HC Deb 15 July 1965 vol 716 cc948-50

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 6, line 35, after "premises" insert: or consisting of or including the extension of a building on land in Greater London by the addition of office premises together with other premises".

Mr. Darling

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

The purpose is to exempt from the retrospective control in Greater London mixed industrial and office buildings for which both an I.D.C. and planning permission were granted before 5th November and for which no building contract was made before that date. We thought it was unreasonable to hold up until a permit could be considered for the ancillary offices any industrial project for which the Board of Trade was satisfied that an I.D.C. could be granted and which succeeded in getting planning permission before the announcement of the control.

But subsection (2) defines the scope of this exemption rather too narrowly—this has been drawn to our attention—because it covers only the erection of new buildings containing industrial and office space and not extensions of buildings containing industrial and office space. It is the difference between the erection of the new buildings and the extention of buildings The Amendment therefore brings extensions of mixed industrial and office space within the scope of exemption.

The Amendment was proposed by the Government on Third Reading to correct the drafting. It is very largely a drafting Amendment, because it was always the intention—this was agreed during the course of the Committee stage—to exempt both the new buildings and extensions consisting of industrial and office space from the more severely retrospective control in Greater London. In view of the discussions that we had on this matter in Committee, I am sure that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I can see the Government's point of view in urging acceptance of the Amendment. We have again heard that it is a question of drafting and putting right something which the Committee decided was the way this should be done. But I remind the Government that the proceedings in Standing Committee were confined to a small number of hon. Members only, and some of us who are here at this stage have a right to know a little more about it. The Government said they had been persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Who persuaded them? Perhaps it was some of my hon. Friends.

But enough of this. I hope that we shall not all the way through these Lords Amendments be told, "This is all right. This is something which was agreed at an earlier stage in which you did not all take part, but now it will be all right, chaps. It is just a drafting Amendment." Every time I come into the Chamber I am told that it is another drafting Amendment. It is a pretty sloppy Bill.

In case any hon. Member says that I am not a Member representing a constituency in Greater London, I gather that by some Order the Bill can be made to apply to all parts of the Kingdom, and the commercial city that I represent is just as much concerned in this as anyone else. So I hope that we shall have no more of this "drafting Amendment" stuff but a little more explanation.

12 m.

Mr. John Hall

I do not quite understand the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). It is quite true that the Bill could affect the area which he represents and we do not know how far it is likely to go. We have had many examples in recent weeks of what may be described as drafting Amendments, and one has to look at the drafting Amendments with some suspicion. May I say, to put the Minister's mind at rest, that I was overcome with admiration for the lucid way in which he explained this Amendment, and perhaps I may reassure my hon. Friend. It does improve the Bill and follows efforts we have all been making, especially my hon. Friends, to improve the Bill. We would have no hesitation in supporting it.

Question put and agreed to.