Clause
46
Obtaining
information about interests in
land
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 262, in
clause 46, page 21, line 41, at
end insert—
‘(2A) The
applicant shall pay the recipient’s reasonable costs of
complying with the
notice.’.
The
amendment deals with a fairly simple point. We do not have a problem
with the basic concept of a notice being served in the way proposed in
the clause, because it is appropriate to obtain such information.
However, the applicants will often be large organisations that are very
well resourced, and they may well be serving notice to very small
organisations or individuals. In fairness, it is not unreasonable for
the recipient of the notice to claim back reasonable costs from the
applicant in such circumstances. We are rightly trying to front-load
much more of the work into the process for the reasons that we have
discussed, but it is a question of equality and
fairness.
The
provision has the potential to be onerous for a private occupier or
small farmer whose land is affected, if they have to comply fully with
a notice, particularly if there are complications over ownership. In
financial terms, there will be no skin off the nose of the applicant
for a project of that magnitude when set against the overall scheme of
things, but the amendment would do something to redress the balance in
favour of the little people. In particular, it would add to the sense
of fairness that I am sure the Minister wants to achieve in the
commission’s working. I hope that it would not do any damage to
the scheme of the Bill.
John
Healey:
Perhaps it will help to put the hon.
Gentleman’s concerns in perspective if I explain to the
Committee the type of information that will be obtained. The only type
of information that may be obtained using that power is a
person’s name and address. In those circumstances, I think that
the hon. Gentleman accepts that the costs of compliance are
likely to be negligible. It would not be reasonable for the commission
to authorise the serving of a notice in circumstances where the
applicant could readily obtain the information by other means, such as
a Land Registry search. In those circumstances, it would not be
reasonable to get them to do so, so I am not sure whether the
amendment, which I suspect is a probing amendment, serves a
particularly useful
purpose.
Robert
Neill:
Will the Minister assure me that no subsequent
regulations will extend the scope of that power beyond searching for
the name and address? If he can assure me on that, I will have probed
as much as I need and will probably not need to press the matter
further.
John
Healey:
The only type of information that that power can
be used for is a person’s name and address. I hope that that
gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he
seeks.
Robert
Neill:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 175, in
clause 46, page 22, line 17, leave
out ‘14’ and insert
‘56’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 263, in
clause 46, page 22, line 17, leave
out ‘14’ and insert
‘28’.
No.
176, in
clause 47, page 23, line 27, leave
out ‘14’ and insert
‘56’.
Dan
Rogerson:
I return to my recurring theme of time scales,
which we will probably revisit when we debate subsequent clauses. I am
concerned about the imposition of fines. Where there is the potential
for a fine to be imposed, we need to look at the length of time
proposed. As the Bill is drafted, the time scale is 14 days, but
someone could easily miss out if they are on holiday for 14 days. If
that were a problem, it would be fair enough if they got a stern letter
on their return and had to forward the information, but we are talking
about a level 5
fine.
First,
for those of us who are uninitiated in the ways of the courts, perhaps
the Minister will confirm what a level 5 fine is. Secondly, does he
feel it appropriate to fine someone just because they happen to have
been away on holiday when the letter landed on their doorstep? I think
that 14 days is far too short a period, so our amendments suggest the
somewhat more generous period of 56 days. The Minister might feel that
that is too long, but perhaps we can reach an accommodation, if he is
prepared to examine the matter and return to it at a future stage. That
would be welcome, because two weeks is a very short period of time,
particularly if people are at risk of incurring a
fine.
1.45
pm
Robert
Neill:
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for
North Cornwall. We have also tabled an amendment, No. 263, on the
subject, with the only difference being the amount of time
allowed.
Perhaps more
than most people, I ought to know what a level 5 fine is, but I must
confess that it escapes me for the moment.
[
Interruption.
] The hon. Gentleman asked me, but I
could not tell him, so I did not charge him anything—I am sure
that the Minister has the information to hand. My recollection is that
a level 5 fine is at the top end of the scale. I agree that that could
be thought to be onerous, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has
set out. If there is scope for accommodation, I commend our figure of
28 days, which is a middle point in the spectrum that is achievable as
a businesslike proposition for the
Minister.
John
Healey:
First, a level 5 fine is a maximum of
£5,000. Secondly, I do not think it unreasonable to have a
minimum time scale in the Bill, and we judge 14 days to be a good
minimum. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has bid for a fourfold
increase in that amount, and the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst has bid to double it, but neither of them made a strong
case why the minimum time scale should be
increased.
The
purpose of clause 46 is to allow the commission the power to authorise
a promoter or applicant to serve such a notice on the occupier of the
land. Anyone who receives rent for it, manages it, is a mortgagee or
has an interest in the land is required to provide the names and
addresses of people with an interest. That is the purpose, which is
quite narrowly drawn, and not a cause, as far as I can see, for the
level of concern expressed by Liberal Democrat and Tory
Members.
Robert
Neill:
I do not disagree with the basic principle, which
is perfectly fair, but can the Minister make a strong case why 14 days
is the magic figure, as opposed to 28 days or 56 days? Is there any
particular evidence or any consistency with other practice that spells
out 14
days?
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): How about 42
days?
John
Healey:
I hear 42 days from the right hon. Member for
Skipton and
Ripon.
The time scale
is a minimum, and the commission can specify a longer time period, if
it judges it to be right in the circumstances. Clause 46 relates to the
notice period that must be given before a right of entry can be
exercised—no more, no less. If hon. Members have a stronger case
to put, then I will, of course, listen, but as things stand, for the
power that the clause bestows, I do not hear the strength of argument
from them that would persuade me that 14 days is not an appropriate
minimum. If the hon. Gentleman wants to press his amendment to a vote,
I shall ask my hon. Friends to
resist.
Dan
Rogerson:
I did not expect the Minister to be generous on
some of the amendments, but he is being particularly stingy on that
one.
If we are talking about 14
days, someone might not receive notification for all sorts of
reasons—they could have gone on holiday or into hospital, and we
have heard about busy times of the year and so on. We can say that 14
days is the minimum and that the maximum fine is £5,000, but, if
we think that either end is extreme, we should change the Bill. We have
to acknowledge that that minimum time period and the maximum fine may
be imposed. We are not necessarily talking about companies or local
authorities; we could be talking about private individuals. The time
scale and fine are tough things to impose on someone in connection with
an application.
We
have been having an auction on the number of days, and I am open to
suggestions on a more reasonable minimum. However, we need to take
seriously the possibility that someone could have a £5,000 fine
slapped on them for simply being unable to respond, for whatever
reason, within 14 days, which would be overly onerous. A lengthier
period would not delay an application hugely, and I cannot see a huge
argument against it. I shall withdraw my amendment, but the hon. Member
for Bromley and Chislehurst may wish to intervene to say that he wants
to push for a vote on his
amendment.
Robert
Neill:
I cannot oblige the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps we
will return to the matter. Does he agree that it is
uncharacteristically rigid of the Minister not to give way on this and
that it would be onerous to catch an ordinary family holiday that falls
foul of the provision? A 28-day period would be more
reasonable.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
intervening on me at my request. Far be it from me to suggest that
rigidity has entered the Minister’s demeanour, as he has spent
some time at the Treasury. I hope that he will consider the issue and
whether a fine should be imposed on someone for being unavailable for
14 days. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
46
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
47
Rights
of
entry
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 47, page 23, line 11, at
end insert—
‘(1A) Subsection
(1) shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may
by order made by statutory instrument
appoint.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment
No. 47, in
clause 179, page 101, line 1, after
‘section’, insert
‘47(1),’.
Robert
Neill:
The amendment would insert a subsection to which we
have referred before. Introducing the measure by statutory instrument
would allow time for reflection. We are still not convinced that it is
wise to embark upon this course,
when we are yet to see the working out of the 2005 rules. Because we
have misgivings, and because there is still a lot of uncertainty, we
want to allow more time for reflection. The House should have the
opportunity to vote before it introduces a procedure that potentially
has significant ramifications for the rights of
individuals.
John
Healey:
Quite simply, if the hon. Gentleman wants to see
how the 2005 rules work out before putting this part of the Bill into
effect, we will have to wait for a number of years. It may not be just
the end of this year, but the end of next year before we see the first
of the applications under the new rules. If he wants to see the rules
work out, we will have to wait a lot longer. Despite his velvet
presentation, the amendment would drive a coach and horses through this
part of the
Bill.
Robert
Neill:
We need to consider not only the way in which
things work in practice, but the need for sensitivity, which the
Government should recognise. The right of entry into someone’s
home, for example, is a significant interference with their legal
rights, such as their rights under the European convention on human
rights. The Government are anxious to comply with that convention,
which should not be ignored, save on the most compelling grounds. That
is why a provision that allows an intrusion into someone’s
private property, albeit for justifiable purposes, should not be
brought into force without the House being able to vote on it. If it
became apparent that there would be a delay in seeing how the 2005
rules work out, we need not wait for that. It is that
interference—perhaps I should have stressed that more in my
earlier argument—with the rights of the individual that concerns
me, but I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
47
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
48
Rights
of entry: the
Crown
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 177, in
clause 48, page 24, line 16, leave
out from ‘land’ to end of line
17.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 178, in clause 48, page 24, line 21, leave out
subsections (3) and
(4).
Dan
Rogerson:
I shall be brief, because we have already
discussed the difference between Crown land and other land. When I was
tabling the amendments, I considered the point that more protection is
afforded to Crown land than to the land of private individuals.
Therefore, I do not wish to move the amendment
officially.
The
Chairman:
The amendment has not been moved
formally.
Clause
48
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
