Clause
15
Adoption
of private
streets
Lembit
Öpik:
I beg to move amendment No. 99, in
clause 15, page 7, line 30, at
end insert—
‘(8) any
resident of a private street may submit a request to the HCA for the
adoption of that
street.’.
I
have tabled the amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives,
who is on his way. He is also preparing for Government, as we speak.
The clause is about the adoption of private streets. It is quite
comprehensive in the outline of the requirements for the HCA in that
regard, but one thing seems to be missing. There does not seem to be an
explicit provision to enable any resident of a private street to submit
a request to the HCA for the adoption of that
street.
The amendment
is born out of a recent experience I had in my own constituency, where
the residents of a street in the town of Caersws were desperate for it
to be adopted. There was a very strong case for it, but I do not need
to go into the details. I had the greatest difficulty convincing the
local authority that it was a good
idea.
The clause, with
the amendment, provides the opportunity of a formal avenue for
residents to pursue in order to have their street adopted.
Unfortunately for the people of Caersws, the legislation applies only
to England, so it is an act of altruism on my part. Should the Minister
accept the amendment, I shall seek to lobby the Welsh Assembly to
introduce something similar. I hope that the Minister will give a
considered response to the logic behind
it.
Dr.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I have some
sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. However, I
suspect that going from the current situation, in which it is almost
impossible to get unadopted roads adopted, to one where residents can
simply request that they are adopted and it is done, is too much
distance to travel in one Bill.
The Minister will know that, in
constituencies such as mine, where there is a huge legacy of houses
being bought from commercial quota but streets not being adopted, there
is a problem of unadopted roads. I am glad to see the provisions in the
clause, even though the circumstances are limited. Any provisions that
allow some unadopted streets to be adopted is a move in the right
direction. Will he confirm that it is the HCA’s responsibility
to identify such streets and to ensure that they are adopted by the
relevant street works
authority?
Mr.
Wright:
I will take my hon. Friend’s point first,
which is an interesting one. My constituency is relatively close to the
City of Durham, which is in a beautiful part of the world. I would like
to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing with
regard to affordable housing, often against the wishes of the local
authority. I think that she has her finger on the pulse in terms of
what her local constituents want, rather more than the local authority
has, whose political complexion I cannot quite remember at the
moment.
Mr.
Syms:
I can tell the
Minister.
Mr.
Wright:
I thank the hon.
Gentleman.
My
hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham raises an interesting point.
I have a number of ministerial hats. I have responsibility within the
Department for coalfields regeneration. I also have senior
responsibility for the housing market renewal
areas.
I was in Stoke
recently with that hat on, where, in relation to development in the
housing market renewal pathfinder area, people were talking about
difficulties that they were having with regard to the former National
Coal Board. I think that I, and ministerial colleagues in the
Department for Transport, need to look into that matter, because a
common pattern seems to be emerging on former coal sites—whether
they need to be adopted and what the agency could do in that regard. I
shall be happy to report back to my hon. Friend, who I thank for
raising the point, because it has clicked into place for me other
pieces of the jigsaw, for which I am
grateful.
The
amendment is unnecessary, because there is nothing now to prevent
residents of a street asking the highways authority to adopt their
street, whether they ask directly, or ask the Homes and Communities
Agency to intercede on their behalf. However, I suggest that stating in
the Bill that they may submit such requests to the agency would
probably—the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire might counter
this—raise an unrealistic expectation that the agency will act
on their request and serve an adoption notice on the street works
authority. Furthermore, it could increase the risk that the agency
could be seen as an unofficial appeals process when a street works
authority refuses the residents’ request. That is not the
purpose of the clause, and nor do I think that it is the purpose
of the amendment. The clause is intended to ensure that the
investment by the Homes and Communities Agency to improve highways can
be properly maintained by the appropriate highways authority. I
therefore invite him to withdraw his
amendment.
Lembit
Öpik:
I was the victim of the Minister’s
harsh tongue earlier on, and if I may be forgiven for saying so, I
regarded his response as intransigent rubbish—I feel a lot
better for having said that. He said that having a formal avenue of
application for residents might create an unrealistic expectation, yet
every year the Budget statement creates an unrealistic expectation, and
now, with the pre-Budget statement, we have two unrealistic
expectations about the economy. But they are aspirational, and so is my
amendment. It would mean that a member of the public—let us
remember that we are doing this for the public—can see
explicitly that he or she has the right to make an application to the
HCA.
At the
moment, under the clause, the HCA would be entitled to say to a
resident, “I am afraid that we have no provision to allow you,
as a member of the public, to make a formal application for
adoption.” I understand that Ministers are always loth to modify
any Bill on the basis of Opposition amendments, but given that we have
already passed a number of Government amendments, the Minister should
acknowledge that the Bill is not perfect. I am willing to withdraw the
amendment on one condition: that he will, at some point in the next
week, have an informal meeting with me, so that I can put my case and
allow him to see the logic of my proposal, which is not party
political, but common sense. If he can assure me that we will at least
have that conversation, I shall withdraw the amendment—but I
cannot sit down until he either intervenes, or I push the amendment to
a
vote.
Mr.
Wright:
I might go down the Hillary Clinton route and say,
“I feel deeply hurt by the harsh tongue in the hon.
Gentleman’s head”. It is not something that I would
expect from him.
I am
happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman in the next couple of days to
discuss the matter. However, the point about unrealistic expectations
is fixed in my mind, and he will need to be very convincing, if he is
to persuade me to alter that and to introduce or accept amendments on
Report. However, I am more than willing to meet with him—in
fact, I desire to meet with him. I should add, given that we are
talking about unrealistic expectations, that, as a Liberal Democrat, he
should expect nothing
less.
Lembit
Öpik:
I am grateful to the
Minister for agreeing to meet with me. He might have an iron first, but
at least he is extending a velvet glove. We are a very broad church,
with a large tent, and I hope that we can have a serious discussion.
There is merit in my proposal, and I shall present to him a range of
concerns about creating unrealistic expectations. However, his is a
useful offer, for which I am grateful. On that basis, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
15 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
19
Power
to enter and survey
land
Alistair
Burt:
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.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 65, in clause 19, page 9, line 21, after
‘acquire’, insert
‘compulsorily’.
5
pm
Alistair
Burt:
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.
Mr.
Wright:
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:
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?
Mr.
Wright:
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—
The
Chairman:
No, amendment No. 66 is due
next.
Alistair
Burt:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Alistair
Burt:
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.
Mr.
Love:
We were enjoying it so
much.
Alistair
Burt:
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?
Mr.
Wright:
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.
5.15
pm
Alistair
Burt:
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.
Mr.
Wright:
I pledge to the hon. Gentleman that I will find
out and write to the
Committee.
Alistair
Burt:
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.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
19 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
