Clause 31. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 25, line 46, at end insert: (3) In section 138(3)(a) of the principal Act the words 'and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament' shall be omitted. This is an amendment to Section 138(3)(a) of the principal Act, namely, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. Section 138 of the 1962 Act sets out the qualifications for serving a purchase notice and, in particular, the interest which has to be held in the property before one can qualify for serving a purchase notice.
Subsection (3) of Section 138 reads: An interest in the whole or part of a hereditament shall be taken to be an interest qualifying for protection under these provisions if, on the date of service of a notice under the next following section in respect thereof, either— (a) the annual value of the hereditament does not exceed such amount as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Minister, and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament, or The alternative is in a case not falling within the preceding paragraph, the interest in question is the interest of a resident owner-occupier of a hereditament. So, in both cases, one must be the owner-occupier to be entitled to serve a purchase notice. In a case where one is not a resident owner-occupier, the value must not exceed a certain value prescribed by the Minister.
The Amendment seeks to remove the necessity for being the owner-occupier of the hereditament, and this will apply to business premises. But there would still be the limit of the annual value. So that, if the Amendment were accepted, there would not be a flood of purchase notices of very expensive large properties. 738 It would still be restricted to the smaller property coming within the annual value limits, but it would not be restricted to the owner-occupier of that type of property.
There are many cases in which business premises are not necessarily owner-occupied, yet great hardship may occur from the blighting of those premises to those who have their assets in that business. It seems fair, at this stage of development in our reforms of the purchase notice procedure, that we should recognise the hardship which occurs in those cases by amending the original code, still keeping a limit on the rateable value of the premises, so that claims are made only in respect of comparatively small business but that there should not be this restriction on the rights which affects the form in which the business is held. This is where the hardship frequently occurs.

§ Mr. MacDermot
The effect of the Amendment would be to extend the operation of the blight provisions to landlords of hereditaments. This has always been resisted, primarily on the ground that it would place a severe burden on the acquiring authorities.
There are not the same hardship considerations in such cases as there are with owner-occupiers. Landlords are not likely to be under the same compulsion to sell and, judging by the representations that we have received, there is not the same feeling that they are dealt with unfairly because the blight provisions do not apply to them. Even when they sell, the price is not likely to be affected in the same way as the price paid for property occupied by the purchaser.
After all, for him the property is an investment and as such is a financial transaction. Since market value would be paid on any ultimate acquisition, the threat of future acquisition should not have the same damaging effect as it does in the case of houses that people buy as their homes. Then again, owner-occupiers are unlikely to sell their properties or businesses unless they genuinely wish to or have to move, whereas a landlord can choose his own time and can foist unwanted property on to a local authority as a way of realising his capital.
I think I have said enough to show that there are very different considerations 739 applicable for the two cases, and we think it right to adhere to the position that has been accepted hitherto.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 26, line 12, leave out 'the major' and insert 'a substantial'.
This is an Amendment which was requested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He said that the paragraph might be acceptable if it were "a major part" and even more acceptable if it were "a substantial part". I am proposing that it should be more acceptable.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 26, line 13, leave out from "the" to end of line 17 and insert: 'words "six months before the date of service" there shall be substituted the words "twelve months before the date of service"; and if any question arises as mentioned in subsection (3) above, subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) of the said section 149 shall then apply with the substitution for the reference to twelve months before the date of service of a reference to that period extended by so long as it takes to obtain a determination of the question'. This Amendment does two things. In the first part it removes a possible ambiguity, which again was pointed out by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). The second part is a further improvement in the protection for the owner-occupier. It deals with the problem of timing that can occur if a question arises as to which is the appropriate authority for the service of a blight notice.
The effect of the Amendment is that the time required to determine that question does not count against the period within which an owner-occupier remains qualified to serve the notice.

§ Mr. Allason
We are grateful to the Minister for this substantial improvement in the Bill. It was a pretty good nonsense, but now at least the casual reader will be able to understand what on earth is meant.