HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc956-7

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 1, leave out from "Board" to end of line 14, and insert: on determining any such application, to give notice of their determination to the applicant, and, if their determination includes an apportionment, to give particulars of the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment.

Commander Galbraith

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment brings the provisions of Clause 13 (2) into line with the similar provisions of Clause 28 (1), that is it cuts out an unnecessary step in procedure.

Mr. Hoy

A noble friend in another place appeared to think that the deletion of the words specified in the Amendment meant that there would be no provision enabling persons affected to make representations to the board in respect of their apportionment. The Lord Chancellor, replying, said: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will look into it, and if I find any difficulty I will inform your Lordships of it at a later stage. Apparently this will be the last stage for this House, and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if the Lord Chancellor found any difficulty, and if that could be explained to the House.

Commander Galbraith

No, the Lord Chancellor did not find any difficulty. At present, Clause 13 (2) contains an additional requirement under which the Central Land Board has to give notice to all concerned of any proposed apportionment. It has been found that this additional requirement might delay the settlement of claims for payment considerably, as well as being unnecessary. In practice, the assessment of what is payable will be carried out in negotiations with those concerned.

If the present Clause 13 (2, c) were preserved it would be necessary to serve a fresh series of notices whenever it was proposed to vary an opportionment in deference to representations made by parties. All concerned will be able at a subsequent stage to dispute the apportionment before the Lands Tribunal, if dissatisfied. It is accordingly thought that the additional step of giving a proposed apportionment would be better dispensed with.