Housing and Regeneration Bill

I shall describe why the amendment is unnecessary and how the clause works. However, the noble Lord’s questions are right and proper, and I am sure that with his long involvement in the farming industry and so on he is very familiar with landowning. Of course, he is right that people should be clear about why they are on someone else’s land and for what purpose, and I had better write to him on that and explain how we see the authorisation working. I hope that that will satisfy him and I shall obviously share the information with other Members of the Committee. The clause allows an authorised person to enter a person’s land in connection with a proposal by the agency to acquire land. There are only two reasons why the agency is empowered to enter a person’s land: the first is to carry out a survey and the second is to value the land. In both cases, it may do so only in connection with a proposal for it to acquire that or other land or to assess the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the acquisition. The clause has been amended since it was debated in another place. The phrase ““and subject as follows”” has been added to make it clearer that Clause 19(1) is to be read in the light of what follows. Clause 19(2)(b) now refers to ““land”” rather than ““occupied land”” and to both owners and occupiers, making it clear that the provision applies to all cases of intended entry. Clause 19(3)—a new subsection—requires that a notice of intended entry must, "““state the purpose for which entry is required, and … inform the person to whom it is given of the person’s rights under this section””." Therefore, there is a clear obligation for information to be provided, but the other points that the noble Lord raised require an answer for good reasons. The amendments that have been made to Clause 19 clarify and strengthen it. They now make it clear that this amendment is unnecessary and I hope that, following my explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw it.