Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 439, in

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

On the face of it, the amendment is innocuous—

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

And very reasonable.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move Amendment No. 191, in

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

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

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

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

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 192, in

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 440, in

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

Amendment No. 193, in

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

'referred to in subsection (1)'.

Amendment No. 194, in

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

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

Amendment No. 441, in

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

Amendment No. 195, in

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

'(8) In this section—

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

There is no mention of condition. The reasons continue:

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Heathrow.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

And Ted Heath.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

We will discuss him later.

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been an extremely—

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

Excruciating.

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

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

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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

Subsection (7) says:

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

The Chair does not want you to either.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.