§
Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 12, line 30, at end insert:
() Where a local authority serves a notice under this section on the owner of a disused tip, then, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice was served, the owner may serve a counter-notice under this subsection in the prescribed form requiring the local authority to exercise its powers under section 17; and where such a counter-notice is served—
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)I beg to move. That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to add words at the end of line 30 on page 12. Very briefly, the point is that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and other hon. Members moved in Committee that in circumstances where the owner of the tip is required to do the work, it ought to be possible for Government grants to be 1308 paid direct to the owner. This argument was resisted in Committee on the well-founded history of these matters, in which local authorities are geared, normally speaking, to paying grants and have methods of financial control, checks and so forth. It is a way in which not only the local authority but the central Government maintains control over finance, which is very important. The local authorities understand the conditions, and consequently we resisted making what was a breach in the arrangements.
Nevertheless, we were impressed by the case made, namely that if we did not make an Amendment it would mean that the owner would be required to do the work and the local authority would then have to collect the grant from the Government. The Government would have to transmit the grant to the local authority, which would go to the owner. The result would be that the owner, apart from having to carry out a good deal of bureaucratic work, might be waiting rather a long time before he was remunerated.
Therefore, although this is perhaps a dangerous precedent, I am sure that hon. Members will not mind our being dangerous on this occasion in financial matters. We think that cases could arise under Clause 17 in which owners who should do the work because they are best placed to do it—and I do not think there is any question about that—might be seriously financially inconvenienced for a long time. We trust that the good sense of all concerned will enable this provision to operate satisfactorily. It is very much in the interests of owners.
§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)This is an example of the use of the Upper House in allowing the Government to have further time to consider arguments advanced in Committee which at first sight might be considered to be a breach in the present organisation of the Bill but which make some sense. It is sensible that the period allowed for the counter notice is 21 days. That is the same period as in the case of appeal. It is right and proper that an owner who might be financially embarrassed to the extent of losing his entire belongings should be in a position to obtain grant. I am sure that it is not the wish of the Government to embarrass any owner.
1309 I hope that a counter notice will never need to be served. I hope that cooperation and normal representations as between the local authority and the owner will have established the situation beforehand so that the local authority will not serve the notice and then have to serve a counter notice. I hope that this can be arranged in the normal way of business operation so that the local authority will follow the procedures of Clause 17 rather than have to act under Clause 14.
As a result of the Amendment, there will be a better chance of ensuring the sort of co-operation which I know most hon. Members wish to exist. I ask my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.
§ Question put and agreed to.