'(1) The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c.67) (the ''1981 Act'') is amended as follows.

(2) In section 6 (service of documents), in subsection (4)—

(a) after ''lessee'' in each place there is inserted '', tenant'',

(b) after '' ''lessee'' '' there is inserted '', ''tenant'' ''.

(3) In section 7 (interpretation), after subsection (2) there is added—

''(3) But an instrument containing regulations made for the purposes of section 13A or paragraph 4A of Schedule 1 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''

(4) In section 11 (notices in newspapers), after subsection (2) there is added—

''(3) In addition, the acquiring authority shall affix a notice in the prescribed form to a conspicuous object or objects on or near the land comprised in the order.

(4) The notice under subsection (3) must—

(a) be addressed to persons occupying or having an interest in the land, and

(b) set out each of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (but reading the reference there to first publication of the notice as a reference to the day when the notice under subsection (3) is first affixed).''

(5) In section 12 (notices to owners, lessees and occupiers)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from ''owner'' to ''order'' (where it first appears) there is substituted ''qualifying person'',

(b) for subsection (2) there is substituted—

''(2) A person is a qualifying person, in relation to land comprised in an order, if—

(a) he is an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of the land, or

(b) he falls within subsection (2A).

(2A) A person falls within this subsection if he is—

(a) a person to whom the acquiring authority would, if proceeding under section 5(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, be required to give a notice to treat, or

(b) a person the acquiring authority thinks is likely to be entitled to make a relevant claim if the order is confirmed and the compulsory purchase takes place, so far as he is known to the acquiring authority after making diligent inquiry.

(2B) A relevant claim is a claim for compensation under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (compensation for injurious affection).''

(6) For section 13 (confirmation of compulsory purchase order) there are substituted the following sections—

''13 Confirmation of order: no objections

(1) The confirming authority may confirm a compulsory purchase order with or without modifications if it is satisfied—

(a) that the notice requirements have been complied with, and

(b) that one of the conditions in subsection (2) is satisfied.

(2) The conditions are—

(a) no relevant objection is made,

(b) every relevant objection made is either withdrawn or disregarded.

(3) The confirming authority may require every person who makes a relevant objection to state the grounds of the objection in writing.

(4) If the confirming authority is satisfied that an objection relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by whom the compensation is to be assessed it may disregard the objection.

(5) The notice requirements are the requirements under sections 11 and 12 to publish, affix and serve notices in connection with the compulsory purchase order.

(6) A relevant objection is an objection by a person who is a qualifying person for the purposes of section 12(2), but if such a person qualifies only by virtue of section 12(2A)(b) and the confirming authority thinks that he is not likely to be entitled to make a relevant claim his objection is not a relevant objection.

(7) Disregarded means disregarded under subsection (4) or under any other power to disregard a relevant objection contained in the enactment providing for the compulsory purchase.

13A Confirmation of order: remaining objections

(1) This section applies to the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order if a relevant objection is made which is neither—

(a) withdrawn, nor

(b) disregarded,

(a remaining objection).

(2) The confirming authority may proceed under the written representations procedure—

(a) if the order is not subject to special parliamentary procedure,

(b) in the case of an order to which section 16 applies, if a certificate has been given under subsection (2) of that section, and

(c) if every person who has made a remaining objection consents in the prescribed manner.

(3) If subsection (2) does not apply or if the confirming authority decides not to proceed under that subsection, it must either—

(a) cause a public local inquiry to be held, or

(b) give every person who has made a remaining objection an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the confirming authority for the purpose.

(4) If a person who has made a remaining objection takes the opportunity to appear before a person appointed under subsection (3)(b) the confirming authority must give the acquiring authority and any other person it thinks appropriate the opportunity to be heard at the same time.

(5) The confirming authority may confirm the order with or without modifications if it has considered the objection and either—

(a) it has followed the written representations procedure, or

(b) in a case which falls within subsection (3), if an inquiry was held or a person was appointed under subsection (3)(b), it has considered the report of the person who held the inquiry or who was so appointed.

(6) The written representations procedure is such procedure as is prescribed for the purposes of this section including provision affording an opportunity to—

(a) every person who has made a remaining objection,

(b) the acquiring authority, and

(c) any other person the confirming authority thinks appropriate,

to make written representations as to whether the order should be confirmed.

(7) Relevant objection and disregarded must be construed in accordance with section 13.

13B Written representations procedure: supplementary

(1) This section applies where the confirming authority decides under section 13A to follow the written representations procedure.

(2) The confirming authority may make orders as to the costs of the parties to the written representations procedure, and as to which party must pay the costs.

(3) An order under subsection (2) may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of any party named in the order.

(4) The costs incurred by the confirming authority in connection with the written representations procedure must be paid by the acquiring authority, if the confirming authority so directs.

(5) The confirming authority may certify the amount of its costs, and any amount so certified and directed to be paid by the acquiring authority is recoverable summarily by the confirming authority as a civil debt.

(6) Section 42(2) of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (recovery of Minister's costs in connection with inquiries) applies to the written representations procedure as if the procedure is an inquiry specified in section 42(1) of that Act.

(7) Regulations under section 13A(6) may make provision as to the giving of reasons for decisions taken in cases where the written representations procedure is followed.

13C Confirmation in stages

(1) The confirming authority may confirm an order (with or without modifications) so far as it relates to part of the land comprised in the order (the ''relevant part'') if each of the conditions in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The conditions are—

(a) the confirming authority is satisfied that the order ought to be confirmed so far as it relates to the relevant part but has not for the time being determined whether the order ought to be confirmed so far as it relates to the remaining part;

(b) the confirming authority is satisfied that the notice requirements have been complied with.

(3) If there is a remaining objection in respect of the order, the confirming authority may only act under subsection (1) after complying with section 13A(2) or (3) (as the case may be).

(4) But it may act under subsection (1) without complying with those provisions if it is satisfied that all remaining objections relate solely to the remaining part of the land.

(5) If the confirming authority acts under subsection (1)—

(a) it must give a direction postponing consideration of the order, so far as it relates to the remaining part, until such time as may be specified by or under the direction,

(b) the order so far as it relates to each part of the land must be treated as a separate order.

(6) The notices to be published, affixed and served under section 15 must include a statement as to the effect of the direction given under subsection (5)(a).

(7) Notice requirements must be construed in accordance with section 13.

(8) Remaining objection must be construed in accordance with section 13A.''

(7) For section 15 there is substituted—

''15 Notices after confirmation of order

(1) After the order has been confirmed, the acquiring authority must—

(a) serve a confirmation notice and a copy of the order as confirmed on each person on whom a notice was required to be served under section 12, and

(b) affix a confirmation notice to a conspicuous object or objects on or near the land comprised in the order.

(2) The notice under subsection (1)(b) must—

(a) be addressed to persons occupying or having an interest in the land;

(b) so far as practicable, be kept in place by the acquiring authority until the expiry of a period of six weeks beginning with the date when the order becomes operative.

(3) The acquiring authority must also publish a confirmation notice in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land comprised in the order is situated.

(4) A confirmation notice is a notice—

(a) describing the land;

(b) stating that the order has been confirmed;

(c) (except in the case of a notice under subsection (1)(a)) naming a place where a copy of the order as confirmed and of the map referred to there may be inspected at all reasonable hours;

(d) that a person aggrieved by the order may apply to the High Court as mentioned in section 23.

(5) A confirmation notice must be in the prescribed form.''

(8) The amendments made by this section do not apply to orders of which notice under section 11 of the 1981 Act has been published before commencement of this section.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 19—Procedure for authorisation of compulsory purchase by a Minister.

Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58 to 72.

May I set out the purposes of new clauses 18 and 19? New clause 18 recasts the existing procedure for the making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders for non-ministerial acquiring authorities. Such authorities include local authorities, regional development agencies and English Partnerships. The decision whether to confirm such orders is currently made by the relevant Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, and they are known as the confirming authorities.

New clause 19 deals with orders for the acquisition of land by Ministers, such as by the Secretary of State for Transport on behalf of the Highways Agency, or the National Assembly for Wales. The procedures for both are similar, but the terminology is different, so parallel clauses are required to achieve our intention.

New clauses 18 and 19 introduce three major changes. First, they will extend the groups of people who have a right to have their objections heard; secondly, they will introduce a written procedure; and thirdly, they will enable compulsory purchase orders to be determined in stages. I shall take each point in turn.

The extension of the category of persons who have a right have their objections heard to confirmation of a compulsory purchase order will create a fairer system. The right to appear at a public local inquiry or hearing to argue a case in front of an inspector is currently limited to owners, lessees or occupiers other than tenants who are contracted for a month or less. At present, tenants for a month or less have no such right, despite the fact that such tenants may have been in occupation for many years. They are typically tenants on short-hold tenancies that have continued after their

fixed term. It seems entirely fair that such persons should have a right to argue their case if they wish to object to a compulsory purchase order.

Another example would be a person who has a right of access across the land to be acquired—a right that is either to be interfered with or acquired under the acquiring authority's proposals. That right of access may be critical to the person's enjoyment of his land. It is only fair that he should have a right to make representations against confirmation of the order.

The new clauses will extend the category of persons with an interest in or over the land to be acquired who will have a right to object. Essentially, they cover anyone who might be able to claim compensation as a result of the implementation of the order and the scheme for which the order is made. However, given the practical difficulties that acquiring authorities might have in identifying all those with an interest in land, the new clauses do not place an absolute obligation on acquiring authorities to identify them all. For instance, it may be impractical for acquiring authorities to identify those claiming prescriptive rights across land. A person might claim a private right of way across land on the basis of use over many years. Such claims may not be written down or registered, and it may not be obvious to the acquiring authority that such a right exists.

I am grateful to the Minister for the clear way in which she is setting out such a highly complex subject.

I was going to raise this point later, but it seems logical to raise it now. A number of properties up and down the country are empty, or have been abandoned for a period of time, and it may not be easy to ascertain who owns them. What proposals do the Government have to try to identify those who might have an interest in such properties?

That is picked up in new clause 20, which we will come to shortly. Obviously, the acquiring authorities must do everything they can to identify all who may have a stake or interest in the matter. However, the purpose of this new clause, and the issue here, is that in cases where there are people whom it would simply not be reasonable to expect the acquiring authority to identify or reach beforehand, we must ensure that the acquiring authority is obliged to fix an appropriate notice on the site, thereby publishing the order on or near the land.

That provision attempts to deal with people who have disputed right of access or who claim to have private right of way across the land, but whose claims may not be obviously apparent to the acquiring authority in the first instant. The acquiring authority will be required to display an appropriate notice at the time of confirmation. The new requirement for site notices is in addition to the current requirements to serve notices on all those whom the acquiring authority has been able to identify as having appropriate interest in the land included in the order and to place statutory notices in local newspapers.

It is worth pursuing the point one more time: if it is clear that the land has been abandoned, would the acquiring authority be expected

to make inquiries at the Land Registry, where some clue as to who owned the land might well be had?

Yes, it would. We are certainly not attempting to reduce the acquiring authority's responsibility to do all it can to identify those with an interest in the land subject to the compulsory purchase order; we think that that responsibility is right and proper. The provisions simply recognise that we are extending the category of potential objectors to cover those who may be much more difficult to identify. For that reason we think it right that the authority should have the additional obligation to place a notice on the site, in order to reach those that the acquiring authority might not think it obvious should be included. That is a result of widening the category of people who have a statutory right to object, and that is the purpose of the new clause. We will come to the issue of information in a later new clause.

The people on whom the acquiring authority must serve notice of the making of the order are referred to in proposed new section 12(2)(a) in new clause 18(5) as

''an owner, lessee, tenant (whatever the tenancy period) or occupier of the land, or''

someone who ''falls within subsection (2A).'' Subsection 2A covers two categories. The first is anyone whose interest the purchasing authority will have to acquire as part of the CPO, and the second is anyone whom the acquiring authority thinks likely to make a claim for compensation for injurious affection under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. That would include, for example, interference with an adjoining owner's property rights, or someone whose right of way over the land was to be interfered with.

Another subject dealt with by this group of amendments is written representations. The introduction of a written representation procedure for the consideration of objections should help to speed up the statutory process. The aim is to make things fairer by making the submission of representations more accessible to unrepresented objectors. At the moment, it is possible in principle for objections to be considered by means of written representations. However, in practice, the use of entirely written representations does not occur. In the absence of a statutory power to prescribe a standard procedure, it has not proved practical to get agreement among all the parties involved on what procedure should be adopted on a case-by-case basis, yet there may be a number of instances where using a written procedure could speed up decision making, and might be less daunting for objectors, and there might be cases in which all parties in the process would prefer a written procedure, if only the details could be agreed.

The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a procedure by which objections can be considered in writing. We have issued a short paper describing the way in which, subject to consultation, we envisage the written representations process working. That paper is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

website, and I believe that it has also been sent to Members.

The written representations procedure will be available only when all those with remaining objections agree to it rather than a public inquiry. It will not apply if an objector insists on a public inquiry or if there are complex circumstances and we think that the need for a public inquiry remains—for example, when special parliamentary procedure applies, such as with common land or National Trust land, or with operational land involving the acquirement of utilities.

Perhaps it is easier to deal with matters by intervening, rather than by making points in my opening remarks.

Before we get to the written procedure, I will deal with a point about objections. Objectors may make objections and the confirming authority may confirm the order if certain conditions are satisfied. Under new section 13(2):

''The conditions are—

(a) no relevant objection is made,''

but, perhaps more significantly,

''(b) every relevant objection made is either withdrawn or disregarded.''

I want to press the Minister a little more on that ''disregarded.'' It seems to me that there is a danger that objections could be disregarded unless an objector has made a full statutory statement of his or her case, with proofs of evidence—in other words, unless they have presented their full case at that point. I am not sure that that is the intention, but I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that.

No, it is certainly not the intention to have a back-door way out by using the word ''disregarded''. I would like to come back to the hon. Gentleman on that in my summing up. He has made some important points and I do not want to mislead him or the Committee by trying to respond now. That issue needs to be clarified.

New clause 18 also inserts proposed new section 13B in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. That gives the confirming authority the power to make orders about the costs of the parties making written representations, including the power to specify which parties must pay the costs. That is analogous to the current provisions relating to public local inquiries into compulsory purchase orders.

As I set out earlier, the third area of change is confirmation in stages. That extends to all types of order the power to confirm orders in stages. It should make it possible for work to start on part of an acquiring authority's scheme where part of an order can be confirmed in advance of the rest.

At present, compulsory purchase orders made under certain specific powers can be confirmed in stages. For example, orders made under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can be confirmed in two stages, and orders under section 259 of the Highways Act 1980 can be

brought into force in an unlimited number of stages, but such staged confirmation is not available for all types of order. Such inconsistency could result in unnecessary delay where there are problems with part of the area covered by a single order, while progress could be made on acquiring the rest of the land and implementing the scheme for which it is needed.

The new clause proposes a general power for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed in any number of stages if the confirming authority is satisfied that that is the most appropriate course of action.

I confess to having far less knowledge on the matter than my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Will the Minister please tell me where it is stated who a confirming authority is?

Again, rather than spend the next five minutes trying to find the exact place, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me.

When the confirming Minister decides that it would be appropriate to confirm the order in part, he must give a direction postponing consideration of the remaining part of the order until a fixed date and stating that the remaining part of the order must be treated as a separate order. The fixed date will be specified in the direction or following it.

New clause 19 sets out very similar structuring of and amendments to the procedure for the preparation in draft, and the making of, compulsory orders for land that a Minister seeks to acquire.

The confirming in stages procedure is of course a new one. If an order for the taking of a property in stages is confirmed it is presumably for the convenience of the acquiring authority, which for some reason does not want to take the whole property at once. In the light of that, can the Minister confirm that if the person whose interest is being acquired incurs extra costs because of the procedure, they will be able to claim those costs, whether as a result of severance, injurious affection or any other way?

Clearly, all issues of compensation have to be dealt with fairly. I cannot specify what the circumstances would be, but all the responses in the process of determining compensation have to go through the proper procedures. If they do not, those people who lose out or are entitled to compensation will have a case.

I will give the Minister a practical example that might help both her and the Committee. Let us suppose that somebody owns a farm, and it is decided that motorway will be put through the middle of that farm. The acquiring authority would hitherto have had to take the whole farm. Now it may acquire land on only one side of the motorway. The farmer will have considerable extra costs as he will have less land on which to operate. For example, if he has a dairy farm he will have far less land and may have to sell cows because he does not have the land to put them on. Therefore he will be involved in considerable cost and disturbance, and I

want the Minister to undertake that such a farmer will be able to claim the costs.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman the fact that the arrangements already exist for certain types of order. It is already possible to carry out safe confirmation for different kinds of order. There must be good reasons involved; it is not simply a matter for the discretion of the acquiring authority. It has to be a matter for the confirming authority to decide, and it must have good reasons. The same approach would apply as does in those areas where it is already possible to confirm in stages. We are simply extending the approach to a wider category of orders, because we think that there will be cases when that makes sense and is appropriate.

Amendments Nos. 56 to 72 are consequential. Amendment No. 60 makes consequential amendments to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The latter extends to Scotland and it is necessary to extend the Bill to cover Scotland for the purposes of that one provision. That is the effect of amendments Nos. 56 and 57, which amend clause 89 on the territorial extent of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 61 to 64 are consequential to the Highways Act 1980. Amendments Nos. 65 to 68 are consequential to various other enactments as a result of the provisions of new clause 18. Amendments Nos. 69 to 72 are the repeals of existing legislation.

I want to clarify which body will be the confirming authority. The confirming authority will be different for different orders and acquiring authorities, depending on the case. The confirming authority is set out in whichever Act gives the acquiring authority the power to acquire land for those particular purposes in the first place. Later, we will discuss amendments that involve the confirming authority transferring its power to confirm in particular circumstances.

Part 7, relating to compulsory purchase, is complex. Nevertheless it is very important. I would like to probe the Minister as to what is in the new clause and what is not, and why certain issues are not.

Government Library note SNSC 1149 says:

''The Government will take this opportunity to consider whether the proposal to recommit the bill provides an opportunity to bring forward some of the further provisions set out in the daughter document to the 18 July statement covering compulsory purchase, which will help to speed up and simplify the process and which are not dependent on the outcome of the Law Commission's work report.''

As long ago as 2001 the Government set out their thoughts in the document ''Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: delivering a fundamental change'', so they have had almost two years to consider the subject. There is still confusion among practitioners about where the Government have got to, and about timing. The ODPM website cheerfully admits that it has not had time to consult the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the issue of advanced payments of compensation to mortgagees. It adds that it hopes to have a new clause ready in time for Report. However, I see nothing

about that in new clause 18. Before we dispose of this new clause or the next one, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether we can expect more amendments or new clauses on compensation at any stage of the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament. Are these the final amendments on compensation?

As it is clearly presaged that there are to be further proposals from the Government as a result of the Law Commission's recommendation on compulsory purchase, can the Minister clarify as far as possible, without prejudging what may be in the Queen's Speech, how these matters are to be dealt with? Some of them are included in the new clause.

I shall remind the Committee what was set out in the introduction to the Government's proposals:

''In order to simplify the system we''—

that is the Government—will

''provide . . . guidance in the short term on the justification required for the exercise of compulsory purchase powers for planning purposes''.

I do not see that in this new clause or in any other amendment so far. The second point was to

''provide for unopposed orders to be confirmed by the acquiring authority''.

That has been covered by the previous amendments. The third point was to

''enable objections to be considered by means of written representations where that is agreed by objectors'',

That is covered by new clause 18. The fourth point was to

''define statements of principle as the basis for compensation decisions, to replace the current plethora of, sometimes conflicting, case law''.

We dealt with that issue during an earlier sitting. The fifth point was to

''provide for the dates from which various compensation entitlements arise to be defined unambiguously in statute''.

We dealt with that in the previous new clause. The final point was to

''introduce unified Inquiry Rules, with clear deadlines for preparatory procedures.''

I certainly do not see that anywhere, and it is a big subject that needs to be dealt with at some stage.

The document goes on to say that to ensure that

''compensation is based on the principle of ensuring that no claimant is worse off as a result of compulsory purchase'',

there will be

''a clear statement of the principles for assessment of disturbance claims''.

We have not had any discussion of that. There will also be

''consistent compensation for the effect of the replacement scheme on retained land, whether or not land actually taken from an owner''.

We have seen that already. The list goes on:

''compensation payable for actual losses even if scheme not proceeded with''.

That is the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made last time. If the acquiring authority issues a notice to acquire a

property from a farmer—I am using the excellent example given by my hon. Friend—but subsequently, for whatever reason, does not proceed to acquire the property, the farmer might have suffered considerable loss. Although powers exist in the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, which I pointed out to my hon. Friend last time, the matter needs updating and clarifying.

The list continues:

''all reasonable fees and unavoidable . . . taxes to be reimbursed in full''— we have not heard anything about that—

''compensation for betterment offset only against severance/injurious affection''—

I raised that with the Minister for Housing and Planning on Tuesday, and he undertook to give us a note on the subject. The list also says that there will be

''improved provision for buying the whole site even if only part required'',

and that is covered by the new clause. Finally, there was to be

''improved advance payment arrangements, including for mortgaged land''.

That was partly dealt with under the previous new clause.

A number of those matters are included in the clauses that we are discussing, but some are not. For the sake of the practitioners out there, this whole subject needs to be clarified. I appreciate that the Minister cannot do that this morning, and that she would probably be out of order if she did, but if she could find a way of doing so—in a written statement, for example—that would be very helpful.

Most practitioners have not had a chance to look at these new clauses, but I burnt the midnight oil reading them last night, and I think that the Opposition can give them a cautious welcome. They speed up and simplify the compulsory purchase process. The Government are to be congratulated on this aspect of the Bill. It is obvious that they have listened. This is a complex subject and I applaud both of the Ministers for having addressed it well.

I raised the issue of what happens to a property owner who is not known, or abroad, and the Minister undertook to come back to me on that. There are 753,000 empty homes in this country, and that is only the tip of the problem. There are a number of abandoned and disregarded properties. Compulsory purchase is an important matter: if it is to become more widely used by a variety of acquiring authorities, the problem of identification might grow. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that.

Will my hon. Friend assist me to understand his interpretation of the legislation? If a property was compulsorily purchased and a former owner subsequently appeared, what measures are in place to compensate such people, and, perhaps, to enable them to enjoy appropriate interest on that compensation?

I decided not to quote from the comments on the four matters that the Government invited further views on because I was worried that I might be ruled out of order. However, they are another reason why I want the Minister to clarify how the compulsory purchase issue should be moved forward. The first matter is

''whether there should be a time limit for submitting compensation claims and, if so, what it should be.''

My hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point that is not included in this new clause, and which the Government will need to address.

I welcome the Government's clarification of the categories of people who are entitled to claim, and to be notified that an acquiring authority wishes to purchase their interest. In particular, it is right to include tenants in that category: in some cases—especially in residential property, with regard to which this matter is most sensitive—they have been in occupation for a considerable while, sometimes for decades.

I also welcome the written representation procedure, although we need some guidance on how that will work. I have already raised with the Minister the persons who may be disregarded. We need to know at what stage a full statement of case needs to be made, and what form it will take. I accept that that will probably be done by regulations, and this clause provides for that. I would be grateful if the Minister would offer at least an outline of what she proposes to include in those regulations, if not now, then as a note to the Committee or placed in the Library.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he has said?

As I understand this matter, there are two stages. An objector has to make written objections, and then the confirming authority decides whether to confirm the order. It is important that we establish what sort of written representations that person has to make at that stage and whether there must be a full statement of case. I can envisage that professional advisers would, perhaps, make a summary written representation at that stage and that the confirming authority might override the objection and confirm the order. The professional adviser would be in considerable difficulty if it were felt that he should have made a full statement of case, with proofs of evidence and everything else, at that stage. We would not want to prescribe too cumbersome a procedure. If it is not necessary to provide a full statement of case at that stage, we need to know that. The Minister must tell us when the particular detail of written representation needs to be made.

The order in stages is a good idea that will simplify things and make them clearer for those whose property is being acquired. It will show exactly which part of their property is to be taken, and on what date. We welcome that. I understand from what the Minister said that where that type of procedure is adopted, the same system of compensation will apply as applied previously. Under the 1965 Act a person should be no worse or better off as a result of the

compulsory acquisition. That is the fundamental principle of compulsory purchase. If I understand it correctly, the order in stages is a thoroughly good thing.

These detailed new clauses would simplify and speed up the compulsory purchase procedure. The Opposition give them a cautious welcome. However, as it is such a complicated subject, perhaps the Minister could provide some clarification by whatever means he can. Because of the timing of the Bill I have not been able to obtain any guidance from practitioners or outside bodies of what they think of these new clauses. The Government are rushing the Bill through. I understand why they are doing that, but it is regrettable. Perhaps by the time the Bill reaches other stages—perhaps in the other place—practitioners will have had the chance to consider the new clauses and will come up with ideas about how they may or may not work. We give the provisions a cautious welcome.

We, too, welcome the proposals, which mostly clarify parts of the compulsory procedures that have probably needed clarifying for some time. I do not want to go over the ground already covered by the hon. Member for Cotswold, but I am concerned that new clause 18 may unintentionally create an objector's charter.

I welcome the fact that monthly and weekly tenants—the sort of people who have an interest in the land—and others with private rights of access will now have a right of objection. However, I foresee a potential problem. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that sometimes, when people believe that compulsory purchase might happen, pieces of land are parcelled up among lots of small owners to make it difficult for the purchasing authority, which has to deal with lots of small bits of land. I foresee something similar happening. Objectors wishing to prevent a compulsory purchase could subdivide a field into one-inch squares and rent each one for a nominal sum to a large number of objectors, who would all have a statutory right of objection and, if it were not all to be done in writing, would presumably have a right to be heard. I think that that would be regarded as an unacceptable way of delaying a procedure.

That is an imaginative way to delay a procedure. Had that occurred during the Twyford Down inquiry, for example, there might now be a tunnel under it instead of the ghastly cutting through it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) might still represent a Southampton constituency.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that such practices may seem all very well when one is on the side of wanting to stop something, rather than wanting something to go through, but clearly they are completely unacceptable.

I am trying to make the point that the intention should be to create a system that is fair to both sides. There is the potential in all this for determined and well organised objectors to create an unforeseen difficulty. I do not want the Government to go back

on what they have done to give those other people a statutory right to object, but I want to be reassured that there may be some way of dealing with broadly similar objections en bloc, rather than one by one. The Minister may be able to clarify that.

I especially welcome the changes to the confirmation of unopposed orders by acquiring authorities. The process of acquiring parcels of land when there appears to be no owner is slower than it needs to be. I am increasingly aware of the amount of land in my constituency that no one appears to own. There are pieces of land with access to many other properties, which people have driven across for years. When a dispute arises, however, they suddenly discover that none of the parties involved actually owns the land.

I have dealt with such cases a few times, one of which was at Craven Arms. A 6 ft stretch of the road leading up to the railway station at Craven Arms was crumbling away. Naturally, we told the county council to repair it. It refused, telling us that it was Railtrack's property so it was Railtrack's responsibility to carry out the work. Railtrack, however, said that its deeds said that its land finished 6 ft out. After some considerable time, it emerged that everyone believed for a very long time that it was railway property, and that British Rail probably maintained it. When British Rail transferred the railway to Railtrack, however, the transfer of deeds made it clear that it did not own that piece of land. It then took some time to acquire it. Indeed, the county council may still not have acquired it. The piece of road is used fairly regularly and continues to deteriorate; there are now large potholes in it. I welcome the proposed new clause. It makes a great deal of sense in such cases, and will not cause problems.

I hope that the new clauses and amendments will help the compulsory purchase system. However, will the Minister clarify whether that new clause will create an objectors' charter? We want people to have the right to object, but we do not want that right to be misused.

I admire the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold on these difficult, complicated and technical matters. I was going to raise one or two points, but he has broadly raised those, so I need not detain the Committee with them.

In summary, I must say that new clauses 18 and 19 are good clauses, as far as I understand them. I say that with the obvious caveat that I am no expert in these matters. However, I suggest to the Minister, whom I now welcome to the Committee—I had no need to intervene on the group of clauses to which she spoke on Tuesday and so did not welcome her then—that I echo my hon. Friend's request for information in answer to the queries that were understandably made. I perfectly understand that the Minister may not necessarily be able to give immediate and comprehensive answers to those questions, but answers would help not only us, but all the outside organisations that advise Members on both sides of the Committee on these very complex matters.

I shall comment briefly on what the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said about ownership of land. There are little pockets of land that everyone seeks to own if there is the possibility of compensation. However, if there are any costs involved, such as in mending fences or clearing up debris, it is always someone else's problem. I have had similar experiences in my constituency, and I am sure that other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have too.

I want to echo a point that I put to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill)—I have to keep remembering not to say ''St. Reatham''—in relation to a different group of clauses to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. New clauses 18 and 19 are very long. New clause 18 would amend virtually all sections from 6 to 13 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, whereas new clause 19 would amend and introduce considerable addenda to schedule 1 to the 1981 Act. When the Bill goes through, it would be sensible to introduce not only a consolidated town and country planning Act, but a consolidated version of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981—I do not expect an answer to that suggestion, but some thoughts would be encouraging. That would be helpful to all those who will have to operate under the new legislation, whatever form it takes.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning advises me that he thinks that that is a great idea—long as he does not have to take the legislation through.

I raise the issue again because I am referring to a different Act: the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Also, if a consolidated Bill that just brings together all the strands of law that relate to that legislation is put before the House, we shall not even need a debate.

The hon. Gentleman is right that consolidated legislation makes life considerably easier for practitioners and those who need to use the relevant Acts, and we seek to make progress on that as far as possible. However, the obvious constraint on doing so is that although it does not require a huge amount of parliamentary time, it requires an awful lot of legal time and work to put together, and we often ask the same experts and the same counsel whom we ask to work on Bills and new legislation to do that work too. I shall certainly take back the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but he will realise that there are constraints on how rapidly we can do such things.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked whether the amendments before us were final or whether we intended to take the matter further. It would be wrong to say that these are the final amendments, because the Bill is being considered in Committee and we shall need to examine further points that are raised. As Bills pass through Parliament, things need to be changed, tidied up and resolved in response to issues that are raised. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that at this stage we are not planning to introduce any new issues on the compulsory purchase front. The Law

Commission is currently considering many of the extremely important points that he has raised on compulsory purchase, and its final report is due at the turn of the year. Until then we cannot assess the need for new legislation or any consultation.

We have decided to take forward the aspects that we think most important and on which the necessary improvements are most straightforward. The Law Commission is considering the complex interrelated issues to do with compensation, and we shall respond to its recommendations in due course and decide how to take them forward. That was set out in the July 2002 policy statement, following agreement with the Law Commission.

The Minister has clarified the position just as I understood it. Therefore I am slightly surprised that the Government have tabled the new clauses, welcome as they are, without having thought through the whole subject of compulsory purchase. The new clauses may well constrain the Law Commission in what it can recommend. I do not want to be churlish, but the new clauses seem to offer a procedure that has been only partially thought out.

We do not expect the approach that we have taken, and matters that arise from the new clauses, to be a constraint on the Law Commission or any response that we might make to it. It has become clear from the debate in Committee that hon. Members of all parties recognise that the changes are sensible and will make life simpler, speeding up the process and making it fairer for particular groups. As we are dealing with a planning Bill, it seems right to move on with the items on which there is broad agreement and which will make things better in the short term. It is always possible for the best to be the enemy of the good and, in parliamentary terms, for the whole to be the enemy of the parts. We could delay doing sensible things until we had resolved every detail of the future of the universe. I do not think that we should do that now; it is right to introduce the measures in question.

The hon. Member for Cotswold raised a point about abandoned properties and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked what would happen if an owner reappeared. If owners do not come forward, so long as reasonable attempts have been made to identify them, compulsory purchase orders can proceed. There are sometimes different procedures for dealing with the matter through the general vesting declaration. Compensation would be paid into court and could be claimed if an owner subsequently reappeared.

The written procedure would not disadvantage someone whose objection was disregarded. If the objection were disregarded because it was purely about compensation it would go to the Lands Tribunal, just as it currently does. The person concerned would be in exactly the same position as they would under the current arrangements. With luck, the process might be resolved considerably faster, because of the written procedure.

Secondary legislation, following consultations, would be needed to set out the detail and workings of the written procedures, and the method for making

objections. However, we have attempted to inform the Committee's deliberations in a paper setting out our broad intentions, which I believe hon. Members have now been sent, and which I have already mentioned. However, further consultation will clearly be needed before we can specify exact details.

To respond to what seemed to be the concern behind this question, the point is the need for clarity for all concerned. That has been the problem so far, and it is the reason why there has never been agreement on a written procedure, even though it was possible in theory. No one can agree on a case-by-case basis about what would constitute nice, clear, fair procedures that would enable everyone to know the deal and understand at what point representations would be considered or a full representation needed to be made. Statutory force is needed to provide that clarity.

Practitioners need to know about timing. When does the Minister expect to introduce the new procedure? When does she expect to be able to produce at least a draft of the secondary legislation?

Our rough timetable is to do so around the time of commencement. That will not take us far into the future, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that those who are to work on the detail of the consultation process and the written procedures have first to complete work on the passage of the Bill. I shall be happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further details.

The hon. Member for Ludlow was concerned that this might prove to be an objectors' charter. That is not the intention. Although a wide range of groups should, rightly, be able to have their objections heard, the fact that we shall have written procedures will speed the process up. As for whether somebody could subdivide land to increase the number of objectors, that could happen under the current arrangements; however many owners there are, and however small the area owned, they have the right to have their objections heard. There will be time restrictions under the new procedures, just as there are now.

It would be easier for somebody to sub-let on short lets than to subdivide and sell off, because the original owner would not then own the land. I foresee a landowner who does not want his land to be compulsorily purchased rushing round finding lots of people to sub-let it to on six-month leases, thus entitling them to object. That will be a more attractive route for objectors than the former one, the sale of subdivisions of the land, which has happened in some cases.

I guess that if the landowner were sufficiently ingenious and determined to sub-let all kinds of corners of land, that would mean more people had the right to object; it could happen. However, there will be a limit to the time in which they might submit objections and—assuming that those will not be the cases that go to written procedures, as the intention will be to spin things out—there will be a public inquiry timetable, just as there is at the moment.

There is a limit to the additional problems that can be caused by the procedure, and they are counter-balanced by its increased fairness and the fact that it gives more people who are entitled the chance to have their objections heard. For those reasons, I believe that the new clauses are sensible and I welcome the broad support of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Brought up, read the Second time, and added to the Bill.