Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Does that not show what nonsense timetabling in Committees is?

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I cannot comment on that.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

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

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

It was 11.18.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

Several things are wrong with clause 75.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mrs Barbara Roche (Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Hornsey & Wood Green, Labour)

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Do not encourage him.

Mrs Barbara Roche (Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Hornsey & Wood Green, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Mrs Barbara Roche (Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Hornsey & Wood Green, Labour)

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.