§ Sub-section two of Section eleven of the Act of 1922 shall be read as if the period of "twenty-one days" were substituted therein for the period of "ten days" as the period within which a notice may be served on the person requiring possession.—[Captain Gee.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Captain GEEI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is purely non-contentious, and, therefore, I simply formally move it.
§ Captain WATERHOUSEI beg to second the Motion.
§ Sir HENRY SLESSERThe hon. and gallant Member has said that this is a non-contentious Clause, but I think we are entitled to some explanation. The law provides for a notice of 10 days, and the Clause proposes to substitute 21 days. I think the House is entitled to know why it is suggested that the existing law should be altered. I do not know whether it is non-contentious or not, but there is an extension of 11 days. There must be some reason for that, and I think the House is entitled to know it.
§ Captain BOURNEI propose to accept this Amendment, and I will explain very shortly the reason why this alteration in the law is being proposed. As the late Solicitor-General has pointed out, the law at present allows 10 days in which to serve a counter-notice where a council has given notice with regard to land Jet for allotments. Under Section 11 of the Act of 1922, that notice in the first instance is served on the council, as the occupying authority, and they in turn have to transmit it to the allotment holder. If a counter-notice is to be served, which means that the matter has to go to arbitration, it is found by experience that 10 days hardly gives sufficient time. The allotment holders have to meet and consider whether it is a good case for arbitration, and the council, in turn, have to serve the counter-notice on the owner. The idea of this Clause is to give a little longer time in which a counter-notice may be served where it is desirable to do so.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.