§ Lords Amendment No. 45: In page 46, line 35, leave out "shortly" and insert "in ten years or less".
§ Mr. MacDermotI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment substitutes a maximum period of ten years for the rather vague period denoted by the word "shortly" in the Bill as the period within which a property may be certified by the appropriate Minister to be required for development in order to prohibit enfranchisement or the obtaining of an extended lease from a local authority or similar body.
During earlier stages of the Bill, a number of Amendments were discussed aimed at having a fixed limit and a period of seven years was suggested. The 1622 Amendment gives a period of ten years and I imagine that there will be general agreement that we should have a fixed period. I will explain why a period of ten years has been chosen.
As the House will be aware, local authorities may be authorised to buy land compulsorily in advance of their requirements, but there is a limit to this. Under Section 97(2) of the Housing Act, 1957, the authorisation of the compulsory purchase of property for housing purposes is limited to a maximum of ten years in advance of the likely date of the property being required for those purposes.
Again, Section 5(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act limits the Minister's power to approve a development plan which designates land as subject to compulsory purchase to cases where the land is to be acquired within ten years of the plan's approval. It would seem sensible, therefore, when we are trying to remove what would be an absurd position of the leaseholder's enfranchising only to have the property taken back from him compulsorily soon afterwards, that we should adopt some period within which such a possibility might be anticipated under these provisions.
The Amendment accordingly fixes a maximum period of ten years. It does not follow that the appropriate Minister will always or, indeed, often think it right to grant a certificate when the site will not be needed until the end of the ten years. The Minister will thus always have a discretion whether to grant a certificate or not but the Amendment will improve the position of leaseholders by making it clear that the Clause can only operate within a ten-year time limit.
§ Mr. AllasonI am grateful that at least a ten-year period has been accepted by the Government. In Committee I suggested a seven-year period. This has taken a long time to get through the pipeline. It is a necessary safeguard to have a fixed period and it is a safeguard for the tenant. For that reason in particular, I welcome the Amendment.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 46: In page 48, line 33, leave out "so that" and insert
in relation to a local authority includes any development to be undertaken, whether or not
1623
by that authority, in order to secure the development or re-development of an area defined by a development plan as an area of comprehensive development.
However—
§ Mr. MacDermotI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes clear that when the Minister gives a certificate to a local authority that land will be needed in ten years or less for a comprehensive development scheme, the scheme does not have to be one which is actually to be carried out exclusively by the local authority. It may be a scheme in which the local authority sells or leases sites to developers to carry out redevelopment. That factor would not alter the correctness of making this provision apply. It is irrelevant who is to carry out the actual development.
§ Mr. Graham PageWhy restrict it to local authorities? Under Clause 29 there are many bodies who can take advantage of that Clause and have the Minister's certificate to prevent enfranchisement by their tenants if they can show now, as the Amendment we have just passed provides, that they intend development in 10 years or less. It may be that not only local authorities, but other bodies mentioned in subsection (5) would wish to carry out development by other media than doing it themselves directly. For example, the second group under subsection (5), the Commission for the New Towns. I would think that it is possible for the Commission for the New Town to enter into arrangements with a developer for development of some of its land. Certainly so far as the university bodies are concerned, time and time again they arrange their development not by themselves but by some developer and carry out development in that way. I could go on through the list, the regional hospital boards and so on.
It seems a pity that this Amendment is restricted to the local authorities. It seems a pity not only that it does not only positively extend to the other bodies mentioned in subsection (5) of Clause 29 but, by introducing this particular Clause relating to local authorities, it precludes this happening by those other bodies. Had this not been introduced the Bill might have been construed as including development arranged by these 1624 bodies as well as carried out by themselves. However, with this provision particularly referring to local authorities, I fear that the rest of the Clause may now be construed as excluding the other bodies from carrying out development by assistance from other companies or bodies or persons.
§ Question put and agreed to.