HC Deb 15 July 1965 vol 716 cc945-8

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 4, line 41, leave out "for" and insert "consisting of or including".

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling)

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

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 14, Schedule 1, in page 26, line 7, leave out second "of".

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

Mr. Darling

These are purely drafting Amendments designed to correct a slight discrepancy in the description of what are two closely allied provisions in the Bill. The first one is subsection (2) of Clause 3 which provides for the retrospective control of office development in Greater London. The second one is paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 which provides grounds of appeal against enforcement notices under Clause 9. In each of these cases the intention is to apply the retrospective control in Greater London to development which either consists of or includes the erection of the building containing office premises or consists of or includes the extension of a building by the addition of office premises.

The two Amendments bring the drafting of both precisely into line with this intention. Neither of the Amendments makes any change of substance in the provisions of the Bill, and the Amendments were proposed by the Government on Third Reading in another place on the advice of Parliamentary counsel, so that the two provisions in the Bill shall be worded and shall operate in precisely the same way.

Mr. John Hall

I confess that I find it a little difficult to understand precisely the reason for these Amendments. I know that in the other place it was said that they were drafting Amendments, and that they went through without any discussion at all. What I am not sure about is whether the first Amendment has any effect on the operation of the Clause. There seems to be an impression in some quarters that without the Amendment the Clause has a slightly different effect. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no change at all in the operation of this Clause or of the Schedule if these Amendments are agreed to?

Mr. Darling

There is no alteration in what was always considered to be the intention of the Clause, which is perfectly clear. If I might repeat it, it was not altogether clear whether we were carrying out the intention that was expressed in the Bill, which was that where there is retrospective control, the development that we were concerned with for the retrospective control either consisted of the erection of a building containing office premises, or the extension of a building with the addition of office premises.

If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) remembers, throughout the course of discussions in Committee upstairs, we were talking about new office buildings and the extension of office buildings as being equally brought within the control of the Bill. There was no dubiety about the intention there: whether it was a new building or an extension to an office building, if the development was above a certain size it was brought within the scope of the Bill.

Neither Amendment makes any change of substance in the provisions of the Bill. They just make it perfectly clear that we are covering both points.

Mr. Peter Emery

It has been suggested that this is a drafting Amendment, but it is not good enough to say that it is a drafting Amendment when it alters the operation of the Bill as it is at the moment. The Government are altering the Bill to what they thought it ought to have been, and that is not drafting. It is an alteration in the Bill.

I am sorry to press this, but it is particularly important, because it deals with a matter retrospectively. It is proposed that we should now alter a provision by which a firm of builders or contractors may have believed they were not affected. At this late stage, it is being said to them, "Oh. but you are affected retrospectively".

It is proposed that in the phrase in line 41: or for the extension of a building on land in Greater London there should be inserted the words: consisting of or including". Does it mean that there may have been a building or an extension in progress before the Amendment, when retrospection would not have been possible, to which, because of the Amendment, retrospection will now be applicable? If that is so, then the Government have no right to do it.

However, if the Minister of State can assure me that there is no class of developer who would not previously have been affected by the retrospective provisions and who will not be as a result of the alteration, then we will not feel so strongly. But it is important that we should have the assurance so that a provision extending the retrospective powers of the Bill is not passed as a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Darling

I can give the hon. Member that assurance right away. If he follows closely the wording in subsection (2) he will see that at the moment it reads: Where before the passing of this Act an application was made to the local planning authority for planning permission for development consisting of or including the erection on land in Greater London of a building containing office premises, or for the extension of a building on land in Greater London by the addition of office premises. All that we are doing is to bring the wording in line with the Schedule by omitting "for" and putting in "consisting of or including".

On the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about planning permission and developments that were projected and being considered before 5th November, it will not make the slightest bit of difference.

Mr. Wise

I think it possible to accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. It could have been boiled down quite simply to saying that the Clause was formerly in English and is now in gobbledygook.

Question put and agreed to.