Clause 28.—(RETENTION OR RESUMPTION OF LAND REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.) (Hansard, 20 June 1967)

§ Mr. Willey
I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 42, line 30, to leave out 'by them for' and to insert 'for relevant'.
This Amendment, with subsequent Amendments, provides that where action is taken under Clause 28 it will be in respect of property which is taken for the primary purpose of a public body and not for investment purposes. It is to meet a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) in Standing Committee.

§ Mr. Luard
I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for moving this Amendment. To me this is a matter of great concern, as it is to many people in Oxford.
Under a certain interpretation of the Clause, it could mean that very few leaseholders in Oxford would have enjoyed the right of enfranchisement as they have the right to expect. I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify one or two points. I refer particularly to subsection (1,b). The general purpose of this paragraph is to refer to the university itself, or a college as being included in the term "a university body", and as being interchangeable for the purposes of this Clause. The effect of this is that the landlord whom we have in mind in Oxford will be able to ask for a certificate from the Minister not only in the case when it is claimed that it needs one of these properties for itself but in any case where the claim is for the university as a whole.
Anybody who has lived in a university town knows that the demands of a university for property are wholly insatiable. They are put forward again and again every year. If this Clause means that in every case when a university needs land for any purpose whatever, all it has 1613 to do is to go to St. John's College and ask the college to apply to the Minister for a certificate under this Clause, and in those circumstances the Minister will be bound under the wording of the Clause to grant—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not debating the Clause. We are debating an Amendment. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Amendment which is before the House.

§ Mr. Luard
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to obtain clarification of paragraph (b).

§ Mr. Speaker
We are not in Committee now. We are not discussing the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We are discussing an Amendment, in page 42, line 30, to leave out "by them for" and to insert "for relevant".

§ Mr. Luard
I understood that we were taking two subsequent Amendments at the same time, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Not that I am aware. We are discussing one Amendment at the moment.

§ Mr. Willey
I apologise for intervening, Mr. Speaker, but I referred to these as being a series of Amendments.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sorry—I did not know we were taking them. Please continue.

§ Mr. Luard
I had almost finished in any case, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister, that in granting certificates of this kind, the Minister concerned will be expected to interpret this Clause in a reasonable way which will not interfere unduly or unjustly with the rights of enfranchisement which leaseholders in Oxford or any other university town have a right to expect. I trust that this provision will not be allowed to be used by St. John's College, or the university as a whole, to deprive leaseholders of that right and enable the university to acquire almost any property that St. John's College chooses to make available to them.

§ Mr. Willey
I am not altogether sure that I can completely satisfy my hon. Friend. Here we are concerned with the purpose and whether the purpose is 1614 educational. It is a fact that under these provisions a college could redevelop its property to provide accommodation for another college or perhaps provide a new university laboratory. But what we are concerned about is whether the purpose is educational or whether it is investment.