Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 19, page 9, line 18, after ‘time’, insert

‘on notice as required in subsection (2)(b) below.’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 65, in clause 19, page 9, line 21, after ‘acquire’, insert ‘compulsorily’.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

These short amendments deal with the power to enter and survey land. Amendment No. 64 would provide a period of notice for people who may be expected to accept somebody from the Homes and Communities Agency coming on to their land to survey it or to represent the HCA. The other amendment is designed to protect those who may be subject to the powers being applied to them by officers from the HCA. These probing amendments are intended to elicit from the Minister some guidance on how these powers should be used.

The Minister will probably be aware that for a lengthy period, national periodicals such as The Mail on Sunday and other newspapers have run a series of stories concerned with inspectors’ powers to enter people’s property for various purposes, whether to follow up council tax demands, assess the size of houses, photograph bedrooms, toilets and so on, or to support claims being made by the customs and valuation authorities, all of which come from guidance issued by the Government that is available for people to read, and all of which have been rejected by the Government as scare stories, saying, “There is no truth in those things; they will never happen.” However, they have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation of why such wide-ranging powers have been given to officers. We are following up on the same lines today.

We have mentioned on a number of occasions that the agency is not simply a result of the happy merger of English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation: the combination of the two gives considerable powers to the new agency. The potential for conflict of interest for those who acquire, develop and sell on can be considerable. In each area of the agency’s work, there should be a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that the public are not being traduced in any way and that the powers will be used with the greatest sensitivity, whether they relate to inquiry proposals, to the matters we discussed this morning regarding easements for right of way, or whether they apply to the considerable powers given by the Government to those in authority to go on to other people’s property and do various things. There is a need to ensure that we have some idea, through guidance from the Minister, about how these powers are to be used. That is most important.

Amendment No. 66, the Minister will note, would remove the power of the criminal law to be used in relation to an individual who may not know why someone came on to their land if notice had not been given, and who objects to that individual. To invoke the criminal law in those circumstances might be to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I ask the Minister to think again about that.

That is the background to the amendments and our concerns. I am sure that the Minister will agree that he does not want to see any more stories in the national papers saying, “Why are this draconian Government taking so many heavy powers to crack down on the everyday citizen?” Here is a chance for him to respond and explain and, by amending the Bill, to give an opportunity for such stories relating to these powers not to appear.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman was extremely helpful. He expressed the amendments in a characteristically thoughtful and sensitive manner, which helped me to sense where his main concerns lie. However, he may have overlooked the proper statutory context of the power.

Clause 19 sets out a power that relates to the process of acquiring land under clause 9, whether those purchases are made by agreement or in exercise of the agency’s compulsory purchase powers. The hon. Gentleman I think recognises that the clause has a strictly practical purpose. Yes, it allows an authorised person to enter a person’s land, but the wording makes it clear that the power arises only in connection with a proposal by the agency to acquire land.

There are only two reasons for which the agency is empowered to enter a person’s land—first, to carry out a survey; and secondly, to value land to assess the amount of compensation to be paid. The clause also authorises entry on to someone’s land in connection with a proposal by the agency to acquire some other person’s land, but that is simply a practical point. It may be necessary for a surveyor to assess a party wall or to access land. Soil surveys will be essential if accurate valuations of contaminated land are to be made, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that clean-up costs can vary depending on what substances are found.

The amendments seek to limit a necessary power, and I shall respond to each in turn. In general, however, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the power simply enables those same procedural elements that take place in every normal private sale to take place in the statutory context.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I am slightly afraid to ask, but are the powers modelled on any other powers, so that we can compare and contrast them—or does the Minister need some inspiration on the question?

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

No, I am already inspired. The provision is similar to section 163 of the 1993 Act and is modelled on provisions similar to those found in Acts governing the regional development agencies and urban development corporations.

I turn to amendment No. 64. Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 19 operate together and mean that at least 28 days’ notice is required before an authorised person can demand entry on to land for the purpose of surveying it or estimating its value. Taking the clause as a whole, it is clear that subsection (1) is to be read in the light of subsection (2). I therefore suggest that it is unnecessary to repeat in subsection (1) the notice requirement provided in subsection (2). In that respect, I invite the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire to withdraw the amendment.

However, I take this opportunity to tell the Committee that we are considering whether the drafting of clause 19 makes it sufficiently clear that the notice requirements apply in all cases of intended entry. As I said a moment ago, we are clear that subsections (1) and (2) are to be read together, so that notice must be given before an authorised person can enter the land. That is our firm intention, even when land is not occupied in the conventional sense of the word, as referred to at line 26, clause 19(2)(b). We will therefore be considering whether the drafting requires clarification.

Amendment No. 65 would restrict the land that could be entered and surveyed or valued to that which the HCA is proposing to acquire compulsorily. However, it is also necessary for the agency to be able to enter land for surveying or valuation purposes even when the sale is by agreement. In many cases, if land is acquired by agreement the landowner is a willing seller, and I presume that he would be content to allow an authorised person entry on to the land in connection with the sale. The situation is similar to a survey of one’s house, whether it is to survey the property or to value the land. In such cases, I suggest that the agency would not need to enforce its right to enter.

However, the vendor may decide at a late stage in the compulsory purchase process to proceed by agreement, which is some time after the agency needs to enter the land in order to survey and value it. The amendment would hinder the process. With the greatest respect, it is probably contrary to its intended effect and could be quite unhelpful. It could even result in forcing the agency to complete an acquisition via the compulsory purchase route in circumstances in which the landowner would otherwise be willing to sell by agreement. That, in turn, is likely to lead to unnecessary delay in site acquisition. In addition, the amendment may prevent the clause from applying to other situations—for example, if the owner agreed to sell the agency the property, but a tenant of the property did not want to allow the agency access to the land. The amendment is neither necessary nor useful, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw it.

If I may turn to amendment No. 66—

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

No, amendment No. 66 is due next.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 66, in clause 19, page 9, line 36, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

I inadvertently referred to this amendment in our previous discussion.

Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour)

We were enjoying it so much.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman and I have a long history of enjoying each other’s remarks in other circumstances—in enlightened Haringey council, where we sat in the early ’80s. My goodness, the definition of “manifesto” and what the Labour party stood for in those far off days are a long way from where they are today, but we will refer to that on another occasion. We have had a long and enjoyable relationship over the years, and I am glad that he still enjoys my remarks—as, indeed I enjoy his. Long may it continue.

Clause 19 will create an offence where an individual obstructs someone acting under the powers of the HCA when entering land. As I have said before, the concern is whether the measure is a little heavy—whether this should be an offence or a civil matter—and whether it will raise the stakes in circumstances where feelings might be running high. There may be a contentious purchase in circumstances that we cannot currently envisage but that we know can occur—over a contested  piece of land and a contested issue. Temperatures might be high regarding an HCA purchase and a development that may cause concern locally. Will the Minister consider whether creating an offence is really necessary?

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

I suggest that amendment No. 66 has the potential to render clause 19 entirely redundant because it would effectively make the power unenforceable. Why should it not be an offence intentionally to stop someone entering land to survey it or to estimate its value within the framework of the proper exercise of the statutory power? Clause 19 requires the authorised person to be able to produce evidence of their authorisation to enter the land before they do so. Any proposed entry must be at a reasonable time and the Homes and Communities Agency must have given at least 28 days’ notice of the intended entry.

Having gone through those entirely reasonable and standard steps, why should the agency then be unable to enforce its right of entry if someone deliberately prevents its representative from carrying out their duties? I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman about amendments Nos. 64 and 65, but I am surprised that he has pushed amendment No. 66, because he will be delighted to hear that the clause is modelled on an equivalent provision in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as well as on other Acts, such as the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I imagine that he had something to do with the former measure.

I stress that the powers are necessary to ensure that the purchase of land progresses smoothly, that land is accurately surveyed, and that the seller is appropriately recompensed for the land. That enforcement is important to move swiftly on, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The Minister’s good intentions are clear. I wanted to probe him about the reasons for the potential offence, and I am content with his explanation. I would be interested if his Department could supply some information on whether the powers have needed to be used, and whether there have been any prosecutions under legislation as modelled in the Bill.

Iain Wright (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Hartlepool, Labour)

I pledge to the hon. Gentleman that I will find out and write to the Committee.

Alistair Burt (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance, which has been greeted with enormous joy by his officials, who must now look up the information. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.