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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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