find ways of implementing regulations—such as speed limits, and the 30 mph speed limit in particular. There has been pressure to introduce speed limits in narrow rural roads. One of the objections to that is that it will produce a further proliferation of signage, but the Department for Transport might be persuaded to think of ways to implement these regulations without—or with minimal—additional signage. I

suggest that whether a 40 mph speed limit applies on any rural road could be signified by whether there was a line down the middle of the road. That is a nice, simple method that would not encourage additional signage.

I am glad that Ministers are looking into the General Permitted Development Order. A determined approach is needed, and it would be best if that were to come from the local level, by local councils working with each other, but until we can persuade them to do that, they may need a little additional guidance from the Minister.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

One of the most effective ways for Ministers to address this matter would be to give greater flexibility to local councils to vary what is and is not permitted in their areas. That would allow us to be proactive in different areas: what might be a problem in the Isle of Wight might not be a problem in south Shropshire or vice versa.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman subscribes perfectly to Conservative policy on that.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It is Liberal Democrat policy, too.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am glad to hear that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before my hon. Friend finishes on this matter, I want to say that what I would like to come out of this debate is not only an understanding that a careful look will be given to all future signs, but that every highway authority in the land reviews every single sign to see whether it is absolutely necessary—and if it is not, it should be taken down.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I will certainly try to persuade my authority to do that, and I hope that my hon. Friend and other Committee members will try to persuade theirs to do so. That would be preferable to the Government telling them to do so, but it may be necessary for them to give a gentle push in the right direction: the Minister is nodding his head to that suggestion, and I accept that as a commitment, so I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am happy to look further at the points that hon. Members have raised: we are already looking at the proposal that has come forward as a result of the research report. However, we must stop knocking all signs. We have just had a load of signs put up in Castleford that we are proud of: they tell people who are driving through Castleford, and who do not know what a wonderful place it is, what it has to offer. Without those signs, they would just drive through the town without stopping. Hopefully, more drivers will stop because they see the wonderful signs telling them about the historic sites in Castleford. Let us not knock all signs.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. For the convenience of the Committee, I have regrouped the new clauses. We are moving to new clause 22, and with that we shall take new clause 34.

New clause 22 - Revocation of planning permission

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 34—Compensation for revocation of planning permission etc.—

'(1) Section 107 of the principal Act (Compensation where planning permission revoked or modified) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 107(3)(b) of that Act there is inserted—

''(c) any decision where planning permission is revoked or modified where it can also be demonstrated that information provided as part of or by the applicant in support of the application for the planning permission which is the subject of revoction or modification was materially inaccurate.''.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Hurst, for grouping the two new clauses together. They were tabled with the same point in mind: if material inaccuracy is found in the information provided to obtain planning permission, planning permission may be revoked. I discovered after tabling the first new clause that it would not exclude the local authority from the requirement to pay compensation for the revocation of planning permission, so I tabled the second new clause. I hope that the second new clause excludes the local authority from the requirement to pay compensation.

There is always a debate about the accuracy of information put before planning committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who has great experience of such matters, agrees with that. For as long as I have been involved in politics, which is almost as long as him, I have had to represent either local residents or constituents in planning matters. Although I have tried to avoid as many planning matters as possible—that advice is given to us all once we are elected here—I regularly find myself drawn back in.

My greatest objection is when the process does not appear to have been handled fairly. In particular, people complain that there is nothing to stop someone putting forward inaccurate drawings or statements to the planning committee or, indeed, to a public inquiry. It can be argued that they are gaining pecuniary advantage by deception and have therefore committed a criminal act, but one must demonstrate that they did so knowingly, and even that does not revoke the planning permission.

I want to illustrate that point by referring to a house in Yarmouth in my constituency, which is situated on

a road of Victorian semi-detached villas. The developer proposed to build a matching but detached villa—if that is possible—on a site, which had been previously occupied by a bungalow, between the northernmost house and a scout hut. The developer submitted a picture of the villa with dimensions and a streetscape without dimensions.

The proposed development was marked as being of the same height as all the other villas in the road on the second drawing, so the neighbours were happy. Had the second drawing been to scale—the planning department at the Isle of Wight council also failed to produce a scale drawing—it would have been discovered that the new development was 9 ft higher than the existing villas. A careful examination of a scale drawing would also have revealed that the new house was set back significantly further than the existing villas.

The result was that people lost light and complained. However, there were no objections when the application was granted. When the development took place, the residents and Yarmouth town council were greatly upset at how the house stood out in the street, dominated the streetscape, overlooked other houses and was generally out of place. They said, ''We would have objected had we not been shown this misleading plan.'' I asked the local authority what it could do about it, and all it could have done about it—had it not been for the fact that the developer went on to build it even higher than specified in his scaled drawing—was write to the Royal Institute of British Architects, of which the architect was a member, and criticised him for putting in a misleading plan. Of course, not all architects are members of RIBA, or at least not all those who design houses are.

That is a perfect example—minor but important—of a misleading statement knowingly or negligently made to the planning committee. There are similar records of statements made before inquiries where promises are made and expressions are given of how a building is going to be used or has been used, as a consequence of which planning permission is granted. That is clearly wrong. There is no remedy; I believe there should be a remedy, and my proposals are the remedy.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I intend to make something slightly more extensive than an intervention, but that is essentially what it is. Does the hon. Member for Isle of Wight consider the following to be an example of misleading information? Activities have been carried out on a site over a period of time such that the owner of a site who has obtained planning permission has started to develop that site, has laid foundations on it, but then appears to have no intention of completing the site. He could then have a completion notice served upon him after a long period of time. He makes a rather disingenuous protestation that he could go and build what was supposed to be put on the site in the first place, but after a long period of time that may not be relevant.

I have in mind a case that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) raised on

Second Reading. He referred planning permission given for the building of a new pub in his constituency a long time ago. The nature of the land around it did not turn out as originally intended, but the people who had permission to build the pub put the foundations down and let the ground go derelict for a long period of time. When the local authority eventually got round to asking them to put in a completion notice, they said they would build the original 1960s pub along the lines of the original design, when there were not houses or other things around the plot. That was clearly disingenuous due to the effluxion of time. The discovery of great-crested newts on the site eventually persuaded the owner of the land not to go ahead with that plan, but that is another story.

The matter in hand is whether there are more complex issues relating to the misleading of a planning authority than the case outlined by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. He may consider that his proposals cover the broader issues, which I suggest cause planning authorities some difficulties in the way that I have described.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Again, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has highlighted a problem. The new clauses are not the way to deal with the problem, partly because new clause 22 does not set out any procedure by which someone might set out to seek revocation of planning permission.

I want to add yet another scenario in which misleading information might play a part in planning applications. In rural areas such as my own constituency, people often have to seek retrospective planning approval for activities that they claim to have carried out on a site for years—for example, the storage of heavy goods vehicles. If they can show evidence that they have been doing that for 10 years, they can obtain planning permission for it. Such situations come up more regularly than one might imagine. Those activities, which take place in farm yards but are something other than agricultural activities, are, in many cases, entirely genuine. In order to prove the case, statements are sought from other local residents, friends and so on, who say, ''We've seen Mr. Smith park his lorry there for the past 15 years.'' In effect, planning permission is granted on the back of statements.

It is not that I want to stop that approach. In many cases, those people have genuine rights to planning permission. However, I understand that in a minority of cases people write deliberately misleading statements on behalf of applicants. It is very difficult to prove in the long run, but we can surmise that there must be at least a few such cases. Nevertheless, planning permission may have been granted. If someone proves at a later date that the statements were entirely wrong, nothing can be done to revoke the permission. I can envisage other situations in which that may happen. I would like to see included in the Bill something to prevent people from making misleading statements that are then used in planning applications. I believe that it is not even against the law to write a statement saying, ''Mr. Smith has parked five lorries there for the past 20 years,'' and use

it to gain planning permission. The person would be committing no offence, as far as I can tell, even though the statement may result in serious financial gain for someone else.

I urge the Minister to consider the issue. I do not believe that it arises that often, but it clearly does arise. We have now heard of three different cases in which misleading information might be provided for planning applications.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I have served on many Committees, but never have I served on one in which an hon. Friend—in this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight—has introduced a quartet of issues that resonate with the public to such a great extent. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the four issues that we have discussed: high hedges, despoiling the landscape, road signs and furniture, and deliberately misleading drawings or failure to develop in the way for which permission has been given. The last is a very real issue that causes a great deal of anger among people who suffer as a result.

My hon. Friend was right to say that not all architects are members of RIBA. If they are, they can call themselves chartered architects. However, they may belong to other organisations. Indeed, one can be a registered architect without paying a subscription to, and joining, RIBA. I take this opportunity to say that I forgot to declare two more inverted interests. I am an honorary fellow of the Institute of Architects and Surveyors and an honorary fellow and past president of the Faculty of Building.

The hon. Member for Ludlow is on to a good point. I believe that I am right in saying that, generally, in town planning law, one can establish existing use after four years. Anyway, the hon. Gentleman made his point very well.

I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight one question. It touches on the root of the difficulty of enacting his new clause. What is a material inaccuracy? He gave us an example of a building 9 ft higher than it should have been. Without doubt, that is a material inaccuracy, but in other cases, there will often be a problem deciding what is one. In different situations, the amounts will be relative or the measurements different.

I want to remind the Committee of what I believe to be the four most frequent causes of anger, as I have discovered in my constituency—which I have now had the privilege of representing for a 25th year. The first is what I call the parapet, where contrary to what the plans suggest the eaves or ridge of a building are 15 in higher than indicated. That can cut out the right to light. We talked about the importance of that earlier. The second, which is probably the most frequent because the most difficult to detect, is where the ground levels shown on the plans are inaccurate. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be good if ground levels, when given on a plan, had to be related to a fixed point on a neighbouring building. That would ensure the greater likelihood of accuracy and provide a focus point if the original plans were not carried out during the development. One could then go back and say that the builder had not built according

to the plans. Quite often, plans are indistinct rather than exact. I am sorry if that point is rather technical, but it is important.

The third cause of anger that I have found relates to inaccuracy in the building that has been proposed and is being built, where the wrong height is given in relation to the next building. Again, that returns to my previous point. It might be thought that the eaves would be no higher than those of the next-door building, but then the building turns out to be a foot or so higher. The final cause of anger is where the drawings show that the proposed building is a certain distance from the boundary or curtilage of the property when it is in fact much nearer. The next-door neighbour thinks that because their gable is 4 ft from the boundary wall, the other building will be 4 ft from the other side but it turns out that the builders propose to put it 2 ft 6 in away. I am sorry not to talk in metric terms. Those are the real problems.

Although I have now retired as a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, I should like to assure my hon. Friend that whenever someone writes to that prestigious institute complaining about the architect who has drawn up the papers, if it is an architect—it does not have to be, architects have no monopoly—RIBA takes the complaint very seriously indeed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I have heard what other Members have had to say, which is always a useful starting point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who has raised in his quartet of new clauses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, yet another issue of real relevance to the planning system today. It will become increasingly relevant and important as the increasing sophistication of the use of computer-aided designs makes it possible to produce plans and models that can have misleading interpretations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, with his considerable experience, has raised some interesting points. In the technical jargon, there should be a datum point on every single plan to avoid the problem with levels. If we had a datum point that linked the proposed development to an existing point, whether it were a trig point or some other level or immovable point on another building or road, everyone would be able to see precisely where the new building was being built.

In practice, misleading plans are presented to the local planning authority, which is usually swamped with applications. If an experienced officer had enough time, he would probably spot almost all the misleading points and ask for further information, but officers are under such pressure that they cannot ask for that. There is a problem that needs to be dealt with; the question is how.

I refer my hon. Friend and the Minister to section 97 of the principal Act—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—which deals specifically with the power to revoke or modify planning permissions.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Where?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Section 97 of the 1990 Act, which the Minister has in front of her.

The problem with section 97 is that it deals with developments that have not started. My hon. Friend's scenario involves a development that is more than part complete when it has become plainly obvious that there has been a misleading statement on the plan because the building is too high, for example. At that point, it is often difficult to do anything about it, particularly if the planning application was based on the evidence presented and nobody has made a mistake.

A simple amendment to section 97 might state that, if there were misleading information, the local planning authority would have the power to revoke such an application. Sections 98, 99 and 100 would provide the Secretary of State and the planning authorities with all the appeal powers. That seems to be the ideal way to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will seriously examine it and state whether the Government would be sympathetic in their consideration of an appropriate amendment on Report.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

New clause 22 would allow a local planning authority to revoke a planning permission where there is evidence to suggest either that the information provided in support of the application was materially inaccurate or that the applicant had deliberately sought to mislead.

New clause 34 provides that no compensation under section 107 of the principal Act would be payable where the application was revoked or modified and it could be demonstrated that the information provided in support of the application was materially inaccurate.

There is a series of technical problems with the two new clauses and how they interrelate. I will not address that, as I recognise that the aim of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is not to produce a technically perfect proposal, but to raise the issues. I want to deal not with the impact of the new clauses, but, instead, with the points that he makes, which are interesting.

Section 97 of the 1990 Act provides the local planning authority with the power to revoke a planning permission when it considers it expedient to do so. If a local planning authority found that there had been a material inaccuracy or an attempt to mislead in the planning application and it considered it expedient to do so, it could revoke on that account. It already has the powers to revoke the planning permission. There is, however, the attached issue of compensation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before the Minister goes on to compensation, as I stated in my opening remarks it is not the only issue in section 97. Section 97(3), which is material and worthy of consideration, states:

''The power conferred by that section may be exercised—

(a) where the permission relates to the carrying out of building or other operations, at any time before those operations have been completed;

(b) where the permission relates to a change of the use of any land, at any time before the change has taken place.''

The provision is intended to be used to revoke planning permission before any material development has started. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has indicated, often in cases that involve materially misleading local planning authorities the development has been materially started or completed. Section 97 is probably the correct vehicle to deal with the problem, but it would probably need a new subsection.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

This matter raises broader issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) also raised such matters—involving what happens when development is not completed or things take place later. I am not sure that there is an obvious amendment to section 97 that would deal with the matter simply. I am happy to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I suspect that it may raise broader issues.

The power in section 97 allows planning permission to be revoked, but it also involves compensation. If gaining planning permission involved a series of deceptions, it would be possible for a local planning authority to apply to the court to quash its decision to grant permission on the ground of deception. That may be an alternative avenue.

The question of alternative routes and the consequences for compensation is interesting. I am happy to consider whether there should be circumstances in which compensation should not be paid because of wilful deception, although we should recognise that that would be fraught with all kinds of other complexities. Members have raised potential difficulties with deciding when there has been wilful deception and when somebody has simply made an honest mistake.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Some people are the equivalent of witnesses when planning permission is sought. The inspectorate relies on statements about use over time. I have read inspectors' decisions. They hang on the word of old Mr. Jones who said, ''Yes, that's been going on there for ages.'' In a court, if such a person gave information that was deliberately misleading or if they lied, whether they gave evidence verbally or submitted it, they could be held in contempt of court. That is not the case with planning. There is no similar comeback and nothing forewarns people that they need to make an accurate statement. Could something be done in that area?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

That is another interesting question. The material that needs to be submitted may involve certificates and to put false information on a certificate is an offence. Under the planning system, it is also open to inspectors to take evidence on oath. So, there are ways that such provision can be made, but I recognise that the point is interesting. I will consider the matters that Members have raised.

I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause, although he has raised interesting issues. There is already a power to revoke planning permission. I am happy to consider compensation and deception further, although there

is also a court route in some cases. I will also consider the concerns relating to retrospective matters, which were raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for her response. I was intrigued by the quartet that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet listed—not the quartet of proposals, but that of problems—because two of them are covered in the case that I quoted. Another, the ground levels on the plan, was relevant to the development of both Inglewood, an old people's home in Totland in my constituency, and Carisbrooke Park, a huge housing development undertaken by Persimmon Homes, which seems to be incapable of providing an accurate plan of what it intends to do.

Every time that company gets something wrong, it applies for a modification. It has put in a series of amendments, making it impossible for local people to tell what is going on. Again the Minister nods; I am glad of that understanding. While I am about it, I understand that no one is allowed to take copies of the plan that has been submitted to the planning authority to check it on the ground because, the planning authority tells me, the applicant has the copyright of the plan so the authority cannot make copies for objectors to take away. Thank you, Mr. Hurst, for allowing me to make that aside.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. I put it to him that if that is the case—and it is, as the copyright belongs to the applicant—there is all the more reason for the local planning authority to take action and to take measurements on the site to establish what has been developed.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for that. In the case of the development in Yarmouth, the planning authority found out that the height of the building was intended, and was not merely a mistake, only because it was eventually able to secure a copy of the plans by illicit means from the people who made the timber frame for it. There are serious questions to be addressed about wilful misleading and negligent misleading.

I am glad that the Minister is prepared to consider the issues of compensation, deception and section 97, which have been referred to. I hope that she will do all in her power to ensure that it is not necessary for people to go to court over such matters at an early stage. I am sure that she will agree that it is far better if there is an administrative remedy. With that, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 26 - Pre-application consultation

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause might, at first, appear not to achieve what I am about to say that I hope to achieve—namely, to speed up the planning system. It might seem so because it appears to add another phase to the planning system for large applications, those requiring environmental impact assessments or any other categories that the Secretary of State would like to add.

I believe that the new clause would speed up the planning system because what slows it down more than anything else is the rejection of applications and the consequent appeals and public inquiries. Nothing is better guaranteed to ensure that a development will grind to a halt than its hitting that process. I understand that in many large-scale developments astute developers ensure that they undertake considerable pre-application consultation—not with the planners only, but with nearby residents and more widely—so that many objections that might be raised can be dealt with before they even submit a plan.

There is therefore a greater likelihood that the planning committee will accept the plan and, as the number of objections has been reduced, the planning committee is far more likely to be minded to accept the application and the officers' advice for it. The applicants in such cases are less likely to find themselves in a position in which they have to appeal to the Secretary of State.

The proposal would also help by reducing both the number of objectors and, perhaps if the development is not in the local plan, the possible grounds of appeal to the Secretary of State, which might give him the reasons for saying that he does not want it called in. It could also reduce the number of chances for a third party to seek judicial review. Although that is not as common, it can still be a problem.

This is not a complex new clause, although it is probably technically imperfect. I wrote it myself without any advice, so I can almost guarantee that. I have never written a new clause without advice. I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee whether the Government are considering the provision as a means of speeding up the process and whether that is a suitable route to go down. I would be only too happy to co-operate with staff at a later stage in the Bill's progress if the new clause is not correctly drafted.

I believe that no study has been done on speeding up the planning process, so I speak largely from anecdotal evidence. I freely admit that. The problem is happening more and more and I believe that it would be in the interests of everyone, particularly the developers, if the new clause were agreed.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I want instinctively to be helpful and sympathetic to his point of view. I would like to put a proposition to him, and if I have got the wrong idea I invite him to disabuse me of it. First, I do not know exactly what is his definition of a major application.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It is the Government's definition.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Where there is a significant application—if I may use that term—rather than a major application, the Secretary of State would, perhaps, although not as a matter of course, be likely to call it in so that he could determine it or have a public inquiry as necessary, rather than let it go through the normal, conventional process. I accept that an application can go through that process and the Secretary of State can call it in at any time. However, what the hon. Gentleman wants is brought about in practice by the Secretary of State's ability to call in the application. The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. He will be able to put me right.

Secondly—I accept that this point is germane only to the Greater London area—under the Act of Parliament that set up the office of Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and the Greater London Assembly, certain significant applications have to be referred to the Mayor, although there are smaller applications relating to housing estates or the green belt. The Mayor has the power to authorise the local planning authority not to accept or prove the application—to say that the local planning authority should reject it. I have always thought that unnecessary, because if that course prevailed on an application and the Mayor required the local planning authority to reject it, the applicant would still have the right to go to the Secretary of State. That duplicates the planning system. We are here to speed it up within the bounds of fairness.

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and where he wants to get to, but is his new clause absolutely necessary? I would have thought that the existing town and country planning laws and regulations cover the matter by allowing the Secretary of State to call in an application.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If I may, I shall clarify my comments. Development control and planning committees are swayed by the scale and number of objections. When the Secretary of State decides to call in an application, that does not affect his decision but may carry some weight. Anecdotal evidence is that when extensive pre-consultation takes place, the scale and number of objections when the application is made are dramatically reduced because many of the difficulties and misunderstandings have been ironed out and in some cases the developer is able to make amendments to the application which satisfy many of the objections.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his position better than I did when I intervened. I have made my point and he has made his eloquently. I shall listen to what the Minister has to say.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

In my experience, larger applications almost always have an environmental impact assessment. In fact, any planning officer worth his salt would be well advised to require such an assessment and they almost always do as a matter of course. If they are to make a recommendation to their planning committee, they must have something on which to justify that recommendation and an environmental impact assessment makes that easier. That is particularly so because larger applications are likely to be more controversial and to be decided by a committee rather than under delegated powers to planning officers.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman may misunderstand my new clause, or perhaps I have not drafted it correctly. The environmental impact assessment requirement is just another way of defining the types of scheme that ought to come within the new clause: those that might require an environmental impact assessment are defined as major or come under any other definition of the Secretary of State. Those are the schemes that should be required to have a pre-consultation phase. I am not saying that they require an environmental impact assessment. It is the other way round. Those that require an environmental impact assessment should have a pre-consultation phase.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening and he has clarified the matter a little.

One of the plus points about the Bill is the introduction of pre-application discussions. Planning practitioners to whom I have spoken wholly welcome that. They are a little worried about the delay and the cost, but in terms of getting the planning system to work, a pre-application discussion is thoroughly good. Again, any developer of larger schemes, which are likely to be controversial, would be foolish just to bang in an application without any pre-application discussion. When I was practising in planning matters, even with smaller applications I would almost always ring up the planning officer and say, ''What do you think?'' and would get an instant reaction.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I want to make it clear that I am suggesting discussions not with the planners, which is being introduced in other ways, but with the immediate neighbours and the wider public. With larger schemes, hundreds and sometimes thousands of objections can be significantly reduced. The new clause would introduce consultation with the wider public.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking not about an environmental impact assessment, but about a statement of community involvement, which is different. The statement of environmental impact—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may put his head in his hands, but that is how the new clause is drafted. The environmental impact assessment is about the effect that a large-scale development will have on the environment of an area. I am looking at new clause 26, which I will read out clearly so that the Committee is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has actually written:

''Before an application can be made for planning permission and—

(a) the planning application falls within the definition of 'major applications', as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose;

(b) the planning application will be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment''

That seems to me pretty clear, and I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly what an environmental impact assessment is.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I know what it is.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Okay, I will explain to the Committee what an environmental impact assessment does. Then perhaps by debate we can get the new clause where we want it.

An environmental impact assessment, particularly of a larger development, is an assessment of that development's environmental effect on the whole area around it. Take, for example, a supermarket being built on a greenfield site. It is easy to see that such a supermarket would have an effect as far as land use is concerned and on the environment of the town in which it is located. I know what the hon. Gentleman is about to say.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

As I said earlier, I am no expert in drafting clauses. Thanks to the hon. Gentleman's—one might say—correct reading of my new clause, I realise that it is missing the word ''or'' at the end of paragraphs (a) and (b). I apologise for not writing it correctly. I think that the Minister knows where I am coming from and I am sorry that by missing out two words I have led the hon. Member for Cotswold down the wrong route.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I shall illustrate the hon. Gentleman's problem with a story from the very first time that I came into this House. I was paired—an unusual event as not everybody was paired in those days because there were not enough Labour MPs to go round. I offered to vote for one of my colleagues and I said, ''You owe me a bottle of whisky.'' ''I do,'' he said, and the next day he produced a miniature bottle of whisky. ''Let that be a lesson to you,'' he said. ''Words in this place mean everything. Words are what they mean. You should have said a full-size bottle of whisky.''

Words are everything and one has to interpret what is on the Amendment Paper. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is requiring an environmental impact assessment as well as a statement of community involvement.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am not.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Well, that is how I read it. What the hon. Gentleman wants may well be reasonable, but it amounts to a statement of community involvement. We have to be careful how many environmental impact assessments and statements of community involvement we have because the test of the Bill will be whether it speeds up the planning process. Of course in the larger, controversial applications we have to take people with us and it is paramount that the planning system be completely open and democratic. That delicate balance between it being open and democratic, and consulting on everything has to be

made. I feel that under the new clause that delicate balance is perhaps unnecessarily in favour of consultations about consultations.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for tabling the amendment. I understand the intention behind the amendment and I support it. Indeed, in many ways, that intention goes to the heart of a key element of our package of reforms. But I have to say—and there is always a but—the amendment is unnecessary. In explaining why, I hope to demonstrate how central to the Bill the Government's commitment is to greater public engagement at all stages of the planning process. That public engagement will create a faster and more seamless and efficient planning process.

Our reforms are intended to lead to a planning system that promotes community involvement, with clear opportunities for people to make their views known and participate fully. We have been clear since the planning Green Paper that we want more effective pre-application consultation as part of that reform, and that is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman is driving at in his amendment.

We want a planning system that is transparent, so that information is easily available and easy to understand; promotes clear opportunities for participation; is accessible and reaches out to the community, including groups that, in the past, have not engaged easily with planning; and has clear accountability for decisions through the democratic process.

Most people become engaged in the planning process only when applications likely to have a direct impact on their lives are made. However, the hon. Member for Ludlow is absolutely right—the best local authorities and good developers already involve communities in plan-making and significant planning proposals. On the evidence, that process is valued by those who participate and by people who have shown that they want to be involved in the issues. Members of the public are often unaware both of their rights and of how to best put their views to influence decisions.

Ensuring community involvement is a challenge, but it also offers the local community the opportunity to have an important say in what sort of place they want to live in. Under the new planning system, the wishes of local people included in the so-called local development framework—the folder of local development documents that will collectively deliver the spatial strategy for the local planning authority's area—should be, and are, reflected. The views of local people have always been an integral part of the planning process. The case for the community's voice to be heard is clear. Public involvement is valuable as a key element of an open and participatory democracy. Involvement improves the quality and efficiency of decision-making by using local knowledge and minimising unnecessary and costly conflict, to use the words that the hon. Member for Ludlow spoke in moving his amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister alluded to a paradox to which I referred—the difficulty of finding

the balance between community involvement and speeding up the planning system. On the face of it, the two are contrary to each other. I note that although there is to be community involvement in the local plan-making process under the Bill, there is none in the regional spatial strategy. I believe that an amendment has been tabled on that very point. Does the Minister believe that any community involvement other than that already provided for in the present planning system is needed in individual applications? Having included community involvement in the plan-making process, is there a need for additional community involvement at the individual application stage?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

First, I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's premise about the contradictory nature of community involvement and smoother process. It is exactly the thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow—and, indeed, it is the Government's approach—that early engagement is likely to create a more seamless process.

As for extra involvement in individual applications, it really depends on the scale of the application. For a major application, one would, in any circumstances, expect considerable community involvement as the plans for that site developed. [Interruption.] Let me just add to that observation, inspiration having winged its way as it ineffably does in Committee. The statement of community involvement refers primarily to local authority policy with regard to significant applications. Therefore, we are considering larger-scale applications, and the Government's desire through our planning reform package is to encourage greater public engagement in those more significant applications. As the hon. Gentleman knows there is already ample opportunity for the public to engage in individual applications.

If I may indulge in a spot of anecdotalism—to cite one of the neologisms of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—my first interface, as we say these days, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was when I appeared before the town planning sub-committee in the London borough of Lambeth to object to the construction of an old people's home behind my home. Lo and behold, the chair of that particular august body, the town planning sub-committee, was none other than Councillor Mandelson who would later become the right hon. Member for Hartlepool. I know from direct experience that opportunities for public engagement and individual applications are there and can be very well used.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If I follow the thrust of the Minister's arguments he is saying that the new clause is unnecessary because the statement of community involvement produced by the council will set out that that sort of thing should happen in relation to large-scale schemes anyway. If that is what the Minister is saying it might have been helpful if he had published the draft guidance—I hope that he has not done so already—relating to the statement of community

involvement, which would have meant that I would have avoided reaching this point.

If the draft guidance shows that in the case of such schemes a council would be expected to write policies that would achieve what I have set out to do into its statement of community involvement, my efforts have all been in vain. Perhaps it has already been published and it has passed me by somewhere in the ether.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

No. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As the Committee will be aware, we have endeavoured to let it have as much as possible of our proposals for guidance in draft form. We have not been able to supply that to the Committee, but it is our intention to bring it out in the very near future, and Committee members will be the first to receive those drafts. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention is watch this space—the details will be set out in the guidance in due course.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I thank the Minister for giving way. The moment may have passed, but I am provoked beyond all human endurance to ask out of curiosity who won in the matter of Mandelson versus Hill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Not for the first, or last, time it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I wonder what that did for the right hon. Gentleman's career.

The statement of community involvement is enshrined in the local plan process in clause 17 of the Bill, but I cannot see a similar enshrining in the Bill of a statement of community involvement in the regional planning process. Considering that it is far more strategic than the local plan process, I ask the Minister why that inconsistency exists.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I do not think that it is an inconsistency. It is a matter of the significance of developments in relation to the local community. It is our absolute conviction that local people have a right to play a part in big decisions about their immediate localities and communities. Remember that the regional spatial strategy is broader, and more strategic in character by definition, and because it is more strategic it will have less direct immediate impact on localities and individual communities. Nevertheless—[Interruption.] No, it is okay, I actually know the answer—[Laughter.] The Committee will be delighted to discover that the note supplements rather than contradicts the information that I was in the process of conveying.

The hon. Gentleman will remember from his earlier involvement in discussions about the regional spatial strategy that it is intended that key agencies will be heavily involved in its development, under the auspices of the regional planning body. However, we do not envisage such direct linkage, for all the reasons that I have given.

To satisfy the Committee's possible curiosity, I ought to add that the message that has been conveyed to me says that consultation at regional level is already in draft regulations and guidance that have just been published, so the hon. Gentleman can examine in some detail exactly what we intend to suggest in relation to consultation by the regional planning bodies.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister for that elucidation and am glad that agencies are expected to be involved in drawing up the RSS. However, if the volume of correspondence that I get from some of my lucid constituents is anything to go by, I am certain that some people in the Cotswolds will wish to make representations on the RSS. I hope that that will be fully provided for in the regulations.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am certain that those who wish to make representations on the RSS will have ample opportunity to do so. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in the Cotswolds.

I was trying to describe the advantages of greater involvement by local people in the planning process, which is central to our purpose and, I rather think, the intentions of the hon. Member for Ludlow. Such involvement will serve the purpose of educating the participants not only about the needs of their own communities in a wider sense, but about those of the business sector. It will also serve to engage people in local government, which is an extremely valuable aspect of the process as well. Involvement is also likely to assist in promoting social cohesion by encouraging links within communities and giving local residents a stake in decision making.

Again, to allude to an observation that the hon. Gentleman made, we want to encourage developers to work with communities on proposals for developments before they submit their applications for planning permission. That benefits both developers and local communities, since any areas of potential conflict can be dealt with before the proposals are finalised. Where an application for a proposed development has been discussed with the community in advance, we expect it to have a much easier passage during the formal planning process.

The Bill contains a number of proposals that should help to take that objective forward. For example, the planning checklist, which is proposed in the planning Green Paper, provides a mechanism that will enable developers to focus on pre-application consultation. The planning checklist was widely welcomed, and clause 41 will enable local planning authorities to issue standard checklist forms.

There are statutory requirements for publicity on planning applications. Arrangements for publicising applications for planning permission, listed building consent, and conservation area consent are not consistent, however. In the July 2002 policy paper, we said that we would standardise application and publicity under the different consent regimes. We therefore intend to consult later this year on possible changes in publicity requirements to bring the three regimes into line, and to consider whether any simplification is appropriate. Clearer publicity arrangements will obviously facilitate more effective involvement.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was absolutely right in his remarks about major applications. Clause 43 deals with major infrastructure projects. As the hon. Member for Cotswold pointed out, the amendment also refers to major applications. The new major infrastructure

project inquiry rules will continue the Government's policy aim of encouraging community involvement in the planning process. The intention is to encourage most involvements as soon as projects have been called in, to allow pre-inquiry work to concentrate on identifying the relevant issues and clarifying which of them might be resolved before inquiry.

We want communities to engage with the planning process from the beginning. In any large-scale development, it is in the interests of both developer and community to engage with each other at an early stage, including through local meetings. Any guidance that the Government produce on major infrastructure projects will highlight the value of such communications.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister mentioned that clause 41 will create the checklist, as he called it. In my quick reading of that clause, the only thing that I can see is where subsection (1) says:

''Provision referred to . . . includes provision as to—

(a) the form and manner in which the application must be made'',

which is the substitute for section 62(2)(a) of the 1990 Act. That appears to be what the Minister is referring to, but unless I am wrong that does not enable a local authority to say that pre-application consultation is required. Just before the Minister mentions regulations, I cannot see anything in that subsection, which introduces new section 62, about regulation, although I can see that just after that there is a reference to tree preservation orders and regulations controlling the display of advertisements.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is simply impossible to write everything into the Bill as one intends. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions in clause 41 create the framework to permit the introduction of the regulation that will bring in the use of the checklists. Of course, my words in this Committee in my ex cathedra capacity will confirm the Government's intention that that should be the case.

I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Bill also includes provision for local planning authorities to introduce local development orders. Those are orders made by the local planning authority that expand on the permitted development rights set nationally, which we debated in an earlier sitting. They give permitted development rights to developers who bring forward proposals in line with a policy in a development plan document.

A local planning authority will be required to produce a short note—a ''statement of reasons''—justifying the making of a local development order. It will then be required to comply with the same publicity and consultation requirements that are being established for development plan documents. The authority will have to consult any body that, in its opinion, would have been a statutory consultee for the planning application for the proposed development being permitted by the local development order. The authority will not be able to adopt a local development order until the specified deadline for comments has passed, and will have to take into account any representations received. I add that to the debate as

a further assurance to the Committee of the Government's commitment to make the process as open, as transparent, as accessible and as involving a process as possible.

With regard to our commitment to greater community involvement, we think it right that local people should have a say in big decisions about their local communities. We expect a greater understanding and acceptance of the case for development, where it is desirable, to arise from that process. I think that that is the point behind the proposals of the hon. Member for Ludlow. The measures that we are introducing and the more effective community involvement that they are intended to produce serve to make the hon. Gentleman's proposals unnecessary, and I implore the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think that the Minister is imploring me to withdraw the new clause on the grounds that regulations about statements of community involvement and draft regulations about how councils will make development orders will achieve everything that I seek to achieve through new clause 26. I return to my earlier point: if those draft regulations had been in place beforehand, I might not be speaking now. I hope that the regulations come out rather promptly, perhaps before Report, so that if they fail at the pre-consultation stage, we shall have the time and opportunity to return to the issue—although in view of the Minister's words, I am sure that they will not fail. For the moment, given the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 27 - Qualified third party right of appeal

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.