HC Deb 14 June 1939 vol 348 cc1370-1
Sir J. Anderson

I beg to move, in page 68, line 39, at the end, to insert: premises, building or part of a building. This is little more than a drafting Amendment, to make it clear that, where there is no occupier in the proper sense of the word, the person entitled to possession shall be deemed to be the occupier, not only of unoccupied land properly so called, but also of unoccupied premises, buildings, or parts of buildings. The Amendment is designed to remove a doubt that was expressed by Scottish property owners in regard to Clause 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 69, line I, leave out "Owners," and insert "Owner." — [Sir J. Anderson.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown)

The Lord Advocate.

Mr. Ede

On a point of Order. Are you not calling the Amendment in my name and in the names of two hon. Members opposite— in page 69, line 25, to leave out from "means," to the end of line 36, and to insert:

  1. "(a) any persons authorised by any enactment or order to construct, work or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, gas, electricity or water undertaking; and
  2. (b) persons who, though not authorised by any enactment or order (other than the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Public Health Act, 1936), to supply gas, are engaged in supplying gas to the public, and for that purpose make use of pipes or mains laid in any highway; and
  3. (c) such other persons carrying on undertakings the due functioning of which, in the opinion of the Minister, is essential in the national interest and whom he may designate by order,
and 'public utility undertaking' shall be construed accordingly."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No. It is out of order; it is outside the Financial Resolution.