Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

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'.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

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

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

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.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

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.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

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.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

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.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

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?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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?

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

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.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

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.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am happy to do so, given those assurances.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

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.