Clause 29. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 23, line 41, after ' that' to insert ' (a)'.

§ Mr. Speaker
We can take at the same time Amendment No. 63 in page 24, line 4, at end insert: 'and (b) the appropriate authority has offered to take a lease of the hereditament or agricultural unit (as the case may be) for the said period upon terms and at a rent to be settled as if such lease were a regulated tenancy under the Rent Act 1965'.

§ Mr. Page
Amendment No. 62 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 63.
Clause 29 permits an acquiring authority to defeat a purchase notice by the answer that it does not require the property for 15 years. I cannot help feeling that this will not relieve the property of blight in any way. First, there is no obligation on the authority not to change its mind. I doubt whether the public will think that, the local authority having said, "Our present intention is not to acquire the property for 15 years", this will necessarily be its intent throughout the 15 years. There is absolutely no obligation on the local authority to abide by that intention. The very next day it can alter its mind and say, "We now intend to acquire it", and "We now intend to carry out this development". Therefore, the assurance, if assurance it be, is worthless in removing blight. It merely means that the property may have a future life of 15 years. In those circumstances, the authority should be prepared to compensate the owner in some form.
In all purchase notice cases, we are dealing with an owner who wishes to get out of the property. This is at the basis of a purchase notice. He has to prove to the authority that he has tried to sell the property and cannot sell it at a reasonable price. So first he must show that he is genuinely trying to sell. We are dealing with an owner-occupier who desires to get out of the house. Perhaps he has moved his work and has to go to some other town. This is the basis of the whole proceeding. If he finds that the property is blighted, he cannot sell because the prospective purchasers know about the blight and then serves a purchase notice on the authority and is told, "We do not want it for 15 years". This will not alter his need to get out of the house and to get himself a new home. The authority should compensate him to the extent of providing him with some sort of income from the property which he has to leave. He is unable to sell it at a reasonable price. There is no reason why he should not be able to let it and the authority should be required to offer to take the property on lease.
I do not think that this can be in any way harmful to the authority. I find that most authorities are only too 736 anxious to acquire residential property in order to shorten their waiting lists. This seems a fair compromise if the 15-year rule is to be retained. I do not like the 15-year rule at all. I do not think it relieves the hardship of blight in any way. But if the Government are keen on having it, let us have some sort of compromise, that the owner-occupier will be able to require the local authority to take a lease of the property for that 15 years. He then will be able to obtain an advance on the property so that he may purchase another property where he has to live. This is only a form of compromise. I would like Clause 29 to go altogether, but if it must stay we should relieve the hardship of the owner-occupier who finds his property blighted or semi-blighted in this way.

§ Mr. Skeffington
We realise that the Opposition have never liked the 15-year proposal, and I do not want to rehearse all the arguments why it is thought, by individual owners and the rest of the community, that where there is not an immediate use, or where there is no use for 15 years, this piece of mechanism brings in a degree of certainty, which has been accepted by most people outside the House who are interested in the matter.
The proposal that the hon. Gentleman has put forward would not be very satisfactory, even for the owner. I doubt whether it would be satisfactory for the local authority. I suppose there might be a use for temporary or semipermanent residential accommodation in a suitable property, but the Amendment would apply to a wide range of property. There would be very little in it for the owner. He would be unable to realise his capital if there were merely a lease taken. We have had no indication that local authorities are enthusiastic about the proposal.
The amendment must be regarded as a general attack on the 15-year proposal, and I could not advise the House to accept it.